NationStates Jolt Archive

When the Bush administration and other parties conspired to invade Iraq, their logic was inverted. They did not objectively consider all the facts and then draw a conclusion; instead, they assiduously searched for even so minute as a grain of evidence to support their diabolical war. In fact, it was this mephistophelean approach to combat which incurred the ire of numerous anti-war protesters. The falsity of tenuous links between Iraq and international terrorism were exposed; the lies in relation to WMDs were brought out into the open. The twisted thought processes which led us to war were scoured over and stringently criticized. Unfortunately, they did not prevail in their attempt to halt the inexorable drive to war.

Due to mounds of failed policies, misguided attempts at quelling the conflict, and disastrous scandals, Iraq has been turned into an utterly failed state. Nothing is functional and the unemployment rate is exorbitantly high. Sectarian militias are engaging in campaigns of ethnic cleansing, more or less unchecked by American troops, which are stretched too thin and come under constant fire. To many, the current condition in Iraq compounded with the outrageous cost of the war is sufficient reason to prepare for a hasty withdrawal. However, such reasoning is subject to the same flaws which plagued those who were responsible for planning the war in the first place.

Such anti-war individuals were proponents of withdrawal from the first day. They became more vehement with the rise of the insurgency. The sectarian conflict only served to increase their determination. Ultimately, the present-day situation only solidified their opposition. The idea of withdrawal has been irreversibly implanted in their mind. This predetermined concept clouds their objectivity; they see only the evidence which supports their thesis and disregard all else to the contrary. In short, they are subject to the same pitfalls as the Bush administration.

It is clear that without the presence of US forces, with that last shred of a semblance of law and order gone, Iraq will utterly collapse upon itself and there will be no government of which to speak. The consequences would be unimaginably calamitous. Allowing Iraq to descend even further into the quicksand of disorder is intolerable. Much innocent blood has already been shed because of the errors of the imperialistic decisions of the White House; don't let more civilian lives be senselessly lost because of the pacifists. The only possible effect an absence of American troops can have is a further disintegration of the Iraqi state. Don't make the same mistake Bush did; refuse to allow an excess of Iraqi civilians to die and stay in the country and do whatever you can to improve the situation. Anything else would be catastrophic.

so its your opinion that we need to stay however long it might take to stabilize iraq even if that means another 50 years?

When the Bush administration and other parties conspired to invade Iraq, their logic was inverted. They did not objectively consider all the facts and then draw a conclusion; instead, they assiduously searched for even so minute as a grain of evidence to support their diabolical war. In fact, it was this mephistophelean approach to combat which incurred the ire of numerous anti-war protesters. The falsity of tenuous links between Iraq and international terrorism were exposed; the lies in relations to WMDs were brought out into the open. The twisted thought processes which led us to war were scoured over and stringently criticized. Unfortunately, they did not prevail in their attempt to halt the inexorable drive to war.

Due to mounds of failed policies, misguided attempts at quelling the conflict, and disastrous scandals, Iraq has been turned into an utterly failed state. Nothing is functional and the unemployment rate is exorbitantly high. Sectarian militias are engaging in campaigns of ethnic cleansing, more or less unchecked by American troops, which are stretched too thin and come under constant fire. To many, the current condition in Iraq compounded with the outrageous cost of the war is sufficient reason to prepare for a hasty withdrawal. However, such reasoning is subject to the same flaws which plagued those who were responsible for planning the war in the first place.

Such anti-war individuals were proponents of withdrawal from the first day. They became more vehement with the rise of the insurgency. The sectarian conflict only served to increase their determination. Ultimately, the present-day situation only solidified their opposition. The idea of withdrawal has been irreversibly implanted in their mind. This predetermined concept clouds their objectivity; they see only the evidence which supports their thesis and disregard all else to the contrary. In short, they are subject to the same pitfalls as the Bush administration.

It is clear that without the presence of US forces, with that last shred of a semblance of law and order gone, Iraq will utterly collapse upon itself and there will be no government of which to speak. The consequences would be unimaginably calamitous. Allowing Iraq to descend even further into the quicksand of disorder is intolerable. Much innocent blood has already been shed because of the errors of the imperialistic decisions of the White House; don't let more civilian lives be senselessly lost because of the pacifists. The only possible effect an absence of American troops can have is a further disintegration of the Iraqi state. Don't make the same mistake Bush did; refuse to allow an excess of Iraqi civilians to die and stay in the country and do whatever you can to improve the situation. Anything else would be catastrophic.

An excellent analysis... I have been thinking of the withdrawal scenario in detail and it appears, as you say, that our leaving would be catastrophic, and as Senator McCain put it, we would simply have to come back another day and live with a failure worse than the invasion in the first place.

so its your opinion that we need to stay however long it might take to stabilize iraq even if that means another 50 years?

Either that or millions will die if the violence continues unabated... I mean, we could leave and have the guild of another Rwanda or Armenia on our hands.

When the Bush administration and other parties conspired to invade Iraq, their logic was inverted. They did not objectively consider all the facts and then draw a conclusion; instead, they assiduously searched for even so minute as a grain of evidence to support their diabolical war. In fact, it was this mephistophelean approach to combat which incurred the ire of numerous anti-war protesters. The falsity of tenuous links between Iraq and international terrorism were exposed; the lies in relations to WMDs were brought out into the open. The twisted thought processes which led us to war were scoured over and stringently criticized. Unfortunately, they did not prevail in their attempt to halt the inexorable drive to war.

Due to mounds of failed policies, misguided attempts at quelling the conflict, and disastrous scandals, Iraq has been turned into an utterly failed state. Nothing is functional and the unemployment rate is exorbitantly high. Sectarian militias are engaging in campaigns of ethnic cleansing, more or less unchecked by American troops, which are stretched too thin and come under constant fire. To many, the current condition in Iraq compounded with the outrageous cost of the war is sufficient reason to prepare for a hasty withdrawal. However, such reasoning is subject to the same flaws which plagued those who were responsible for planning the war in the first place.

Such anti-war individuals were proponents of withdrawal from the first day. They became more vehement with the rise of the insurgency. The sectarian conflict only served to increase their determination. Ultimately, the present-day situation only solidified their opposition. The idea of withdrawal has been irreversibly implanted in their mind. This predetermined concept clouds their objectivity; they see only the evidence which supports their thesis and disregard all else to the contrary. In short, they are subject to the same pitfalls as the Bush administration.

It is clear that without the presence of US forces, with that last shred of a semblance of law and order gone, Iraq will utterly collapse upon itself and there will be no government of which to speak. The consequences would be unimaginably calamitous. Allowing Iraq to descend even further into the quicksand of disorder is intolerable. Much innocent blood has already been shed because of the errors of the imperialistic decisions of the White House; don't let more civilian lives be senselessly lost because of the pacifists. The only possible effect an absence of American troops can have is a further disintegration of the Iraqi state. Don't make the same mistake Bush did; refuse to allow an excess of Iraqi civilians to die and stay in the country and do whatever you can to improve the situation. Anything else would be catastrophic.

My initial reaction to Bush's decision to commit 20,000 more American troops to Iraq was similar to the point that you make here; the country needs to be secured and strengthened as much possible, and withdrawing or continuing the same strategy with the same number of troops will do nothing to change that. However, the question remains: how much more can be done? Shouldn't we realize that attempting to end the sectarian violence in Iraq is a lost cause? What will keeping our troops there for x numbers of months, years, etc. really do? I remain skeptical that anything will be accomplished.

so its your opinion that we need to stay however long it might take to stabilize iraq even if that means another 50 years?

We need to stay until we have stabilized Iraq to an acceptable level. It is simply horrendous that we can even contemplate withdrawal when 500 hundred mostly innocent people are being killed daily. As somebody else noted, we'd have another Rwanda on our hands -- only worse. We are the root of the problems in Iraq, and we should have the decency to help resolve them.

Blah blah blah.
Fuck you for saying that people who said from the beginning that this was a bad idea are on the same moral plane as those who cheerleaded (cheerled?) this war into existence. And that's just for starters. Yes, the situation will be bad when US troops leave--and notice I said when, not if, because withdrawal from a bad situation is an inevitability at this point. The bed has been shat in, and there is no way to unshit it at this point.

