NationStates Jolt Archive

That's not a typo. (http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2006/12/cnn-poll-us-support-for-iraq-war-falls.html)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Fewer than a third of Americans still support the war in Iraq, and more than half say they want U.S. troops out of the country within a year, according to a CNN poll released Monday.

Support for the conflict fell to a new low of 31 percent in the poll, conducted Friday through Sunday by Opinion Research Corporation, while a record 67 percent expressed opposition to the nearly 4-year-old war.

Nearly three-quarters said Bush administration policy needs a complete overhaul or major changes. But only 11 percent of those polled backed calls to send more American troops to Iraq, as President Bush is said to be considering.

Pollsters interviewed 1,019 adults for the survey, which had a sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
What the piece fails to note is that this is the same plan that John McCain is actively pushing right now. Wonder why? ;)

I have to admit, I'm surprised at just how low this number is. I didn't expect it to be over 50% or anything, but 11%? Damn. Bush has lost everyone but the lizard brains on this one.

too bad bush doesnt pay attention to the polls. seems like we have to follow the entire vietnam cycle on this one. think tricia nixon-cox would be willing to run in '08?

too bad bush doesnt pay attention to the polls. seems like we have to follow the entire vietnam cycle on this one. think tricia nixon-cox would be willing to run in '08?

I wonder if McCain is going to pay attention to this one?

This is actually kind of sad, and it kind of pisses me off because it shows how weak and cowardly the pro-war faction was; they were all ready to go in there and take out Saddam, and now that the going is tough they want to just give up. The same people who were gung-ho about the war in 2003 are now opposed to sending the additional troops needed to stabilize the country and get the job done. Instead, they'd rather give up and let those troops who died die for nothing.

If you support starting a war, you support it until the job is done. This isn't some Risk or Stratego game where when you get bored, forget about it, or it gets tough you just give up and put it away...you have to fight it out, and you have to take responsibility for what happens if you make mistakes.

This is actually kind of sad, and it kind of pisses me off because it shows how weak and cowardly the pro-war faction was; they were all ready to go in there and take out Saddam, and now that the going is tough they want to just give up. The same people who were gung-ho about the war in 2003 are now opposed to sending the additional troops needed to stabilize the country and get the job done. Instead, they'd rather give up and let those troops who died die for nothing.

Part of the problem is that we really don't have any more troops to send in. If we send in more troops like McCain has been suggesting, what we're really doing is extending the tours of soldiers already there and shortening the breaks for soldiers who have been there. It's not sustainable in the long run, or even in the medium term.

If you support starting a war, you support it until the job is done. This isn't some Risk or Stratego game where when you get bored, forget about it, or it gets tough you just give up and put it away...you have to fight it out, and you have to take responsibility for what happens if you make mistakes.
So there's no room for realizing you made a mistake, that you trusted someone you shouldn't have? I mean, I didn't trust Bush to be competent from the beginning, but I was in the minority. I'd rather have people realize they fucked up than stick by a guy just out of stubbornness. That's part of the reason why the war has gone to such shit--Bush won't take any advice he doesn't want to hear.

Now with poll!

we have plenty of troops to send in. We just dont wan tto. Again this goes back to the argument I made three years ago (and earllier) that we were stretching our forces too far by attacking afghanistan and iraq. Bush rather stupidly opebed a two front war when we didn't have to, and now our troops are paying the price. I would honestly rather see troop deployments go up than pull out at this point. I think we could still pull it off if we could close the borders of infiltrators and weapon shipments, as well as beefing up thetraining of Iraqi troops. At least then we could honestly ask the UN for help, saying we were doing all we could and it wasn't enough. But befor ei did that I would drop Iraq like a hotcake and move ALL those forces to Afghanistan. They deserve our help and want it.

Part of the problem is that we really don't have any more troops to send in. If we send in more troops like McCain has been suggesting, what we're really doing is extending the tours of soldiers already there and shortening the breaks for soldiers who have been there. It's not sustainable in the long run, or even in the medium term.

The US needs to really strategically examine its troop deployments and see where they need to be; we can't lose a war simply because we don't have the troops where they need to be. We've worn our soldiers down because we are forced to reextend their tours of duty due to lack of replacements...the world's greatest army should not be forced to do this, especially given how much we spend on the military as is.

This is a massive failure of planning and logistics that has not been rivaled since the Vietnam war...it is so completely and utterly FUBAR that we will need a serious reexamination of the conduct of this war to see what can be done to salvage it. We also need to up recruitment bonuses and pay for soldiers to increase the number of troops recruited.

So there's no room for realizing you made a mistake, that you trusted someone you shouldn't have? I mean, I didn't trust Bush to be competent from the beginning, but I was in the minority. I'd rather have people realize they fucked up than stick by a guy just out of stubbornness. That's part of the reason why the war has gone to such shit--Bush won't take any advice he doesn't want to hear.

Yeah, and that's what bothers me. People supported this guy back in 2003 when he was going in to Iraq, supported him in 2004 and 2005 even when there were clear problems that needed to change, and now want to give up because he's no longer popular at all. This is not a game, and it isn't politics...when you send 160,000+ men in to combat and have over 3,000 troops give their lives for a war, you don't ignore what the commanders are saying just because the Defense Secretary is Cheney's crony. You. do. not. fuck. around. in. a. war.

Frankly, I think we need to win this war because pulling out will be so infinitely worse that its ramifications will be seen for decades. I mean, look at what the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan did a decade afterwards, and that was only in a country where the terrorists had resources that pale in comparison to Iraq.

Right off the bat - Polls are 100% bullshit.

I don't think we should send more troops. I really can't understand why those Iraqi soldiers can't do well enough on their own. Sure, they need training - but that's what we've been giving them for months and they still aren't accumulating or gaining any advantage. Not because of the scale of terrorism, but apparently because they are horrible soldiers. Great.

Just hang Saddam, finish training the Iraqis, and get the hell out.

I wonder if McCain is going to pay attention to this one?

It would be part of his run to the base gearing up for primaries.

The US needs to really strategically examine its troop deployments and see where they need to be; we can't lose a war simply because we don't have the troops where they need to be. We've worn our soldiers down because we are forced to reextend their tours of duty due to lack of replacements...the world's greatest army should not be forced to do this, especially given how much we spend on the military as is.

This is a massive failure of planning and logistics that has not been rivaled since the Vietnam war...it is so completely and utterly FUBAR that we will need a serious reexamination of the conduct of this war to see what can be done to salvage it. We also need to up recruitment bonuses and pay for soldiers to increase the number of troops recruited.
I don't believe we can be part of the solution, frankly. I think we've botched the job so badly, have created such animosity for US troops that there's no way for us to be a part of maintaining security and rebuilding what we've broken. And I think pulling troops from elsewhere is a bit of a pipe dream. It's a case of shifting deck chairs on the Titanic.


Yeah, and that's what bothers me. People supported this guy back in 2003 when he was going in to Iraq, supported him in 2004 and 2005 even when there were clear problems that needed to change, and now want to give up because he's no longer popular at all. This is not a game, and it isn't politics...when you send 160,000+ men in to combat and have over 3,000 troops give their lives for a war, you don't ignore what the commanders are saying just because the Defense Secretary is Cheney's crony. You. do. not. fuck. around. in. a. war.