So here's the ugly truth of it. The sooner US troops withdraw, the sooner they stop dying in an Iraqi Civil War, and the sooner the real struggle for power in the region comes to a climax.

However, the question remains: how much more can be done? Shouldn't we realize that attempting to end the sectarian violence in Iraq is a lost cause? What will keeping our troops there for x numbers of months, years, etc. really do? I remain skeptical that anything will be accomplished.

The immediate effects of an increased level of American troops in Iraq are dubious; the extent to which the military will achieve its mission of securing Iraq is up to debate. However, we have seen several successes recently (although more isolated and insubstantial than would be necessary), such as the assault on insurgent positions on Haifa Street. If such trends continue, and our strategy is revised, we may expect to see lethargic betterments in the state of the country. It's not much, but it's certainly preferable to nothing. Now compare that to the predictable effects of withdrawal. Iraq would succumb to an endless and vicious cycle of sectarian violence which slowly draws more and more civilians into its bloody clutch. The country would fall into disrepair with nobody to even attempt to rebuild the infrastructure. The economy would collapse due to the incessant killings. That is simply not acceptable; anything, absolutely anything, which can avoid such a scenario is more desirable.

so its your opinion that we need to stay however long it might take to stabilize iraq even if that means another 50 years?of course. you created the mess. now you also care for it.

You have a greater chance of dying in a car crash than you do getting killed in Iraq, and last time I checked, we're still a volunteer professional military. Iraq is nowhere near the bloodiest war in American history, but what is happening to those civilians is - we need to stay and help Iraq get on its feet, especially since we're the ones who created the mess (for better or for worse).

Fuck you for saying that people who said from the beginning that this was a bad idea are on the same moral plane as those who cheerled this war into existence.

I never claimed that the two groups were morally equivalent, simply that they made a similar type of mistake. The intent of the anti-war protesters is clearly not to contribute to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis; the aims of the Bush administration most likely included such a death toll and they were cognizant of what their actions would entail. There can be no moral comparison between the two entities; however, the result of their actions could be very alike.

The sooner US troops withdraw, the sooner they stop dying in an Iraqi Civil War, and the sooner the real struggle for power in the region comes to a climax.

If we start off from the premise that an all-consuming civil war in Iraq is inevitable and cannot be halted before it spreads to a wide section of the populace, then, clearly, it is the logical conclusion that American troops are not having a positive effect in the country. However, this is not the case; we can make inroads against the minority who are vying for power in the sectarian conflict in order to better protect the majority who simply desire peace.

welp.

heres the thing

first of all, just because the antiwar crowd is predisposed to withdrawal doesnt make it the wrong course of action. its a good point. the majority of us citizens is plain old sick of it and wants to get out. but just because we are not analysing the situation maturely doesnt mean that its wrong to pull out.

anyway...

1) its hard to tell how much of the problem is our being there. one of the more disgusting reasons rumsfeld used to give for our being in iraq was to have the terrorists concentrate on hitting us there instead of coming over here to do it. cynical bastard. without us being there, there is no need for an insurgency. there is no justification for young islamic men to go to iraq to fight the great satan. that alone might calm down the situation.

2) bush is a fuckup who fires anyone who disagrees with him. he has a preconceived notion of how this is going to work and he does not tolerate anyone telling him that he is wrong. thats no way to make this plan work. i dont think that iraq can be "won" with bush as president. i also dont see the next president being elected on anything but a "i will get us out of iraq" platform.

so we stay another 3 years and train the soldiers for the civil war that erupts as soon as we leave? we make them more efficient killers? we harden their hatred of each other by increasing the amount of sectarian violence until there is no way to settle it but by blood feud?

i think that bush can manage to make things much worse in the 2 years he has left. i would like this troop surge to work. we all would. but its too little, too late.

i think that bush can manage to make things much worse in the 2 years he has left. i would like this troop surge to work. we all would. but its too little, too late.

It's possible that the situation in Iraq has irrevocably decayed to such an extent that Iraq will continue to gradually plunge further and further into civil strife. It may be true that Iraq is irredeemably lost. However, that is no excuse for not attempting to do everything in our power to avert the incipient catastrophe. You may be right; this last lunge at stabilizing Iraq may be doomed to failure. Nonetheless, we owe it to the Iraqi people to at least attempt to offer them security, regardless of the cost to us. After wreaking so much senseless havoc upon their country, it's the bare minimum that we can do. And it just might work.

It's possible that the situation in Iraq has irrevocably decayed to such an extent that Iraq will continue to gradually plunge further and further into civil strife. It may be true that Iraq is irredeemably lost. However, that is no excuse for not attempting to do everything in our power to avert the incipient catastrophe. You may be right; this last lunge at stabilizing Iraq may be doomed to failure. Nonetheless, we owe it to the Iraqi people to at least attempt to offer them security, regardless of the cost to us. After wreaking so much senseless havoc upon their country, it's the bare minimum that we can do. And it just might work.

well sb, all you and i can do is hope. he going to do it.

The immediate effects of an increased level of American troops in Iraq are dubious; the extent to which the military will achieve its mission of securing Iraq is up to debate. However, we have seen several successes recently (although more isolated and insubstantial than would be necessary), such as the assault on insurgent positions on Haifa Street. If such trends continue, and our strategy is revised, we may expect to see lethargic betterments in the state of the country. It's not much, but it's certainly preferable to nothing. Now compare that to the predictable effects of withdrawal. Iraq would succumb to an endless and vicious cycle of sectarian violence which slowly draws more and more civilians into its bloody clutch. The country would fall into disrepair with nobody to even attempt to rebuild the infrastructure. The economy would collapse due to the incessant killings. That is simply not acceptable; anything, absolutely anything, which can avoid such a scenario is more desirable.

I agree with you that pulling out would be ridiculous and only lead to the creation of another dictatorship akint to the one that Saddam lead, one that might require invasion and nation-building at another date and thus make this war fruitless. My other post was unclear, so allow me to rephrase: I remain skeptical of a troop increase and a change in strategy that requires more work on the American side, but I see withdrawing from Iraq in a short time span as a move that would only be detrimental to the United States, Iraq itself, and the rest of the Middle East.

I remain skeptical of a troop increase and a change in strategy that requires more work on the American side

Then what course of action would you propose? To me, all possible choices must be greeted with a healthy dose of cynicism; there were plenty of chances to rectify mistakes earlier on in the war, but it has progressed to such a degree that all current options are not overly auspicious, although they offer some measure of limited success.

Let me see if I've got this right: the only logical course to end a conflict caused by the presence of US troops in the Middle East is to send more US troops to the Middle East, yes?

Then what course of action would you propose? To me, all possible choices must be greeted with a healthy dose of cynicism; there were plenty of chances to rectify mistakes earlier on in the war, but it has progressed to such a degree that all current options are not overly auspicious, although they offer some measure of limited success.

An alternative course of action would be transferring more of the burden of peace-keeping onto the Iraqi government. This plan, however, has a large number of problems with it as well. In the end, as you said, no change in strategy will be met with optimism in my mind.

First off, while I dont necessarily agree with him, I would like to defend the Nazz a little bit. I know people fighting in Iraq and I dont care what your statistics say, they feel in a great deal more danger than driving down the road. I have talked to these guys and they sure as hell want to get home, they volunteered for the military to protect US borders, help out with natural disasters etc. Iraq as a national entity was basically defensless, and was too broke to give half the money to terrorists our "freinds" in the rest of the middle east give. Kuwait could have kicked the Iraqi military's ass. My point being, we are not defending ourselves and never were, I see that as a perfectly valid argument for getting out of there ASAP.

I am also not entirely convinced that the United States remaining in Iraq is helping things as much as everyone seems to think. It is my personal opinion that the one of the terrorists greatest recruiting points is "evicting the imperialist bastards from our territory" If the US got out, I think that it would be more difficult for the terrorists to recruit people to fight Iraqis, as it stands now they paint all forces with the same brush, maybe that would change some with the US gone.

Also if the US got out, I think that the government would improve (assuming it remained intact, a large assumption I know) as things stand the Iraqi governments exists at the pleasure of Washington, I feel that this is crippling the governments credibility in the eyes of many of its constituents, government should exist at the will of the governed, NOT somebody across the globe. This may be in part because of my extremely low opinion of American Foreign policy and how every time we say that we are helping build democracy, we always seem to leave a lot of poor people dead and a fairly authoritarian capitalist government in charge.