Frankly, I think we need to win this war because pulling out will be so infinitely worse that its ramifications will be seen for decades. I mean, look at what the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan did a decade afterwards, and that was only in a country where the terrorists had resources that pale in comparison to Iraq.
I do feel that the people who supported Bush in 2004 have blood on their hands--there was no excuse for supporting the war by then.

1 in 10 people want more troops in Iraq.
1 in 10 people suffer from some form of mental illness.

Coincidence?
I think not.

It would be part of his run to the base gearing up for primaries.
If 11% of the total population is opposed to the idea, then it seems like a pretty dumb plan. To be fair, he came up with the plan before the poll came out. Let's see if he sticks with it.

If 11% of the total population is opposed to the idea, then it seems like a pretty dumb plan. To be fair, he came up with the plan before the poll came out. Let's see if he sticks with it.

it will be interesting to see if he does change his mind in response to public opinion. if he keeps advocating something that the vast majority of americans oppose, he is not the right man for the job.

it will be interesting to see if he does change his mind in response to public opinion. if he keeps advocating something that the vast majority of americans oppose, he is not the right man for the job.

But if he changes his mind, he's a flip-flopper. ;)

Rove may have fucked McCain with that little beauty, and I certainly won't cry if he has.

if he keeps advocating something that the vast majority of americans oppose, he is not the right man for the job.That would depend entirely on whether the vast majority of Americans are right or wrong, wouldn't it? ;)

That would depend entirely on whether the vast majority of Americans are right or wrong, wouldn't it? ;)

no i would say not.

not in this case anyway.

But if he changes his mind, he's a flip-flopper. ;)

Rove may have fucked McCain with that little beauty, and I certainly won't cry if he has.

the last 3 years have shown us the value of being able to change your mind. i dont think that charges of flipflopping can ever carry much weight again.

the last 3 years have shown us the value of being able to change your mind. i dont think that charges of flipflopping can ever carry much weight again.

I'd like to think so, but no one ever went broke overestimating the good judgment of the US voter.

I'd like to think so, but no one ever went broke overestimating the good judgment of the US voter.

by '08 the new verb for royally fucking things up through your own stubborn stupidity will be "to bush" it.

as in, "my husband just wouldnt hire a plumber. he bushed the new shower stall. ive had to bathe in the sink for 6 months"

by '08 the new verb for royally fucking things up through your own stubborn stupidity will be "to bush" it.

as in, "my husband just wouldnt hire a plumber. he bushed the new shower stall. ive had to bathe in the sink for 6 months"

:D

by '08 the new verb for royally fucking things up through your own stubborn stupidity will be "to bush" it.

as in, "my husband just wouldnt hire a plumber. he bushed the new shower stall. ive had to bathe in the sink for 6 months"

You know what, I can almost believe that. I can't help but agree that the US is too despised in the region (and in Iraq especially) to stay as the most important force. It may bring at least some benefit if the United Nations was convinced to come back in.

You need to get as many visibly non-American troops and as many effective locals (effective being the key word) on patrol as humanly possible.

Then, the US can give its soldiers some decent time off. (And as a Canadian, then they can hopefully give us a more effective hand over in Kandahar.)

You know what, I can almost believe that. I can't help but agree that the US is too despised in the region (and in Iraq especially) to stay as the most important force. It may bring at least some benefit if the United Nations was convinced to come back in.

You need to get as many visibly non-American troops and as many effective locals (effective being the key word) on patrol as humanly possible.

Then, the US can give its soldiers some decent time off. (And as a Canadian, then they can hopefully give us a more effective hand over in Kandahar.)

sigh

bush wont ask and i dont know that the UN would be willing.

Neocons: Let's invade Iraq!
Everyone else: No no, bad idea!
Neocons: *Invade Iraq, goes bad*
Everyone else: Told you so!
Neocons: Hey hey! Let's not point fingers, where in this now so we better figure out how to win.
Everyone else: *Sigh*

Neocons: Let's invade Iraq!
Everyone else: No no, bad idea!
Neocons: *Invade Iraq, goes bad*
Everyone else: Told you so!
Neocons: Hey hey! Let's not point fingers, where in this now so we better figure out how to win.
Everyone else: *Sigh*
Neocons: We'll get it right this time, in Iran!

Either send 'em or leave. That's the option. If we send 'em, it might get better, but it'll have a huge cost, if we leave, we'll leave a decade of psychotic anarchy, but no more Americans will die.

The American people are right for once. Though, I suspect, not for the right reasons.

It’s high time we cut our losses and get out of there. No good is done by us staying.
Neocons: Let's invade Iraq!
Everyone else: No no, bad idea!
Neocons: *Invade Iraq, goes bad*
Everyone else: Told you so!
Neocons: Hey hey! Let's not point fingers, where in this now so we better figure out how to win.
Everyone else: *Sigh*
More like:

Neocons: Let's invade Iraq!
Everyone else: Cool. It's just brown people.
Neocons: *Invade Iraq, goes bad*
Everyone else: Eh? Well the Media just reports the bad news. My friend in the army told me so!
Neocons: Hey, hey! Let's not point fingers, where in this now so we better figure out how to win.
Everyone else: Meh. We're bored with this.

More like:

Neocons: Let's invade Iraq!
Everyone else: Cool. It's just brown people.
Neocons: *Invade Iraq, goes bad*
Everyone else: Eh? Well the Media just reports the bad news. My friend in the army told me so!
Neocons: Hey, hey! Let's not point fingers, where in this now so we better figure out how to win.
Everyone else: Meh. We're bored with this.

Essentially.

Let's not waste any more money/lives on this. We don't have the will or the mentality to win any more. You don't win this type of war by sending troops in and telling them " don't shoot these people and you can't bomb this building" It is a war people die, bad as it sounds if you want to win you will kill civilans and you will bomb churches, hospitals, schools and any thing else needed to KILL the enemy. We have become too "civilised" to do this anymore ( this is a good thing in my opinion) but it is nessasary in order to win.
:(

Let's not waste any more money/lives on this. We don't have the will or the mentality to win any more. You don't win this type of war by sending troops in and telling them " don't shoot these people and you can't bomb this building" It is a war people die, bad as it sounds if you want to win you will kill civilans and you will bomb churches, hospitals, schools and any thing else needed to KILL the enemy. We have become too "civilised" to do this anymore ( this is a good thing in my opinion) but it is nessasary in order to win.
:(

This is what I mean when I say, “not for the right reasons.”

Freedontya you do know Iraq and the perpetrators of 9/11 has absolutely no links between each other, so they were never 'your enemy', you just invaded them so now their fighting the occupier.

In my opinion the US lost all foreign credibility when they invaded Iraq without UN approval.

no i would say not.

not in this case anyway.What about the same case 4 years earlier? Should Bush have attacked Iraq simply because a majority of Americans wanted it that way?

Let's not waste any more money/lives on this. We don't have the will or the mentality to win any more. You don't win this type of war by sending troops in and telling them " don't shoot these people and you can't bomb this building" It is a war people die, bad as it sounds if you want to win you will kill civilans and you will bomb churches, hospitals, schools and any thing else needed to KILL the enemy. We have become too "civilised" to do this anymore ( this is a good thing in my opinion) but it is nessasary in order to win.
:(You know it's called Operation Iraqi Freedom, right? It implies that wanton killing of innocent civilians isn't intended.

Freedontya you do know Iraq and the perpetrators of 9/11 has absolutely no links between each other, so they were never 'your enemy', you just invaded them so now their fighting the occupier.

In my opinion the US lost all foreign credibility when they invaded Iraq without UN approval.

Yes I do know that. I don't belive that the US should ever have gone in to Iraq. I am of the opinion that it was"Bush's" personal agenda that was the true reason for the US going into Iraq. However most of the people fighting the US in Iraq are not from Iraq. They have reasons to fight there as this keeps the us (for now and hopefuly forever) out of other countries in the region. My comment about "your enemy" was ment to be a generic usage, and how most "Civilised" countries (using the term loosely) are no longer willing to be barbaric enough to actualy "win" a war.

You know it's called Operation Iraqi Freedom, right? It implies that wanton killing of innocent civilians isn't intended.

If you want to "win" it is sometimes (read: usually) nessasary to do just that.

If you want to "win" it is sometimes (read: usually) nessasary to do just that.

it would depend on what your definition of "win" is. Overthrow the government and install your own regime? Yes, obliterating a civilian populace is a good way of doing that.

Bringing peace and fighting the tide of terrorism? Maybe not so much.

it would depend on what your definition of "win" is. Overthrow the government and install your own regime? Yes, obliterating a civilian populace is a good way of doing that.

Bringing peace and fighting the tide of terrorism? Maybe not so much.

I am having to play "Devil's advocate" with this.
Isn't " Overthrow the government and install your own regime? " exactly what the US has done.

FWIW: I disagree with my country going into Iraq. I never understood what conection it had with the terroist attack on the US. And no I don't think that we need to obliterate the civilian populace. We are in a losing situatition. We can not complete what we have started without using more force (read: violence) and we don't have the national will to do it.
In other words ( sorry for the langage) WE HAVE FUCKED UP!

Freedontya you do know Iraq and the perpetrators of 9/11 has absolutely no links between each other, so they were never 'your enemy', you just invaded them so now their fighting the occupier.

In my opinion the US lost all foreign credibility when they invaded Iraq without UN approval.

i think the UN lost all foreign credibility when the French vetoed the war measure in iraq, only to find that the French were getting oil deals in iraq.

good for the UN

somebody give me a stat about the american casualties in the war in vietnam...

somebody give me a stat about the american casualties in the war in vietnam...

US Forces 47,378 Killed in action
US Forces 304,704 Wounded in action
US Forces 2,338 Missing in action
US Forces 766 Captured in action

I was never a supporter of the war and the reasons for going ahead were pretty thin at best.

As unhappy as the Iraqi people were, I don't think this is what they wanted. It was done for other reasons we can only truly speculate. I think Bush was so naive to think the region would welcome what he was doing. I also think it will get worse before it gets better and the U.S. will pull out as they are totally out numbered and killing a few hundred thousand more will not achieve anything positive, just more resolve from the other side.

It was a no win situation to start with, to let so many U.S. and allie soldiers die just to prove that is such a waste. But I guess the politicians are nice and safe and don't have to worry too much about it.

there arent nearly that many casualties in the war in iraq, so i dont see why any comparisons there are valid. not only that but, in vietnam, the reason why americans didnt attack the VC and the north was simply the presence of the chinese - any american attack would have been met by a chinese counterattack.

anyway, back to iraq, theres basically a mixed feeling about the whole regime change. there are, of course, people bummed that bush invaded iraq, but there are a whole bunch of people that are happy that saddam was... eh, ousted.

and i honestly dont see why all these insurgents are native iraqis... they arent. in fact, a whole bunch of them are recruited from the surrounding, unsurprisingly anti-american countries... most notoriously, syria, lebanon, arab turks, and of course, iran. so now we have this open border problem where these "foreign fighters" are crossing the border into iraq and creating what is much more than a "civil war" because a lot of the fighting originates because of these foreign figthers.

i think the UN lost all foreign credibility when the French vetoed the war measure in iraq, only to find that the French were getting oil deals in iraq.

good for the UN

The French vetoed what now? Care to name that resolution?

The French opposed the war, and threatened to veto a resolution sanctioning the use of force. And rightly so. The inspectors were not finished, and there were no WMD. Remember those? The justification for the war? They weren't there.

Fighting an illegal war: Not good for the US.
Not having the stamina to finish the job nor the competence to do it right: Not good for the US.

Fighting an illegal war: Not good for the US.
Not having the stamina to finish the job nor the competence to do it right: Not good for the US.

Each morning I wake to the news on the radio.

This week I heard about a young English soldier that fought a fearce battle for 9 hours against the enemy, only to be killed by friendly (U.S.) fire. I feel for his family when stories like this get out.

The French vetoed what now? Care to name that resolution?

The French opposed the war, and threatened to veto a resolution sanctioning the use of force. And rightly so. The inspectors were not finished, and there were no WMD. Remember those? The justification for the war? They weren't there.

Fighting an illegal war: Not good for the US.
Not having the stamina to finish the job nor the competence to do it right: Not good for the US.

And rightly so? They vetoed because they had oil deals in Iraq that only became visible after America invaded Iraq. France belongs to the UN Security Council, and all members have the right to veto resolutions such as this... and they did so.

Ah, the much-vaunted UN inspectors. The same ones that were barred access to certain portions of Iraqis high temples and the like? They'd never be done with their inspections, especially when Iraqi officialls barred them fromt their job. Granted, they weren't able to inspect 2-3% of Iraq's possible WMD containment centers, but that's awfully conspicuous to say the least.

And since when did unilateralism become "illegal?" I'm just wondering, because it seems that America has been involved in every major international conflict unilaterally for the last 50 years.

And rightly so? They vetoed because they had oil deals in Iraq that only became visible after America invaded Iraq. France belongs to the UN Security Council, and all members have the right to veto resolutions such as this... and they did so.
Wrong. They did not use their power of veto.

And while the oil deals possibly were a factor, it was not the only one and certainly not the most important. Internal politics were important, as some polls showed that up tp 75% of the french opposed military action. International politics were important, as (among other things) the resolution in question would expand the scope of when pre-emptive war would be acceptable under international law, something that the French did not like. De Villepin said in a spech to the UN Security Council February 14, 2003, that one of the major risks of a premature recourse to the military option would be the "incalculable consequences for the stability of this scarred and fragile region". He emphasized that "real progress is beginning to be apparent" through the inspections, and also said that the alleged links between al-Qaeda and the regime in Baghdad explained by Colin Powel were not established, "given the present state of our research and intelligence, in liaison with our allies". http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/French_address_on_Iraq_at_the_UN_Security_Council
So there were far more factors than simply the oil deals.

Oh, and Russia and China signalled that they would use their veto powers as well, lest you forget.


Ah, the much-vaunted UN inspectors. The same ones that were barred access to certain portions of Iraqis high temples and the like? They'd never be done with their inspections, especially when Iraqi officialls barred them fromt their job. Granted, they weren't able to inspect 2-3% of Iraq's possible WMD containment centers, but that's awfully conspicuous to say the least.
Yet the chief weapons inspector Blix were hopeful, and said that the inspections could continue and that it would be a viable and real option to war. Yet it wasn't the Iraqi regime that didn't let them finish; It was the US.

And since when did unilateralism become "illegal?" I'm just wondering, because it seems that America has been involved in every major international conflict unilaterally for the last 50 years.

Since it was in violation with international law, breaking the UN Charter and using force without the approval of the UNSC.