Bush cited in a speech going into the war how he wanted to continue the great american tradition of spreading freedom, and then cited South America in general as a great american accomplishment. If our actions in Iraq are going to end up as a success like Chile, Columbia, Nicaragua, or Guatamala, I think that the Iraqis would be better off with a civil war where the US is not supporting any side.

Then what course of action would you propose? To me, all possible choices must be greeted with a healthy dose of cynicism; there were plenty of chances to rectify mistakes earlier on in the war, but it has progressed to such a degree that all current options are not overly auspicious, although they offer some measure of limited success.

those of us who have grown cynical and bitter over this war suspect that this is bush's plan to save face in the history books. he has to give it one more try no matter how futile so that he has a chance to escape being labeled the worst president in US history. so more of our soldiers will die so that he can pretend that he did his best.

Then what course of action would you propose? To me, all possible choices must be greeted with a healthy dose of cynicism; there were plenty of chances to rectify mistakes earlier on in the war, but it has progressed to such a degree that all current options are not overly auspicious, although they offer some measure of limited success.

Let me see if I've got this right: the only logical course to end a conflict caused by the presence of US troops in the Middle East is to send more US troops to the Middle East, yes?

If you look at the conflict in the barest and mindless of terms, as you have, then the answer would be no. However, if you respect the complexities of the situation and examine it beyond a kindergarten level of logic, then yes, increasing troop numbers would be an viable option.

Here's a better question: do you honestly believe that the only logical course of action that should be taken to end a conflict is turning your back on it? Do you honestly believe that a ray of sunshine will suddenly burst through the clouds the second the United States withdraws from Iraq just because no Americans are present?

I agree with you that pulling out would be ridiculous and only lead to the creation of another dictatorship akint to the one that Saddam lead, one that might require invasion and nation-building at another date...

Says who? we supported Saddam into power in the first place, and the only reason he wasnt overthrown by Iraqis is because of the crippling sanctions and bitch moves by the United States. (for convincing justification of this argument I refer you to Noam Chomskys latest book, Hegemony or Survival)

Oh, and "would require" invasion and nation building at another date" since when was a country being fucked up valid justification to go fix things militarily? This is a seriously fucked up perception of the US's role in international politics. If we are suddenly world police, forget Iraq lets go fix Darfur first, lets go give Tibet its independance, they got fucked, why not go kick the chinese out?

When the Bush administration and other parties conspired to invade Iraq, their logic was inverted. They did not objectively consider all the facts and then draw a conclusion; instead, they assiduously searched for even so minute as a grain of evidence to support their diabolical war. In fact, it was this mephistophelean approach to combat which incurred the ire of numerous anti-war protesters. The falsity of tenuous links between Iraq and international terrorism were exposed; the lies in relation to WMDs were brought out into the open. The twisted thought processes which led us to war were scoured over and stringently criticized. Unfortunately, they did not prevail in their attempt to halt the inexorable drive to war.

Due to mounds of failed policies, misguided attempts at quelling the conflict, and disastrous scandals, Iraq has been turned into an utterly failed state. Nothing is functional and the unemployment rate is exorbitantly high. Sectarian militias are engaging in campaigns of ethnic cleansing, more or less unchecked by American troops, which are stretched too thin and come under constant fire. To many, the current condition in Iraq compounded with the outrageous cost of the war is sufficient reason to prepare for a hasty withdrawal. However, such reasoning is subject to the same flaws which plagued those who were responsible for planning the war in the first place.

Such anti-war individuals were proponents of withdrawal from the first day. They became more vehement with the rise of the insurgency. The sectarian conflict only served to increase their determination. Ultimately, the present-day situation only solidified their opposition. The idea of withdrawal has been irreversibly implanted in their mind. This predetermined concept clouds their objectivity; they see only the evidence which supports their thesis and disregard all else to the contrary. In short, they are subject to the same pitfalls as the Bush administration.

It is clear that without the presence of US forces, with that last shred of a semblance of law and order gone, Iraq will utterly collapse upon itself and there will be no government of which to speak. The consequences would be unimaginably calamitous. Allowing Iraq to descend even further into the quicksand of disorder is intolerable. Much innocent blood has already been shed because of the errors of the imperialistic decisions of the White House; don't let more civilian lives be senselessly lost because of the pacifists. The only possible effect an absence of American troops can have is a further disintegration of the Iraqi state. Don't make the same mistake Bush did; refuse to allow an excess of Iraqi civilians to die and stay in the country and do whatever you can to improve the situation. Anything else would be catastrophic.

Mr. Bombastic
What you want is some bombastic romantic fantastic lover
Shaggy
Mr. Lover lover, Mr. Lover lover, girl, Mr. Lover lover
She call me Mr. Bombastic say me fantastic, touch me in me back
she say I'm Mr. Ro...mantic
She call me Mr. Bombastic say me fantastic, touch me in me back she say
I'm ro... Smooth just like silk
Soft and coddle hug me up like a quit
I'm a lyrical lover no take me for no filth
With my sexual physique Jah know me well built
Oh me oh my well well can't you tell
I'm just like a turtle crawling out of my shell
Gal you captivate my body put me under a spell
With your cus cus perfume I love your sweet smell
You are the only young girl that can ring my bell
And I can take rejection so you tell me go to hell

I'm Mr. Bombastic say me fantastic touch me in my back she says I'm Mr
Ro...mantic
I'm Mr. Bombastic say me fantastic touch me in my back she says boom
boom
boom
I'm Mr. Bombastic say me fantastic touch me in my back she says I'm Mr
Ro...mantic
I'm Mr. Bombastic say me fantastic touch me in my back she says boom
boom
boom

Gee wheeze baby please
Let me take you to an island of the sweet cool breeze
You don't fell like drive baby hand me the keys
And I'll take you to a place to set your mind at ease
Don't you tickle my foot bottom ha ha baby please
Don't you play with my nose I might ha chum sneeze
Well you a the bun and me a the cheese
And if me a the rice well you a the peas

[CHORUS]

Give me your loving gal your loving well good
I want your loving gal give it like you should
Give me your loving gal your loving well good
I want your loving gal you remember the woo
Would like to kiss and carress
Rub down every strand of hair on my chest
I'm Boombastic rated as the best
The best you should get nothing more nothing less
Give me your digits jot down your address
I'll bet you confess when you put me to the test
That I'm

[CHORUS]

Gal your admiration if a tick me from the start
With your physical attraction gal you know to feel the spark
A man of few word naw go tell you no sweet talk
Naw go laba laba and a chat pure phart
I'll get straight to the point like a arrow or a dart
Come lay down in my jacuzzi and get some bubble bath
Only sound you will here is the beating of my heart
And we will mmm mmm (kiss) and have some sweet pillow talk
I'm

[CHORUS]

Says who? we supported Saddam into power in the first place, and the only reason he wasnt overthrown by Iraqis is because of the crippling sanctions and bitch moves by the United States. (for convincing justification of this argument I refer you to Noam Chomskys latest book, Hegemony or Survival)

Oh, and "would require" invasion and nation building at another date" since when was a country being fucked up valid justification to go fix things militarily? This is a seriously fucked up perception of the US's role in international politics. If we are suddenly world police, forget Iraq lets go fix Darfur first, lets go give Tibet its independance, they got fucked, why not go kick the chinese out?

I will ignore your sidebar points about justification for the war and the history of the United States in Iraq, because neither of those things are being discussed.

If the U.S. pulls out of Iraq, civil war will ensue. In the end, a victorious side would imerge, and without democracy imposed upon the ruling government, it is extremely doubtful that they would practice democratic and peaceful ideals. Thus, a new violent dictatorship would be born.

If you look at the conflict in the barest and mindless of terms, as you have, then the answer would be no. However, if you respect the complexities of the situation and examine it beyond a kindergarten level of logic, then yes, increasing troop numbers would be an viable option.


Ha!
If we are examining complexities, who is enemy number one for all of the terrorist groups in Iraq today? thats right, the imperialist pigs. Dont you think that it might reduce terrorist numbers some if the main enemy said, "Okay, we are giving you what you want" I am NOT saying that this is right or that it would just fix everything. But I think that it is also a valid consideration, and at least as complex as simply attempting to overwelm partisan groups. Pushing harder at insurgencies can actually backfire and assist the people taking the stand of freedom fighter.

Ha!
If we are examining complexities, who is enemy number one for all of the terrorist groups in Iraq today? thats right, the imperialist pigs. Dont you think that it might reduce terrorist numbers some if the main enemy said, "Okay, we are giving you what you want" I am NOT saying that this is right or that it would just fix everything. But I think that it is also a valid consideration, and at least as complex as simply attempting to overwelm partisan groups. Pushing harder at insurgencies can actually backfire and assist the people taking the stand of freedom fighter.

There are two religious sects fighting each other in Iraq. The United States withdrawing would not change this.

You have a greater chance of dying in a car crash than you do getting killed in Iraq, and last time I checked, we're still a volunteer professional military.

Hang on, are you using the fact that Americans kill 40,000+ of their own people on the roads as a justification for foreign military interventions? Shurely not.

Here's a better question: do you honestly believe that the only logical course of action that should be taken to end a conflict is turning your back on it? Do you honestly believe that a ray of sunshine will suddenly burst through the clouds the second the United States withdraws from Iraq just because no Americans are present?

I think the actual question you might be groping towards is 'do you believe that a long term peaceful solution will be achieved through use of Coalition bullets?'. My answer is 'no'.

If the U.S. pulls out of Iraq, civil war will ensue. In the end, a victorious side would imerge, and without democracy imposed upon the ruling government, it is extremely doubtful that they would practice democratic and peaceful ideals. Thus, a new violent dictatorship would be born.

I am unconvinced that there would simply be a period of rival warlords at the end of which the winner would be the next "who wants to be a dictator" posterboy. Just because the United States pulls out and removes the "big stick" from the equation does not mean that we can not still offer incentives towards democracy. Firstly, with the United States out I am positive that the UN would become all kinds of helpful with aid and whatnot, also, Iraq is fragmented enough, that if smaller groups banded together they could form a majority. In other words, I think that there is as good of a chance of building a democracy without the United States pounding it out as there is with.

Says who? we supported Saddam into power in the first place...

Really? I don't think you did (assuming you are speaking as a representative of one of the Western nations). Supported him once he was entrenched in his position of power? Certainly. 'Supported him into power' (sic)? Nah.

I think the actual question you might be groping towards is 'do you believe that a long term peaceful solution will be achieved through use of Coalition bullets?'. My answer is 'no'.

Who said anything about a long-term peaceful solution? No one is suggesting that this is even close to being an attainable goal. The United States is striving to subdue the sectarian violence to a level where the Iraqi government can manage it on its own. Complete and total peace is unrealistic and quite laughable; no one is idealistic or stupid enough to believe that the continual occupation of Iraq will achieve that.

There are two religious sects fighting each other in Iraq. The United States withdrawing would not change this.

There are MORE than two religious sects fighting each other in Iraq, and while US withdrawel will not change that, it will remove as I keep saying, the biggest enemy, the US.

I still must include, I dont necessarily support immediate withdrawel, I honestly see a no-win kind of situation at this point.

Perhaps the best Idea would be to attempt to rewind to before western intervention and split Iraq into the three states it was prior to british rule.

Just because the United States pulls out and removes the "big stick" from the equation does not mean that we can not still offer incentives towards democracy.

...

In other words, I think that there is as good of a chance of building a democracy without the United States pounding it out as there is with.

Question: what is the reaction if the democratically expressed will of the peope of Iraq is not actually for a democracy at all, but instead,for example, a religious oligarchy?

Oh, and "would require" invasion and nation building at another date" since when was a country being fucked up valid justification to go fix things militarily? This is a seriously fucked up perception of the US's role in international politics. If we are suddenly world police, forget Iraq lets go fix Darfur first, lets go give Tibet its independance, they got fucked, why not go kick the chinese out?

The US frequently shies away from its moral duty to protect those who are persecuted simply because there is no evident strategic gain from such a course of action. Conversely, the US often jumps at the nihilistic call to slaughter innocents simply because such an action would result in a strategic gain. To the US, Rwanda was an insignificant country in which an inconsequential genocide was occurring; we didn't condescend enough to save hundreds of thousands of lives. The the US, Iraq represented a political boon, either in terms of oil or whatever the ulterior motive for invasion was, and the hundreds of thousands of deaths incurred as a result of the invasion were inconsequential and insignificant. The US often commits vile acts to perpetuate its own self-interest; it has always been that way and it always will be that way. However, none of that could possibly be used to excuse a withdrawal, and the subsequent horrendous loss of Iraqi lives. No, we haven't been living up to our role as world police, but we should nonetheless strive to fulfill that role in Iraq, either for altruistic or selfish purposes. And, as a side note, are you honestly advocating war with China?

There are two religious sects fighting each other in Iraq. The United States withdrawing would not change this.

And there are factions inside each of those religious groups which are vying for power as well. In short, you have a fractious civil war right now, and if the US continues to stay there, it will be, in essence, taking sides in that civil war. Right now, it looks like we're siding with Maliki and the Dawa party, which is allied with Sadr. That's going to make the Sunnis hate us even more, and considering that al Qaeda is an offshoot of Sunni Islam, well, it's not a particularly smart move (not that that's a surprise, given this administration's propensity to fuck up everything it touches). The best thing the US can do long term for its interests is get out of the way and give the winners money to rebuild when it's all over. Oh, and in the meantime, start getting off the oil, too.

I am unconvinced that there would simply be a period of rival warlords at the end of which the winner would be the next "who wants to be a dictator" posterboy. Just because the United States pulls out and removes the "big stick" from the equation does not mean that we can not still offer incentives towards democracy. Firstly, with the United States out I am positive that the UN would become all kinds of helpful with aid and whatnot, also, Iraq is fragmented enough, that if smaller groups banded together they could form a majority. In other words, I think that there is as good of a chance of building a democracy without the United States pounding it out as there is with.

Did you see or even hear about the execution of Saddam Hussein? Do you understand that terrorist insurgents make up a large portion of the fighting on both sides, and that none of them wish to see a nice, democratic end to their struggle? Can you comprehend that democracy is not a part of that region's vocabularly, nor has it ever been? And since when have economic aid and "incentives" been enough to instill democracy?

Who said anything about a long-term peaceful solution? No one is suggesting that this is even close to being an attainable goal. The United States is striving to subdue the sectarian violence to a level where the Iraqi government can manage it on its own. Complete and total peace is unrealistic and quite laughable; no one is idealistic or stupid enough to believe that the continual occupation of Iraq will achieve that.

So the much heralded 'liberation of the Iraqi people' was actually a liberation into a state of war?

Really? I don't think you did (assuming you are speaking as a representative of one of the Western nations). Supported him once he was entrenched in his position of power? Certainly. 'Supported him into power' (sic)? Nah.

True, I miswrote. I was simply refering to the fact that Regan had Iraq under Saddam removed from the terrorist state list, giving the Iraqi people very good incentive not to overthrow him relatively early in his regime. This and other US actions helped Saddam stay in power far longer than I think he would have on his own

And there are factions inside each of those religious groups which are vying for power as well. In short, you have a fractious civil war right now, and if the US continues to stay there, it will be, in essence, taking sides in that civil war. Right now, it looks like we're siding with Maliki and the Dawa party, which is allied with Sadr. That's going to make the Sunnis hate us even more, and considering that al Qaeda is an offshoot of Sunni Islam, well, it's not a particularly smart move (not that that's a surprise, given this administration's propensity to fuck up everything it touches). The best thing the US can do long term for its interests is get out of the way and give the winners money to rebuild when it's all over. Oh, and in the meantime, start getting off the oil, too.

And what will stepping out of the way and allowing a new dictatorship to rise up do for U.S. interests? What will the Iraqis who support the United States think of us when we let them go on their own? We'll just have another America-hating regime on our hands again.

Did you see or even hear about the execution of Saddam Hussein? Do you understand that terrorist insurgents make up a large portion of the fighting on both sides, and that none of them wish to see a nice, democratic end to their struggle? Can you comprehend that democracy is not a part of that region's vocabularly, nor has it ever been? And since when have economic aid and "incentives" been enough to instill democracy?