That's not a typo. (http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2006/12/cnn-poll-us-support-for-iraq-war-falls.html)

What the piece fails to note is that this is the same plan that John McCain is actively pushing right now. Wonder why? ;)

I have to admit, I'm surprised at just how low this number is. I didn't expect it to be over 50% or anything, but 11%? Damn. Bush has lost everyone but the lizard brains on this one.

Wow. Reyes says send more troops. Reid is ok with sending more troops, at least in the interim.

I guess you're saying that Dems are lizard brains as well...

The only Dem adamantly calling for an immediate withdrawal is Kucinich.

1 in 10 people want more troops in Iraq.
1 in 10 people suffer from some form of mental illness.

Coincidence?
I think not.

YES!!!
--as in I agree not as in I think it is a coincidence

I am having to play "Devil's advocate" with this.
Isn't " Overthrow the government and install your own regime? " exactly what the US has done.

FWIW: I disagree with my country going into Iraq. I never understood what conection it had with the terroist attack on the US. And no I don't think that we need to obliterate the civilian populace. We are in a losing situatition. We can not complete what we have started without using more force (read: violence) and we don't have the national will to do it.
In other words ( sorry for the langage) WE HAVE FUCKED UP!

Well, in that case, since it's not the responsibility of the civilians, it is the troops that will have to do the dying here. THEY chose to go there, the US GOVERNMENT forced them to, but the civilians are not to blame and thus should not die.

They invaded and occupied. Now they have a responsibility to give the Iraqis a stable government, at any cost to the TROOPS. It's THEIR responsibility.

And "just following orders" didn't work at Nurenberg and won't now.

I wonder if McCain is going to pay attention to this one?

Maybe he is paying attention -- to actual information, though, and not public opinion polls. I think one of the reasons we elect a representative government is so that policy doesn't change every time the wind blows.

Stupid, stupid Americans. How could you not realise what was so obvious to the rest of us in 2002?

:mad:

Maybe he is paying attention -- to actual information, though, and not public opinion polls. I think one of the reasons we elect a representative government is so that policy doesn't change every time the wind blows.

Because more of the same worked so fucking well in Iraq?

Stupid, stupid Americans. How could you not realise what was so obvious to the rest of us in 2002?

:mad:

Every American I have spoken to on forums is not really interested in opinions. They believe in free market which means "do what you like regardless of the consequences".

Steel, oil, sugar, banana, foreign policies, etc..

Because more of the same worked so fucking well in Iraq?
We withdraw all troops tomorrow and what will happen? Chaos first, then a theocracy dominated by folks that shouldn't be running a government. The idea to send more troops is not a bad one, if and only if, the DOD is prepared to use them to assist in getting control of the various militias that have popped up.

A viable police force can handle the day to day problems of criminals, but we need to reduce their efforts to that point.

We withdraw all troops tomorrow and what will happen? Chaos first, then a theocracy dominated by folks that shouldn't be running a government. The idea to send more troops is not a bad one, if and only if, the DOD is prepared to use them to assist in getting control of the various militias that have popped up.

A viable police force can handle the day to day problems of criminals, but we need to reduce their efforts to that point.

Oh, you misunderstood me, Myrm, I do not favor withdrawing: You made the mess, you fix it. But just pointing out that "not flip-flopping" is what made the mess in the first place. HOW you will fix it is your problem, but no Iraqi civilians should die, no matter what the losses are to the Americans. As I said: You broke it, fix it.

Oh, you misunderstood me, Myrm, I do not favor withdrawing: You made the mess, you fix it. But just pointing out that "not flip-flopping" is what made the mess in the first place. HOW you will fix it is your problem, but no Iraqi civilians should die, no matter what the losses are to the Americans. As I said: You broke it, fix it.
I don't think we're in disagreement on that point. However, a lot of "civilian" militia members will have to die for any real progress to be made. A lot of mosques are going to need to be destroyed, as well, because they are used as hiding places and assembly areas. In other words, there's quite a lot of war to finish. We've been in a holding pattern for a number of months and it's time to break out of that with some real "shock and awe".

I don't think we're in disagreement on that point. However, a lot of "civilian" militia members will have to die for any real progress to be made. A lot of mosques are going to need to be destroyed, as well, because they are used as hiding places and assembly areas. In other words, there's quite a lot of war to finish. We've been in a holding pattern for a number of months and it's time to break out of that with some real "shock and awe".

Mmm, "let's blow up some mosques" said by a person that's avowedly anti-muslim.

Gee, I'm so surprised that you can't even tell I'm being sarcastic.

Mmm, "let's blow up some mosques" said by a person that's avowedly anti-muslim.

Gee, I'm so surprised that you can't even tell I'm being sarcastic.

If this were Germany, I'd say blow up the churches that troops use as shields. If it were Japan, I'd be in favor of blowing up temples. There is no place for a time-out in a real war. That's part of the problem we have in Iraq; we give the militants a place to rest and reorganize.

If this were Germany, I'd say blow up the churches that troops use as shields. If it were Japan, I'd be in favor of blowing up temples. There is no place for a time-out in a real war. That's part of the problem we have in Iraq; we give the militants a place to rest and reorganize.

So you're in favor of what? Carpet-bombing? Haven't your troops done enough damage and murdered enough people as is?

So you're in favor of what? Carpet-bombing? Haven't your troops done enough damage and murdered enough people as is?
I am in favor of inflicting the complete and unrestricted power of the United States military on any group that stands in the way of a free and independent Iraq. The way it is done is up to the local commander, not the Pentagon, not the 6-o'clock news, and certainly not the latest Zogby poll.

I am in favor of inflicting the complete and unrestricted power of the United States military on any group that stands in the way of a free and independent Iraq. The way it is done is up to the local commander, not the Pentagon, not the 6-o'clock news, and certainly not the latest Zogby poll.

So, the way to have a free population is to murder that population...

That philosophy sounds like spiritualism on LSD.

Let's not waste any more money/lives on this. We don't have the will or the mentality to win any more. You don't win this type of war by sending troops in and telling them " don't shoot these people and you can't bomb this building" It is a war people die, bad as it sounds if you want to win you will kill civilans and you will bomb churches, hospitals, schools and any thing else needed to KILL the enemy. We have become too "civilised" to do this anymore ( this is a good thing in my opinion) but it is nessasary in order to win.
:(

you have to take the type of war you are fighting into consideration.

in the past it was to invade and keep a country, kill the residents, move your people in, its now a part of greater freedontyaland. or a war to repel such an invasion.

the war in iraq isnt that eh? we went in to remove hussein from power and to render iraq incapabale of threatening us, our allies and its neighbors.

we did that.

now all we are wanting to do is leave iraq in a stable condition. you dont promote stability by killing the massive numbers of civilians necessary to get the insurgents and rebels that live amongst them.

What about the same case 4 years earlier? Should Bush have attacked Iraq simply because a majority of Americans wanted it that way?

setting aside the manipulation of the public to gain such support for the war...

the president made his best case for the war he wanted to start. the public agreed by a large majority. thats the way it is supposed to work. if the public had disagreed by an 89-11% split, it would have been the wrong thing to do.

there arent nearly that many casualties in the war in iraq, so i dont see why any comparisons there are valid. not only that but, in vietnam, the reason why americans didnt attack the VC and the north was simply the presence of the chinese - any american attack would have been met by a chinese counterattack.


north vietnam was backed by the soviet union.

the comparison of iraq to vietnam doesnt lie in the casualty count. its not "well when we get to 50,000 dead then its a vietnam".

the comparison is getting ourselves into a useless war of occupation with no popular local support and then not being able to get ourselves back out again without "losing". instead of drawing down our forces we increased the numbers again and again to no good effect. in the end we had to pull out and leave our puppet government to fight for itself without the support of its people. it fell and the current government of iraq will fall if we dont smarten up and do things differently.

and i honestly dont see why all these insurgents are native iraqis... they arent. in fact, a whole bunch of them are recruited from the surrounding, unsurprisingly anti-american countries... most notoriously, syria, lebanon, arab turks, and of course, iran. so now we have this open border problem where these "foreign fighters" are crossing the border into iraq and creating what is much more than a "civil war" because a lot of the fighting originates because of these foreign figthers.