So if democracy is not part of that regions vocabulary, we should just go and insert it?

True, I miswrote. I was simply refering to the fact that Regan had Iraq under Saddam removed from the terrorist state list, giving the Iraqi people very good incentive not to overthrow him relatively early in his regime. This and other US actions helped Saddam stay in power far longer than I think he would have on his own

That I can't argue with (although knowledge of the US's list of terrorist states and the contents thereof under the Reagan adminsitration is beyond me, so I'll take that on faith).

So if democracy is not part of that regions vocabulary, we should just go and insert it?

Now that we have established a democracy in Iraq, I would say it would be good to try and maintain that, don't you? Or should we just let it go to hell and allow complete and total civil war and the eventual creation of another dictatorship?

And what will stepping out of the way and allowing a new dictatorship to rise up do for U.S. interests? What will the Iraqis who support the United States think of us when we let them go on their own? We'll just have another America-hating regime on our hands again.

So just because a group supports the US we should support them? even if it is a minority? Vietnam? it took a while, but I think eventually we figured out, even if there is a small group who agrees with us and is in strong US support, it isnt such a good idea to try and place them in power over the anti-US majority.

Who cares about US interests. that really isnt supposed to be the point right? and as far as US interests go, I would say that getting the US soldiers out of harms way and stopping the billions of dollars being spent on this war are in the US's interests

Now that we have established a democracy in Iraq, I would say it would be good to try and maintain that, don't you? Or should we just let it go to hell and allow complete and total civil war and the eventual creation of another dictatorship?

If it is not in the regions "vocabulary" as in a majority is against it, then no, we shouldnt. And if the Majority is for it, then the forces we have there now should be enough, it should not take that long to train the majority to support itself. After that, if we simply support them in the tradition of Turkey and Israel, then they should be fine.

So just because a group supports the US we should support them? even if it is a minority? Vietnam? it took a while, but I think eventually we figured out, even if there is a small group who agrees with us and is in strong US support, it isnt such a good idea to try and place them in power of the anti-US majority.

Who cares about US interests. that really isnt supposed to be the point right? and as far as US interests go, I would say that getting the US soldiers out of harms way and stopping the billions of dollars being spent on this war are in the US's interests

This war is not about America-lovers vs. America-haters in Iraq. Its about Sunnis vs. Shiites, Insurgents vs. the new Iraqi government. The United States is supporting the creation of a democratically-based Iraqi government. Allowing a new dictatorship to rise up that hates the United States will make this entire conflict useless, so why just give up and let it happen?

Who cares about U.S. interests? I would say I do, considering I'm an American and that this is an American war. We're paying for it, we're fighting it, we started it -- of course it should be a goal for it to have served our interests.

That I can't argue with (although knowledge of the US's list of terrorist states and the contents thereof under the Reagan adminsitration is beyond me, so I'll take that on faith).

I dont know where you would find a complete list exactly, though if you are interested, I am pretty sure that I know where to find one. Its just that it would not be electronic, and as such would be a pain in the ass (I am living in Norway, so american government doc.s are hard to come by)

If it is not in the regions "vocabulary" as in a majority is against it, then no, we shouldnt. And if the Majority is for it, then the forces we have there now should be enough, it should not take that long to train the majority to support itself. After that, if we simply support them in the tradition of Turkey and Israel, then they should be fine.

So we just let everything we've accomplished go to complete hell and make the billions of dollars spent and 3,000 lives lost due to this war a complete and utter waste of time? Yeah...that makes sense.

So we just let everything we've accomplished go to complete hell and make the billions of dollars spent and 3,000 lives lost due to this war a complete and utter waste of time? Yeah...that makes sense.

And the alternative is what, to keep pissing into the money pit?

And the alternative is what, to keep pissing into the money pit?

Seeing as how we've pissed into the money pit for three years now in order to make this work -- yes.

This war is not about America-lovers vs. America-haters in Iraq. Its about Sunnis vs. Shiites, Insurgents vs. the new Iraqi government. The United States is supporting the creation of a democratically-based Iraqi government. Allowing a new dictatorship to rise up that hates the United States will make this entire conflict useless, so why just give up and let it happen?

Who cares about U.S. interests? I would say I do, considering I'm an American and that this is an American war. We're paying for it, we're fighting it, we started it -- of course it should be a goal for it to have served our interests.

I reiterate, I think that American interests are getting out ASAP, it is expensive as hell and kills americans.

Second, I was simply responding to your comment about "what would the Iraqis who supported the US think?"

In general, if the majority wants democracy, then a couple of years training plus weapons etc. should be sufficient for the Majority to take care of itself. And if most people are against democracy, then no, I dont think we have any right to be there shoving it down their throats. If the majority wants a civil war, then I think we damn well ought to let them have a civil war.

And your concern over trading is misplaced. Any new dictatorship is going to be begging to trade with us. It was US policy since before Saddam that a strong dictator in Iraq is the best for American financial interests

So we just let everything we've accomplished go to complete hell and make the billions of dollars spent and 3,000 lives lost due to this war a complete and utter waste of time? Yeah...that makes sense.

YES!!!
If Iraq does not want democracy. If the majority opposes it. THEN WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO FORCE IT ON THEM! no matter what our interests, and again, see my last post. Conventional wisdom states that a strong dictator is in our best interests

I reiterate, I think that American interests are getting out ASAP, it is expensive as hell and kills americans.

Second, I was simply responding to your comment about "what would the Iraqis who supported the US think?"

In general, if the majority wants democracy, then a couple of years training plus weapons etc. should be sufficient for the Majority to take care of itself. And if most people are against democracy, then no, I dont think we have any right to be there shoving it down their throats. If the majority wants a civil war, then I think we damn well ought to let them have a civil war.

And your concern over trading is misplaced. Any new dictatorship is going to be begging to trade with us. It was US policy since before Saddam that a strong dictator in Iraq is the best for American financial interests

Not a disgruntled dictatorship that hates the United States, especially with mounting tensions in nearby Iran.

Seeing as how we've pissed into the money pit for three years now in order to make this work -- yes.

And what evidence do you have that the money we are pissing away isnt really just getting pissed away? Violence is at an all time high (or was in the last two months) sounds to me like we are fighting a losing battle, sounds like we could keep pissing for the next several years and spend far more than we could ever hope to recoup from this venture

Not a disgruntled dictatorship that hates the United States, especially with mounting tensions in nearby Iran.

I simply disagree with you. You should really take a closer look. Iraq and Iran have never gotten on well. Iran is not economically strong enough to do much for Iraq, the US has stopping power in the UN, whoever came out on top, they WOULD want to have good relations with the US, they wouldnt have any alternative. I might say China, but I really dont think that they are that interested in pissing us off just yet.

I simply disagree with you. You should really take a closer look. Iraq and Iran have never gotten on well. Iran is not economically strong enough to do much for Iraq, the US has stopping power in the UN, whoever came out on top, they WOULD want to have good relations with the US, they wouldnt have any alternative. I might say China, but I really dont think that they are that interested in pissing us off just yet.

Sure they would have an alternative -- look no further than Saddam Hussein's Iraq or Iran itself. Do either of those examples show states that had good relations with the U.S.?

Iraq, with a militant Shiite majority (the group that would most likely come out on top), could easily be an ally to Iran. That much is clear.

Sure they would have an alternative -- look no further than Saddam Hussein's Iraq or Iran itself. Do either of those examples show states that had good relations with the U.S.?

Iraq, with a militant Shiite majority (the group that would most likely come out on top), could easily be an ally to Iran. That much is clear.

The Saddam US relationship was one firmly in US control, we imposed the sanctions, we refused the trade. Sure relations were sour, but the oil for food program still went on, allowing for a humanitarian facade while still getting the one thing we wanted out of the country. Your right Iraq under Saddam is a good example, and it served US interests fine.

Sure Iraq and Iran could be allies, but Iran cannot do what Iraq would need done, they both have a bunch of oil, but that isnt what Iraq is going to need. So no, ally or not, Iraq would still come crawling back to the US.

....