I know you'd like to believe that--unfortunately for you, it isn't accurate (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4268904.stm). The US military has never put the number of foreign fighters in Iraq above 10% of the insurgency. No, this is a locally driven insurgency--we're fighting mostly Iraqis there.

I know you'd like to believe that--unfortunately for you, it isn't accurate (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4268904.stm). The US military has never put the number of foreign fighters in Iraq above 10% of the insurgency. No, this is a locally driven insurgency--we're fighting mostly Iraqis there.

I just want to know why Reyes and Reid think it's ok to send more troops (in fact, Reyes insists it's the only option).

Does that make them idiots in your eyes?

I am in favor of inflicting the complete and unrestricted power of the United States military on any group that stands in the way of a free and independent Iraq.
So you want the US military to assault the White House? :confused:

So you want the US military to assault the White House? :confused:

:D :D :D :D :D

I just want to know why Reyes and Reid think it's ok to send more troops (in fact, Reyes insists it's the only option).

Does that make them idiots in your eyes?

First of all, what Reid said was this:If the commanders on the ground said that this is just for a short period of time, we’ll go along with that. But, to put more troops in there. Keep in mind, I repeat, the situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating. Those aren’t my words. Those are the words of some of the finest patriots we have in this country – Democrats and Republicans, Iraq Study Group.There's a conditional in there, and it's an important one. As for Reyes, I think he's shown already that he's, at best, uninformed, and I won't even pretend to defend him.

First of all, what Reid said was this:There's a conditional in there, and it's an important one. As for Reyes, I think he's shown already that he's, at best, uninformed, and I won't even pretend to defend him.

I am rather surprised that the Democrats aren't all behind Kucinich. He wants an immediate and unconditional withdrawal.

What do you think you're going to accomplish with a few extra troops in the short term? Even the Joint Chiefs think that's a stupid idea to add a few extra troops in the short term - for any reason.

I am rather surprised that the Democrats aren't all behind Kucinich. He wants an immediate and unconditional withdrawal.

What do you think you're going to accomplish with a few extra troops in the short term? Even the Joint Chiefs think that's a stupid idea to add a few extra troops in the short term - for any reason.

What's this "you" shit? This is Bush's war, and will be no matter how many Dems there are in congress. He's the Commander in Chief. He's the Decider. And he's the one who's made it clear that the next POTUS will still be dealing with this shit in 2009. So don't even try to play this "what are the Dems going to accomplish" game.

What's this "you" shit? This is Bush's war, and will be no matter how many Dems there are in congress. He's the Commander in Chief. He's the Decider. And he's the one who's made it clear that the next POTUS will still be dealing with this shit in 2009. So don't even try to play this "what are the Dems going to accomplish" game.

I believe it was the President in the flight suit on the deck of the carrier with the huge "Mission Accomplished" banner, not Tom Daschle or Hillary or Reid or any Democrat. Bush wanted that credit, he has to stay and take the blame.

So you want the US military to assault the White House? :confused:
There are times ...

What's this "you" shit? This is Bush's war, and will be no matter how many Dems there are in congress. He's the Commander in Chief. He's the Decider. And he's the one who's made it clear that the next POTUS will still be dealing with this shit in 2009. So don't even try to play this "what are the Dems going to accomplish" game.

They promised...

Incidentally, with the US Army's 1-10 tooth-to-tail ratio, doesn't sending 20,000 personnel to Iraq only imply an additional 2,000 boots on the ground?

Iraq is such a debacle. That place is going to turn into chaos whether the US leaves tomorrow or in two years. By the time all is said an done, over a trillion dollars will have been flushed down the toilet with nothing to show for it. In the meantime, Afghanistan continues to get worse because there aren't enough forces there and many NATO countries keep pulling out. The Taliban is still very much alive and kicking.

No wonder they call Bush and Rove and their team Mayberry Machiavellis. They invaded a hostile part of the world with no plan in order to advance their political agenda. It's hardly a surprise that their lack of focus and clear, defined goals and strategies is coming back to bite them hard. They should have listened to Scowcroft, 41, and others who said that Iraq was a mistake.

Iraq is such a debacle. That place is going to turn into chaos whether the US leaves tomorrow or in two years. By the time all is said an done, over a trillion dollars will have been flushed down the toilet with nothing to show for it. In the meantime, Afghanistan continues to get worse because there aren't enough forces there and many NATO countries keep pulling out. The Taliban is still very much alive and kicking.


you forget that we are in the process of training the iraqi military.

we are training the soldiers of the upcoming all-out iraqi civil war

the longer we are there, the better equipped and trained they will be. the more efficient they will be at the killing of their opposition.

every day we are there without rethinking our approach to the problem, we are making the day we leave that much worse for the iraqis.

you forget that we are in the process of training the iraqi military.

we are training the soldiers of the upcoming all-out iraqi civil war

the longer we are there, the better equipped and trained they will be. the more efficient they will be at the killing of their opposition.

every day we are there without rethinking our approach to the problem, we are making the day we leave that much worse for the iraqis.

And how's that working out so far? Large areas of the country under the control of the Iraq Government? Or do the Kurds take care of their own up north, leaving the Shi'ites and the Sunnis to battle it out in the center and south? And making them more efficient at killing their opposition is such a praise-worthy goal, too. This in a country that was supposed to greet us with open arms, flowers for the troops, dancing in the streets.

Sending in more troops is, plain and simple, a bad idea. Let's just face one simple thing here - we have almost no way of keeping Iraq, or most of it, from going to shit. All we can do is try to help the Kurds turn northern Iraq into an independent state (and get the Turks to STFU about it since none of their land will be used.) Then we have another reliable ally in the Middle East, and regardless of resources, one more reliable ally in the Middle East is a far cry better than none.

So we need to redo what we're trying to do in that region, and that is to help out the Kurds. At least we'll liberate somebody. They'll be our South Vietnam. And I'm sure the Kurds would go for it, unless they stubbornly insist on a chunk of Turkey and Syria for their state as well. Frankly, if I'm a kurd living in northern Iraq and having a hell of a time getting a state off of anyone, I'll take what I can get. If I'm asking for $100 and someone gives me $20, I'll take the $20 and be happy, even if it means working for the other $80 in other ways; I won't tell the donor to piss off for being a cheapskate.

As of now, there are two realistic scenarios in Iraq - civil war and a brutal regime. I don't imagine the U.S. wants to be caught in either. If your choices are being caught in a civil war, being kidnapped and held Iran-style until Bush is out of office, or getting the hell out of there, I'd get the hell out of there. But I'd get the Kurds some help while I could, so the troops need to be adjusted.