It is clear that without the presence of US forces, with that last shred of a semblance of law and order gone, Iraq will utterly collapse upon itself and there will be no government of which to speak. The consequences would be unimaginably calamitous. Allowing Iraq to descend even further into the quicksand of disorder is intolerable. ...

Hmmmm
If the criminals who have created and continue to keep the problems going
don't stay then Iraq will be doomed?

Hell no.

World War 2 could not have ended more successfully and/or peacefully if the nazis had been allowed to stabilise their occupied countries.

There is no chance of a solution for Iraq, the world or even the US surprisingly, that involves the US remaining in Iraq.

Hmmmm
If the criminals who have created and continue to keep the problems going
don't stay then Iraq will be doomed?

Hell no.

World War 2 could not have ended more successfully and/or peacefully if the nazis had been allowed to stabilise their occupied countries.

There is no chance of a solution for Iraq, the world or even the US surprisingly, that involves the US remaining in Iraq.

I think that I kind of agree with you, but find the Nazi reference unnecesarily inflamatory.

...not to mention woefully inaccurate

And what will stepping out of the way and allowing a new dictatorship to rise up do for U.S. interests? What will the Iraqis who support the United States think of us when we let them go on their own? We'll just have another America-hating regime on our hands again.

1. US soldiers will stop dying, and maybe we'll get serious about energy independence.

2. They'll hate us, which is what we deserve.

The Saddam US relationship was one firmly in US control, we imposed the sanctions, we refused the trade. Sure relations were sour, but the oil for food program still went on, allowing for a humanitarian facade while still getting the one thing we wanted out of the country. Your right Iraq under Saddam is a good example, and it served US interests fine.

Sure Iraq and Iran could be allies, but Iran cannot do what Iraq would need done, they both have a bunch of oil, but that isnt what Iraq is going to need. So no, ally or not, Iraq would still come crawling back to the US.

Who says Iran would be the one helping Iraq? In case you haven't heard the reports, Iraq's economy is actually quite stable, even booming in some parts.

Even if relations went on well between Iraq and the U.S., the threat of another unstable dictatorship is not something we need. Although we still got our oil and still determined the terms of the sanctions when Saddam was in power, he was still a dangerous dictator and was a potential threat for U.S. security.

Let us also look at the potential victors in a civil war. If the Sunnis were to take power, they would be directly connected to al Qaeda, due to the organization's infilitration of the country after the fall of Saddam. If the Shiites were to take power, Iran would have an ally right next door, one especially emboldened by the fact that the United States left them to fend for themselves. Even if no kinship was forged between the two nations, it is doubtful that a Shiite Iraqi dictatorship would view the United States favorably. Considering the violent tendencies of those people and their anti-American views, we would still have another threat to American security on our hands.

...
Who cares about U.S. interests? I would say I do, considering I'm an American and that this is an American war. We're paying for it, we're fighting it, we started it -- of course it should be a goal for it to have served our interests.

It is an american war alright but Iraq and the Iraqis have, are and will continue to pay for it. Americans should kneel and fervently pray that it never costs them as much as it has cost those people they have inflicted this terror on.
But if there were a god, and if he/she or it were a just god then prayers now would be way too late.

So we just let everything we've accomplished go to complete hell and make the billions of dollars spent and 3,000 lives lost due to this war a complete and utter waste of time? Yeah...that makes sense.

Ever heard the saying "throwing good money after bad?" That's where we are with Iraq, and have been ever since this misadventure began.

1. US soldiers will stop dying, and maybe we'll get serious about energy independence.

2. They'll hate us, which is what we deserve.

Are you kidding me? america serious about energy independance? somebody had better nuke the entire middle east. It sure would be nice though.

anyways, I am out for the night, it been a pleasure

1. US soldiers will stop dying, and maybe we'll get serious about energy independence.

2. They'll hate us, which is what we deserve.

1. In turn for more Iraqis dying in a conflict we started. How sweet.

2. If we can maintain a government with direct ties to us, however, then why let that go?

1. US soldiers will stop dying, and maybe we'll get serious about energy independence.

2. They'll hate us, which is what we deserve.

That would be great if you love to be hated... of course, since we are criminals of the worst order what else would be fitting? I suppose self-loathing is infectious

It is an american war alright but Iraq and the Iraqis have, are and will continue to pay for it. Americans should kneel and fervently pray that it never costs them as much as it has cost those people they have inflicted this terror on.
But if there were a god, and if he/she or it were a just god then prayers now would be way too late.

You actually hit the problem on the head... god. If there were no god then they would not be killing each other over their god, or how they view their god. God is at the heart of the matter. All organised religions should be abolished. Their history is no better than well-meaning nations.

That would be great if you love to be hated... of course, since we are criminals of the worst order what else would be fitting? I suppose self-loathing is infectious

And why, pray tell, do you hate America, little boy/girl?

1. In turn for more Iraqis dying in a conflict we started. How sweet.

2. If we can maintain a government with direct ties to us, however, then why let that go?
1. You asked what would happen; I told you. If we hadn't gone in in the first place, this wouldn't even be an issue. Like I said earlier, there's no unshitting the bed here. The best we can hope for is that US troops stop dying and maybe when it's over, the whole country doesn't hate us for a thousand years.

2. You want another Saddam? He was our boy, remember? But if you're calling what's there now a government, then you're delusional. Governments have control. And if you're calling it a democracy, then you're either a fool or a liar, because it's nothing more than a facade of a democracy. And that's not going to change whether we stay ten months or ten years.

And why, pray tell, do you hate America, little boy/girl?

I don't. I was being really, really, really, really, sarcastic. And I am probably older than you I should think. I support us staying, as I mentioned at the beginning of the thread.

Don't even try to tell me that all Americans are responsible. There are quite a few of us that didn't want Bush to do what he did. The fact is we can't afford to stay there indefinately. Those people need to start defending their country themselves. And they won't do that as long as we are doing it for them.

You actually hit the problem on the head... god. If there were no god then they would not be killing each other over their god, or how they view their god. God is at the heart of the matter. All organised religions should be abolished. Their history is no better than well-meaning nations.

People would still be killing each other--God's just a convenient excuse.

Fuck you for saying that people who said from the beginning that this was a bad idea are on the same moral plane as those who cheerleaded (cheerled?) this war into existence. And that's just for starters. Yes, the situation will be bad when US troops leave--and notice I said when, not if, because withdrawal from a bad situation is an inevitability at this point. The bed has been shat in, and there is no way to unshit it at this point.

So here's the ugly truth of it. The sooner US troops withdraw, the sooner they stop dying in an Iraqi Civil War, and the sooner the real struggle for power in the region comes to a climax.

QFT.

1. You asked what would happen; I told you. If we hadn't gone in in the first place, this wouldn't even be an issue. Like I said earlier, there's no unshitting the bed here. The best we can hope for is that US troops stop dying and maybe when it's over, the whole country doesn't hate us for a thousand years.

2. You want another Saddam? He was our boy, remember? But if you're calling what's there now a government, then you're delusional. Governments have control. And if you're calling it a democracy, then you're either a fool or a liar, because it's nothing more than a facade of a democracy. And that's not going to change whether we stay ten months or ten years.

1. Well that's great. Just leave and hope for the best. You're a regular military policy scholar.

2. No, I wouldn't like another brutal dictator who killed his own people, among others, and was never "our boy" despite the arrangement we had. Nor would I support letting a democracy in its infancy die.

1. Well that's great. Just leave and hope for the best. You're a regular military policy scholar.

2. No, I wouldn't like another brutal dictator who killed his own people, among others, and was never "our boy" despite the arrangement we had. Nor would I support letting a democracy in its infancy die.

Well then, Mister Military Fucking Scholar, what do you propose? What we've been doing hasn't worked. Twenty thousand more troops for a limited period isn't going to work--even if we had them, which we don't. We've got nine thousand, and the rest are just troops we're extending and short-rotating yet again. How do we unshit this bed? Please, grace us with your wisdom. :rolleyes:

We need to stay until we have stabilized Iraq to an acceptable level. It is simply horrendous that we can even contemplate withdrawal when 500 hundred mostly innocent people are being killed daily. As somebody else noted, we'd have another Rwanda on our hands -- only worse. We are the root of the problems in Iraq, and we should have the decency to help resolve them.