And why in the name of all holy fuck are we ignoring Afghanistan, anyway? It's a traveshamockery. The Taliban's still free to do some of what they want. They need to be rounded up, locked in Alcatraz, and kicked in the nuts by visiting tourists who pay $5 or so to do so, with the proceeds going to rebuild Afghanistan. That would be cool.

I think what was learned in Iraq that you can't impose a democracy on a country, it needs to come from within. If there was a popular movement in Iraq with clear leadership and broad popular support, then removing Saddam would have made some sense. As it was, going in, removing Saddam and installing Chalabi and other unpopular exiles went over like turd in a punchbowl.

There is no Iraqi Jefferson, Washington, Adams or Franklin. In my opinion, that's why this venture is doomed to fail. There are a pile of mullahs and warlords but no national leader.

I am in favor of inflicting the complete and unrestricted power of the United States military on any group that stands in the way of a free and independent Iraq. The way it is done is up to the local commander, not the Pentagon, not the 6-o'clock news, and certainly not the latest Zogby poll.
The voice of small government...

I am in favor of inflicting the complete and unrestricted power of the United States military on any group that stands in the way of a free and independent Iraq. The way it is done is up to the local commander, not the Pentagon, not the 6-o'clock news, and certainly not the latest Zogby poll.
The voice of small government...

the way I see it we either need to send alot more troops to Iraq and thoroughly clean house, and seal up the borders. Or we need to pull our troops and civilians out of the country altogether.

In other words, get tough, or get out.

If we leave we loose any influence or credibility that we still have, or hope to gain, in the middle east, but if we stay without taking effective messures to end the violence over there we are just getting our soldiers killed, and wasting our resorces, pointlessly.

I'm in favor of sending more troops if, and only if, we are willing to empower those troops to do what they need to get the job done. You can't fight a politically correct war and expect to win it.

I don't believe we can be part of the solution, frankly. I think we've botched the job so badly, have created such animosity for US troops that there's no way for us to be a part of maintaining security and rebuilding what we've broken. And I think pulling troops from elsewhere is a bit of a pipe dream. It's a case of shifting deck chairs on the Titanic.



I do feel that the people who supported Bush in 2004 have blood on their hands--there was no excuse for supporting the war by then.

The debate between you two is the same as teh one going on in my head every day. On the one hand, I think Vetalia is right. If we leave, not only will the humanitarian disaster be unparralleled in modern history - the Sunnis and Shiites will fight to the very last one, but the instability will spread and very likely could result in a regional war. The Saudi's said point blank that they will start throwing money and arms at teh Sunnis there if we leave and you can bet the other sunni countries will do the same. Iran and Syria will back teh Shiites and the respective minorities in those countries will start insurgencies in their respctive countries. The effect on world energy prices could be absolutely catastrophic - in Biblical terms. Hundreds of millions of people starving as teh oil dries up on the world market and the ability to produce and trasport food is crippled,

On the other hand, what can an incompetent administration do to make the situation better? Everything this president touches turns to shit and he'll be running the show for two more years - plenty of time for enough mistakes to really fuck shit up. By the time we have a chance to get a competent administration - and there's no guarentee that we will - he may have made things far worse than they already are.

I have no idea what we should do - none. This adminsitration has been an absolute catastrophy on a global scale.

On the other hand, what can an incompetent administration do to make the situation better? Everything this president touches turns to shit and he'll be running the show for two more years - plenty of time for enough mistakes to really fuck shit up. By the time we have a chance to get a competent administration - and there's no guarentee that we will - he may have made things far worse than they already are.

I have no idea what we should do - none. This adminsitration has been an absolute catastrophy on a global scale.


Even if you had your wish, and every person in the Senate and Congress and Supreme Court and the Presidency were a handpicked Democrat of your choosing, I don't believe for a second that there's a viable solution that they could come up with.

It's a situation where you're fucked no matter what you do, and for anyone to play it any other way in public is lying through their teeth.

Even if you had your wish, and every person in the Senate and Congress and Supreme Court and the Presidency were a handpicked Democrat of your choosing, I don't believe for a second that there's a viable solution that they could come up with.

It's a situation where you're fucked no matter what you do, and for anyone to play it any other way in public is lying through their teeth.

I'm not a Democrat. :) In local and state elections I vote Republican and nationally I used to like Republicans until the Neocons and Christians ran all of the moderates out of their party. I tend to favor the stated Republican ideals, but the Republicans in office now don't live by any of them anymore and haven't since Bush took office. Socially I may tend to lean Dem - I'm pro choice and couldn't give two shits if some dude wants to marry some other dude - but I don't believe in the massive social spendig that the Dems tend to favor. I also think affirmative action is both counter productive and racist. I also don't believe in nation building or being the world cops like the Republi... oppsss... I mean the Democrats believe in - wait, that's confusing. I'm not sure, the Republicans don't believe in nation building, right? Didn't they... hmm... on that front I can't tell the difference. Anyhoo, I also don't believe in free trade with countries that don't offer us the same deal. Globalism used to be a Democrat position but now, I'm not sure... What's going on here? Who's that over there? Where did the.... :confused: shit.

I'm not a Democrat. :) In local and state elections I vote Republican and nationally I used to like Republicans until the Neocons and Christians ran all of the moderates out of their party. I tend to favor the stated Republican ideals, but the Republicans in office now don't live by any of them anymore and haven't since Bush took office. Socially I may tend to lean Dem - I'm pro choice and couldn't give two shits if some dude wants to marry some other dude - but I don't believe in the massive social spendig that the Dems tend to favor. I also think affirmative action is both counter productive and racist. I also don't believe in nation building or being the world cops like the Republi... oppsss... I mean the Democrats believe in - wait, that's confusing. I'm not sure, the Republicans don't believe in nation building, right? Didn't they... hmm... on that front I can't tell the difference. Anyhoo, I also don't believe in free trade with countries that don't offer us the same deal. Globalism used to be a Democrat position but now, I'm not sure... What's going on here? Who's that over there? Where did the.... :confused: shit.
I do love a two party system.

Its a nice day for a...white wedding.....

OH I GET IT...so that means that 89% of people want more Iraqi's to die in the civil war.


yeah...if we leave now the bloodshed gets worse, regardless of how you feel on the war, regardless of what is truly right, lets keep with the facts, if americans leave now millions die, if americans stay only thousands. its sick to think about, but i think i'd be able to get a few more moments of sleep knowing that there wont be a mass genocide of sunni's once this civil war is over.

I do love a two party system.

There's two? I thought there were hundreds, no wait. There are one parties... or is that there are one panties. Are my pants plural? It's one thing... I have a sock, but I wear socks. I have legs but I wear a pant. Pants? Republicrats and Democans.... :confused:

DP.

No, not double penetration, you sick freaks. :mad: Double post.

God, you freaks can turn anything sexual. :mad:

There's two? I thought there were hundreds, no wait. There are one parties... or is that there are one panties. Are my pants plural? It's one thing... I have a sock, but I wear socks. I have legs but I wear a pant. Pants? Republicrats and Democans.... :confused:

I have to take exception to this idea a bit. Sure, if you look at the two parties from extreme perspectives, they look an awful lot alike, but there are significant differences, and those differences have even larger real world implications. Does anyone honestly think we'd be in an Iraq war if we had President Gore instead of President Bush? Or that we'd have these increasing deficits? Or that we'd be so far behind in funding things like alternative fuels?

There are times where there's not a nickel's worth of difference between the two parties, and plenty of times when I feel like my party's representatives are shitting on their constituencies for no reason other than they've gotten a better offer from corporate lobbyists, but let's not kid ourselves--there are very real differences between the two parties, and most of the mess we're in right now is due to the fact that enough people bought into the idea that there wasn't a real difference between Gore and Bush to matter--that, and the fact that five SCOTUS justices decided partisanship was more important than their oaths to uphold the Constitution.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein

"If at first you don't succeed, try, try again!" - an animated rodent

OH I GET IT...so that means that 89% of people want more Iraqi's to die in the civil war.


yeah...if we leave now the bloodshed gets worse, regardless of how you feel on the war, regardless of what is truly right, lets keep with the facts, if americans leave now millions die, if americans stay only thousands. its sick to think about, but i think i'd be able to get a few more moments of sleep knowing that there wont be a mass genocide of sunni's once this civil war is over.

so we have to be in iraq until the end of time? we can never ever leave?

as i said before and farnhamia so eloquently missed every day we are there we make it worse. every day we make the soldiers of the coming iraqi civil war a bit better. we harden their position, we draw more bitter resentment and we hand out more arms. unless we intend to keep iraq forever, this approach is never going to work


now there IS another course of action we might consider. its a long forgotten technique used in the last century. its called DIPLOMACY.

it involves talking to all the power brokers in iraq and in the region. talking even to those we dont like and who dont like us. it involves treating them with....oh what is the word its been so long since it was used, oh yes.... RESPECT.

we would find people who speak arabic, who understand the difference between sunni and shia, who have been to the middle east, who know the culture of iraq and the middle east. we hire these people to TALK to the various factions. we find out what compromise they might be willing to make, talk about what kind of compromise WE might be willing to make, give everyone the impression that their opinion is important to us.

over the course of time we might be able to come up with a non military (or minimally military) solution to this mess. its a shame that its the one solution george bush will never try.

I have to take exception to this idea a bit. Sure, if you look at the two parties from extreme perspectives, they look an awful lot alike, but there are significant differences, and those differences have even larger real world implications. Does anyone honestly think we'd be in an Iraq war if we had President Gore instead of President Bush? Or that we'd have these increasing deficits? Or that we'd be so far behind in funding things like alternative fuels?No. I've no doubt that Gore or Kerry would have been infinately better presidents. I think the failings of the Dems are things that I would much rather live with than the failings of this administration. But I just need to point out that this administration and the party that followed Rove's tunes on his pipes weren't living up to their party's stated ideals. I think the best of both worlds is to have moderates in both parties control one branch while the other party controls the other branch because the thinking, intelligent people from the Dems and Reps can generally agree on the important, need-to-get-done stuff while each party can stand in teh way of the extreme's from the other. This administration was an abomination of Republican ideals, though. Where's the party of fiscal conservatives? Where's the party of small government? Where's the party of taking care of our own before we go on nation building world tours?

There are times where there's not a nickel's worth of difference between the two parties, and plenty of times when I feel like my party's representatives are shitting on their constituencies for no reason other than they've gotten a better offer from corporate lobbyists, but let's not kid ourselves--there are very real differences between the two parties, and most of the mess we're in right now is due to the fact that enough people bought into the idea that there wasn't a real difference between Gore and Bush to matter--that, and the fact that five SCOTUS justices decided partisanship was more important than their oaths to uphold the Constitution.

I agree there are differences between teh party platforms, my posts here were more to point out that Bush took the failings usually associated with the Democrats and balooned them to sizes never seen in any Democrat ever.

One more thing to point out. I was glad to see the Dems take control of Congress because this administration is going to be in power for two more years and the last thing I want this idiot to be able to do is get anything done at all. One thing I was not happy to see is that Congress was basically purged of the only remaining moderate Republicans. That kind of sucks. I like moderates a lot. From both parties.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein

"If at first you don't succeed, try, try again!" - an animated rodent

Well, who are you gonna trust? The scientific genius or the animated mouse?

:D

you have to take the type of war you are fighting into consideration.

in the past it was to invade and keep a country, kill the residents, move your people in, its now a part of greater freedontyaland. or a war to repel such an invasion.

the war in iraq isnt that eh? we went in to remove hussein from power and to render iraq incapabale of threatening us, our allies and its neighbors.

we did that.

now all we are wanting to do is leave iraq in a stable condition. you dont promote stability by killing the massive numbers of civilians necessary to get the insurgents and rebels that live amongst them.


The type of war doesn't really come in to it. If "you" are going to win you will have to accept that there will be civilians that will die. It doesn't matter if you like it or not. (and no I don't)
While Iraq may have been a threat to thier neighbors, I don't belive that they were a threat to the US.
Look to history and you will see that in every large scale sucessful military operation there were massive civillian deaths. Some Examples: WW2 Europe _ attacks on France, Poland, Germany, Italy, and others. WW2 Asia - China, Korea, Various Islands, Japan.
It is always the Civilians that suffer the most no matter which side is successful. The Civilised world is no longer willing to accept this, They can not win this way

The type of war doesn't really come in to it. If "you" are going to win you will have to accept that there will be civilians that will die. It doesn't matter if you like it or not. (and no I don't)
While Iraq may have been a threat to thier neighbors, I don't belive that they were a threat to the US.
Look to history and you will see that in every large scale sucessful military operation there were massive civillian deaths. Some Examples: WW2 Europe _ attacks on France, Poland, Germany, Italy, and others. WW2 Asia - China, Korea, Various Islands, Japan.
It is always the Civilians that suffer the most no matter which side is successful. The Civilised world is no longer willing to accept this, They can not win this way

no iraq wasnt a threat to anyone but its own people. i didnt think at the time that it was proper to invade a country that never did anything to us but the majority of people were hinky enough over 9/11 to accept the notion when presented to them by people they trusted.

the thing is WE HAVE WON. we are in the equivalent of the months after germany and japan surrendered. "peace" isnt going smoothly. this is to some extent due to our baseless invasion of a country in a region were we are known for fucking over others for our own gain. why would they trust US to do right by them now?

we are in a phase that requires the cooperation of the iraqi people. all of them. you cant bomb people into liking each other. you cant get them to compromise at the point of a gun. they wont forget generations of hatred because we tell them to.

this requires a whole new skill set or iraq will be the new former yugoslavia. the longer we rely on a miilitary solution to a social problem the less likely we are to ever leave iraq as anthing but a pending bloodbath.

...
Frankly, I think we need to win this war because pulling out will be so infinitely worse that its ramifications will be seen for decades. I mean, look at what the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan did a decade afterwards, and that was only in a country where the terrorists had resources that pale in comparison to Iraq.

Actually for the sake of the world at large, for international law, for peace,
America badly needs to lose this war. Whether by being defeated or preferably
by coming to it's senses, admitting its crimes and putting an end to them.

It probably won't happen, what is more likely to happen is putting it all
onto the Iraqi's(they just don't want a stable society) while withdrawing
from active engagement but keeping the kind of hands off power in the area
to force compliance with business needs (airpower) and claiming a moral victory.

But the world in the 21st century will be a worse place if the US is not defeated by conscience.

snip
the thing is WE HAVE WON. we are in the equivalent of the months after germany and japan surrendered. "peace" isnt going smoothly. this is to some extent due to our baseless invasion of a country in a region were we are known for fucking over others for our own gain. why would they trust US to do right by them now?
we are in a phase that requires the cooperation of the iraqi people. all of them. you cant bomb people into liking each other. you cant get them to compromise at the point of a gun. they wont forget generations of hatred because we tell them to.
this requires a whole new skill set or iraq will be the new former yugoslavia. the longer we rely on a miilitary solution to a social problem the less likely we are to ever leave iraq as anthing but a pending bloodbath.