BS.

The problem is islamic militants. The reason we're still here. It's also the reason 22k more troops are headed to Iraq-to help quell the insurgency. There are those who would say it's somehow making the situation worse. What a load of crap. They're headed there to suppress the insurgency enough so that when we do leave the Iraqi government can handle it itself, hopefully.

But chances are we will still have some sort of military presence there for a while. Advisors, most likely.

The IP and ING are getting better. There are some crack units of the ING (Composed of mostly Saddam era republican national guard) and then there are the Iraqi bubbas who show up for paychecks and not much else. I read about one a few weeks ago on Michael yon's blog. Hard core dude.

The reason we're still here.
So is this a typo or a lie or are you posting from Iraq? Somehow I doubt it's the latter.

1. Well that's great. Just leave and hope for the best. You're a regular military policy scholar.

2. No, I wouldn't like another brutal dictator who killed his own people, among others, and was never "our boy" despite the arrangement we had. Nor would I support letting a democracy in its infancy die.

the problem with your idea is that you are forgetting who the president of the united states is.

bush has fucked this up from before day one. he came into office planning to go to war in iraq, he trumped up evidence of why it was necessary, he went it, he removed anyone who disagreed with his delusional belief that we were dong a great job.

now that he has finally admitted that its not going well do you really think that this is some kind of brain transplant and that anything about this is going to go right?

whats that quote about insanity meaning that you do the same thing over and over expecting different results?

Well then, Mister Military Fucking Scholar, what do you propose? What we've been doing hasn't worked. Twenty thousand more troops for a limited period isn't going to work--even if we had them, which we don't. We've got nine thousand, and the rest are just troops we're extending and short-rotating yet again. How do we unshit this bed? Please, grace us with your wisdom. :rolleyes:

You mean like your wise, though self-righteous remarks regarding God as a convenient excuse for violence... I'll just check the history books on that. Killing in the name of 'god' has been the regional pastime for 3000 years... but what the fuck do I know? The ivory towers know what is best for me and mine... I'll go burn my degree now.

Well then, Mister Military Fucking Scholar, what do you propose? What we've been doing hasn't worked. Twenty thousand more troops for a limited period isn't going to work--even if we had them, which we don't. We've got nine thousand, and the rest are just troops we're extending and short-rotating yet again. How do we unshit this bed? Please, grace us with your wisdom. :rolleyes:

We can try to make things work with a new strategy, rather than just saying, "Eh, this shit ain't workin', probably won't work. Fuck it."

By the way -- the U.S. military is comprised of 2,685,713 troops, 1,426,713 on active duty. We currently have 132,000 service members in Iraq. Tell me, where are you getting nine thousand from?

You mean like your wise, though self-righteous remarks regarding God as a convenient excuse for violence... I'll just check the history books on that. Killing in the name of 'god' has been the regional pastime for 3000 years... but what the fuck do I know? The ivory towers know what is best for me and mine... I'll go burn my degree now.

You wrote that God was the problem and that if there were no religion, we wouldn't be killing each other over it. But while wars are occasionally only over religious belief, more often they're over control of resources, and religion is a convenient fig leaf, a justification.

We can try to make things work with a new strategy, rather than just saying, "Eh, this shit ain't workin', probably won't work. Fuck it."

By the way -- the U.S. military is comprised of 2,685,713 troops, 1,426,713 on active duty. We currently have 132,000 service members in Iraq. Tell me, where are you getting nine thousand from?
Nope--you don't get to weasel out of it. Give me your plan to save the situation, or shut the hell up about the subject.

Nope--you don't get to weasel out of it. Give me your plan to save the situation, or shut the hell up about the subject.

I wasn't weaseling out of it...have you even read this thread? I said, early on, that I remain cynical of sending more troops to Iraq, but believe that the alternatives are not satisfying, so I support it over them. The goal here is to strengthen the Iraqi government to the point where they can manage the conflict themselves to a degree where utter chaos does not prevail. I support efforts towards this goal, including this one, however skeptical I may be of it. For, in the end, I remain utterly and thoroughly opposed to an immediate or short-term withdrawl as you seem to advocate.

You wrote that God was the problem and that if there were no religion, we wouldn't be killing each other over it. But while wars are occasionally only over religious belief, more often they're over control of resources, and religion is a convenient fig leaf, a justification.

The problem in that region is god because the people cannot separate god from the body politic, much in the same way that pre-Treaty of Westphalia, Europe could not do so either. While the Crusades had political motivation, god was in everything, even politics. Now, for western nations you would be correct, but in the Middle East ideology is everything. They are simply not allowed to separate Church and State or they would be violating the law of their god. And in this present conflict, the Iraqis would not be killing each other over their secterian beliefs. They might even be more unified against the US, who knows? We can go around and around on this alas, but religion has always been the heart of the region and will be the implement of its destruction. In any event, I am more or less done. So we must agree to disagree at least.

We need to stay until we have stabilized Iraq to an acceptable level. It is simply horrendous that we can even contemplate withdrawal when 500 hundred mostly innocent people are being killed daily. As somebody else noted, we'd have another Rwanda on our hands -- only worse. We are the root of the problems in Iraq, and we should have the decency to help resolve them.

This is exactly the kind of thinking that causes foreign policy problems in the first place. You don't make decisions in war based on what's the decent thing to do, you don't try to be a nice guy, you try to do whatever is in your best interests. The only reason we could possibly justify staying in Iraq is if leaving(i.e. Shiite dictatorship of everything but Kurdistan) would risk losing Iraqi oil(which we aren't getting much of anyway), but it would be very easy to withdraw and leave a friendly Kurdish government in the north, and a friendly Shiite, albeit dictatorial government in the rest of the country. All we have to do is slowly pull out while supplying the Shiite militias with weapons, airstrikes, and razor blades to cut themselves with. So what if the Sunnis get screwed in the process, the Sunnis make up most of the insurgency, and they were brutal to all the other ethnic groups when they were in power under Saddam. This strategy would save America money, lives, and oil. I wouldn't worry about Iran either, because even if most Iraqis are Shiite, they're Arabs, not Persians, and probably won't want to buddy up with the same guys who killed their brothers, sons, and fathers.

It's not going to happen though, becasue it isn't the "decent" thing to do.

I wasn't weaseling out of it...have you even read this thread? I said, early on, that I remain cynical of sending more troops to Iraq, but believe that the alternatives are not satisfying, so I support it over them. The goal here is to strengthen the Iraqi government to the point where they can manage the conflict themselves to a degree where utter chaos does not prevail. I support efforts towards this goal, including this one, however skeptical I may be of it. For, in the end, I remain utterly and thoroughly opposed to an immediate or short-term withdrawl as you seem to advocate.

If you don't have a plan, then don't fucking sneer at those of us who say we ought to get out because we should never have been there to begin with. At least we're advocating something, and it's something that will have a measurable effect on the quality of US lives.

If you don't have a plan, then don't fucking sneer at those of us who say we ought to get out because we should never have been there to begin with. At least we're advocating something, and it's something that will have a measurable effect on the quality of US lives.

I'm advocating something, too. Just because it's not black and white and an absolute doesn't mean that it does not exist. And I never sneered at you or anyone else...I disagreed with you. The only one sneering here is you.

I'm advocating something, too. Just because it's not black and white and an absolute doesn't mean that it does not exist. And I never sneered at you or anyone else...I disagreed with you. The only one sneering here is you.
That's a sneer (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12207080&postcount=74), whether you meant it as one or not. And from what it sounds like, you're advocating more of the same. Well, if what we've been doing isn't working, what the hell makes you think it's going to work in the future?

Sectarian militias are engaging in campaigns of ethnic cleansing, more or less unchecked by American troops, which are stretched too thin and come under constant fire. To many, the current condition in Iraq compounded with the outrageous cost of the war is sufficient reason to prepare for a hasty withdrawal.

Not entirely. I have a moralistic approach; we went into this war as liberators and became occupiers. We went in based on lies and fallacies. We are there now as criminals. A criminal, having committed a crime, cannot stand around hoping to make things better by continuing the crime. A rapist, having realized he has made a mistake in choosing to rape a victim, cannot make things better by continuing the rape. He cannot make things better for the victim in any way but by leaving.