While in general I agree with you , we are at a point that is the as if during WW2 we had re-taken Europe with the exception of Italy and Germany. While I would like to think it would be possible to do the rest of the job in peace I doubt that it will ever happen. The powers (not necessarily the governments) that be in the region have no reason to trust us and much to gain by continuing the fight, The "It's us against the great Satan" argument , I don't belive that we (the big we all of humanity) have the skills to do it. Prejudice (as in (s)he looks/sounds/worships/thinks different from me) rears its head all over the world sad to say

Actually for the sake of the world at large, for international law, for peace,
America badly needs to lose this war. Whether by being defeated or preferably
by coming to it's senses, admitting its crimes and putting an end to them.

It probably won't happen, what is more likely to happen is putting it all
onto the Iraqi's(they just don't want a stable society) while withdrawing
from active engagement but keeping the kind of hands off power in the area
to force compliance with business needs (airpower) and claiming a moral victory.

But the world in the 21st century will be a worse place if the US is not defeated by conscience.

You've got pretty much all you want, now. The U.S. can't commit itself to fight a war in which anyone gets hurt. We don't want to see bodies on the evening news and we won't accept any strategy that requires it.

***
In another vein of thought, doesn't this start to look like post-war Europe? Here we have the U.S. protecting Europe(Iraq, Kuwait...) from the Soviet Union (nuclear Iran). Only the roles are a little different. Instead of governments fighting each other, it's more about religions fighting each other, or sects, I guess.

So there's no room for realizing you made a mistake, that you trusted someone you shouldn't have? I mean, I didn't trust Bush to be competent from the beginning, but I was in the minority.

I blame Florida and Ohio.

The US needs to really strategically examine its troop deployments and see where they need to be; we can't lose a war simply because we don't have the troops where they need to be. We've worn our soldiers down because we are forced to reextend their tours of duty due to lack of replacements...the world's greatest army should not be forced to do this, especially given how much we spend on the military as is.

This is a massive failure of planning and logistics that has not been rivaled since the Vietnam war...it is so completely and utterly FUBAR that we will need a serious reexamination of the conduct of this war to see what can be done to salvage it. We also need to up recruitment bonuses and pay for soldiers to increase the number of troops recruited.



Yeah, and that's what bothers me. People supported this guy back in 2003 when he was going in to Iraq, supported him in 2004 and 2005 even when there were clear problems that needed to change, and now want to give up because he's no longer popular at all. This is not a game, and it isn't politics...when you send 160,000+ men in to combat and have over 3,000 troops give their lives for a war, you don't ignore what the commanders are saying just because the Defense Secretary is Cheney's crony. You. do. not. fuck. around. in. a. war.

Frankly, I think we need to win this war because pulling out will be so infinitely worse that its ramifications will be seen for decades. I mean, look at what the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan did a decade afterwards, and that was only in a country where the terrorists had resources that pale in comparison to Iraq.

Define "win" please. Is it like The genius himself said, "we only lose if we leave before the job is done?" My version of winning is providing a stable government "completely" under Iraqi control. That means not a single US solider is left in theater and they are self sustaining. Do you think this is possible at this point. Or has the jackhole fouled things up so bad this can never be the case?

Define "win" please. Is it like The genius himself said, "we only lose if we leave before the job is done?" My version of winning is providing a stable government "completely" under Iraqi control. That means not a single US solider is left in theater and they are self sustaining. Do you think this is possible at this point. Or has the jackhole fouled things up so bad this can never be the case?
Hell, we've still got troops in Europe to provide stability. I think things might quiet down enough in 60 years to allow a complete withdrawal from SWA, but it's a little too early to tell.

Hell, we've still got troops in Europe to provide stability. I think things might quiet down enough in 60 years to allow a complete withdrawal from SWA, but it's a little too early to tell.

Yes, but the Europeans aren't incredibly hostile to them being there now are they? They are also very unnecessary for peacekeeping purposes. American forces are in places all over the world as a "just in case" strategy. It makes deployment to any area easier than coming from the mainland and the strategy is purely logistical. Do you really think Ireland is going to invade Poland if we leave?

Yes, but the Europeans aren't incredibly hostile to them being there now are they? They are also very unnecessary for peacekeeping purposes. American forces are in places all over the world as a "just in case" strategy. It makes deployment to any area easier than coming from the mainland and the strategy is purely logistical. Do you really think Ireland is going to invade Poland if we leave?

Not today, they aren't. Did we experience hostile acts after WWII? I think there is some data (http://www.thehistorychannel.co.uk/site/tv_guide/full_details/World_history/programme_2412.php)to support the assertion that we were attacked repeatedly after winning the war.

Nazi loyalists attempted to derail the rebuilding process by killing any Germans collaborating with the enemy. And the mysterious SS-Werewolves underground organization boasted of the coming rebirth of the Party.

The value of having troops in Europe may be waning today, but it was certainly demanded by the Europeans when the USSR was a credible threat.

I blame Florida and Ohio.

You do know that a major percentage of the voters in Florida are from the northren states (retirees). Including Ohio!

You've got pretty much all you want, now. The U.S. can't commit itself to fight a war in which anyone gets hurt. We don't want to see bodies on the evening news and we won't accept any strategy that requires it.

***
In another vein of thought, doesn't this start to look like post-war Europe? Here we have the U.S. protecting Europe(Iraq, Kuwait...) from the Soviet Union (nuclear Iran). Only the roles are a little different. Instead of governments fighting each other, it's more about religions fighting each other, or sects, I guess.


Oh stop lying to yourself.
It would be bad enough if you try to dissemble to others but if you
actually convince yourself that as the Aggressors you then are
PROTECTING Iraq from (non nuclear) Iran which has no history
of any kind of invading any other country ever.

The US has no major trouble dealing with hundreds of thousands
of deaths due to their actions. Never mind trying to count the injuries.
The tortures and the miseries that have come to Iraq at US hands
are a shame to the US and anyone who supported them.
The fact that they have now successfully fanned the flames of sunni/shia differences as you tried to take the heat off yourselves
and use the principle of divide and rule to get where you were
desperately failing to do before, brings you to new and ever lower depths. I would think the US has gone as low as it can possibly go, but I've thought that before and been proved wrong.

You've got pretty much all you want, now. The U.S. can't commit itself to fight a war in which anyone gets hurt. We don't want to see bodies on the evening news and we won't accept any strategy that requires it.

That's where you get it awfully, completely, humiliatingly WRONG.

Try as you might to make it so, the world wasn't against the war in Iraq because it is distasteful. It IS, but that's not why the world was against it.

The world was against the war in Iraq because it KNEW it would result in pretty much what we see here: The US without any credibility, soldiers and people dead, Iraq much worse-off than before and the US being feared because their leader is a psychopath.

It shouldn't be a "clean" war, it should NOT BE A WAR, PERIOD. But now that the US decided to MAKE it a war, which, as EVERYONE WAS POINTING OUT, became a MESS, it is the US's obligation to MAKE it a clean war, NO MATTER WHAT THE COSTS TO THE US. And, again: To the US. No Iraqis should die because of this, this war was an American decision. It's only fair that the ones tha started the war pay the price.