Such anti-war individuals were proponents of withdrawal from the first day.

Perhaps because we knew this was a bad idea from the start and that once started, people like you would champion to continue it for no other reason than "finish what we began."

They became more vehement with the rise of the insurgency. The sectarian conflict only served to increase their determination. Ultimately, the present-day situation only solidified their opposition. The idea of withdrawal has been irreversibly implanted in their mind. This predetermined concept clouds their objectivity; they see only the evidence which supports their thesis and disregard all else to the contrary. In short, they are subject to the same pitfalls as the Bush administration.

No, the Bush administration is guilty of lying, and of invading a country for no real reason. You seem to be intelligent, so I'll let you figure out how that pitfall is rather different from the "pitfall" of wanting to withdraw.


It is clear that without the presence of US forces, with that last shred of a semblance of law and order gone, Iraq will utterly collapse upon itself and there will be no government of which to speak.

It's clear that US forces are responsible for that very lack of law and order in the first place. US actions were responsible for eliminating central government and then pouring salt on the wound that opened up. That wound is going to hurt with or without our continued presence. Although it might hurt a bit more if we stay, what with most people seeming to be antagonized by a foreign occupying force. (Can't imagine why.)

The only possible effect an absence of American troops can have is a further disintegration of the Iraqi state.

And the possible effect of a presence of American troops? Hmm, let's see how well we've done for Iraq so far. Hell, don't ask me. Ask the Iraqis.

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

Don't make the same mistake Bush did; refuse to allow an excess of Iraqi civilians to die and stay in the country and do whatever you can to improve the situation. Anything else would be catastrophic.

Even if we accept your premise that withdrawal is a mistake, it is NOT the same one Bush did, and I rather think your stretching comparison is designed merely to appeal to emotion.

That's a sneer (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12207080&postcount=74), whether you meant it as one or not. And from what it sounds like, you're advocating more of the same. Well, if what we've been doing isn't working, what the hell makes you think it's going to work in the future?

Some gains have been made, as it has been mentioned in this thread. Perhaps this new strategy, with more troops and the patrolling of neighborhoods, will prove more effective. It's a chance, but I'd rather take a chance on making things better than just up and leaving, letting everything to straigt to hell. "Paper tiger", indeed.

Let me make myself clear though: if this new strategy fails, and if no new gains are made from it in the near future, then I will support a timetable for withdrawl. I don't support staying in Iraq indefinitely -- I just oppose withdrawing prematurely.

I am not wildly amused by the situation we are in.

The US invited itself into a situation that has not comfortably resolved itself for millenia, and yet here we are in our supreme arrogance thinking that we can solve it in less than a generation.

Arguments to "augment" troops are utterly foolish. 21,000 troops phased in over a period of time will make no significant amount of difference. Counterinsurgency operations requires two things; a.) The proper ratio of troops to civilian population. b.) A stable, willing government. We have neither.

Withdrawal is not attractive either. But soon we will have to make that uncomfortable decision. Putting off the decision only increases the "butcher's bill" that we will have to pay. It is simply will not be economically feasible in the long run to continue down this path. Presidents have long needed the political goodwill of the people in order to continue extended military operations, and that goodwill is close to running dry. Heaven forbid if we actually NEED to do something militarily in the lame duck period of this President.

We have arrived at the point of neither side of the argument being attractive. The day is coming when we will have to choose the lesser of the two evils...and I simply believe we will rue the day we gave this guy the power to play Toy Soldiers with real men and women.

How many lives does it take, kids? I'm a retired military officer, we have 132,000 "boots" on the ground and yet we have to redeploy the same units over and over again. We have units going into their 4th and 5th tours of duty and stop loss policies. The answer is that our readiness is crippled and that we have the capability (if we strip all of the National Guard units) of 750,000 ground combat troops (figure is approximate). The rest is support personnel. General Erik Shinseki, when asked how many troops it would take to do the job right, answered 400,000. He was force retired and scoffed at. Back at the turn of the last century, T.H. Lawrence (of Arabia) a distinguished military officer himself, when commenting on the Turkish situation quoted a similar figure. The English massed out 150,000 troops and less than a decade later, came home after failing significantly on all war objectives. In plain English, they got their asses handed to them.

How many officers and generals will it take to convince people of just how damned difficult the Middle East is to accomplish military objectives? My active duty brothers are not being listened to. I guess that is the right the Commander in Chief has, but it doesn't make his decision making any less flawed or damned stupid.

The immediate effects of an increased level of American troops in Iraq are dubious; the extent to which the military will achieve its mission of securing Iraq is up to debate. However, we have seen several successes recently (although more isolated and insubstantial than would be necessary), such as the assault on insurgent positions on Haifa Street. If such trends continue, and our strategy is revised, we may expect to see lethargic betterments in the state of the country. It's not much, but it's certainly preferable to nothing. Now compare that to the predictable effects of withdrawal. Iraq would succumb to an endless and vicious cycle of sectarian violence which slowly draws more and more civilians into its bloody clutch. The country would fall into disrepair with nobody to even attempt to rebuild the infrastructure. The economy would collapse due to the incessant killings. That is simply not acceptable; anything, absolutely anything, which can avoid such a scenario is more desirable.

So when are you signing up to go help the cause?
The pResident said that this "cause" will demand sacrifice.
But I don't see HIS kids joining up!
I have to assume that you will be joining the military because some one is going to have to make the sacrifices.

stabilizing Iraq may be doomed to failure. Nonetheless, we owe it to the Iraqi people to at least attempt to offer them security, regardless of the cost to us.
We will let you tell that to the next mother that loses her son in Iraq because he was part of the "surge".
You can walk up to her door and tell her that she had to pay "the cost" of this war!

Fuck you for saying that people who said from the beginning that this was a bad idea are on the same moral plane as those who cheerleaded (cheerled?) this war into existence. And that's just for starters. Yes, the situation will be bad when US troops leave--and notice I said when, not if, because withdrawal from a bad situation is an inevitability at this point. The bed has been shat in, and there is no way to unshit it at this point.

So here's the ugly truth of it. The sooner US troops withdraw, the sooner they stop dying in an Iraqi Civil War, and the sooner the real struggle for power in the region comes to a climax.
I utterly agree with you. The rest is BS propaganda inline with "staying the course".

If you don't have a plan, then don't fucking sneer at those of us who say we ought to get out because we should never have been there to begin with. At least we're advocating something, and it's something that will have a measurable effect on the quality of US lives.

The quality US lives are of no interest. US lives cause death and destruction in Iraq. US lives are directly responsible for what is going on in Iraq because they put a moron in the White House twice. You messed up, now clean up. Properly. You went into Iraq to improve Iraqi lives (although you've been changing alibis for the invasion quite often), so now just do that. You are in fact trying to weasel out of this. Who doesn't show responsibility for his deliberate wrong decisions is a coward. You created the situation in Iraq and now you want to fail to render assistance. You should be sent to Iraq.

We will let you tell that to the next mother that loses her son in Iraq because he was part of the "surge".
You can walk up to her door and tell her that she had to pay "the cost" of this war!And what? You have spilled blood and have caused blood to be spilled of many many Iraqis unrighteously. For blood you shall render blood. In pain and bitterness you shall unlearn the lies of Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice and Powell.
The last line of the US national anthem is a question. And it can now be answered. The star sprangled banner now waves over the home of the ruthless, self-righteous, and proud.
And maybe we really see a piece of some higher justice at work here? There is no reason why Americans should sit on their couches before their tv screens and fill their bellies, while somewhere else people are dying because of their national arrogance which they erroneously name patriotism.

Hmmmm
If the criminals who have created and continue to keep the problems going
don't stay then Iraq will be doomed?

If you look past meaningless sound-bytes, you'll find that the answer is unequivocally "yes." Although the US army was the cause of the current sectarian crisis, it is also the only entity with sufficient power to quell the violence. It is clear that the Sunnis and Shias are not going to start hugging each other if US forces withdraw; they'll simply have a freer hand to slaughter each other, and innocent civilians. The best estimate of the civilian death toll is 650,000; of those, only 5% were caused by American troops. The "problems" in Iraq are not being worsened by an American troop presence, but rather alleviated; we have seen modest successes in targeting insurgents and militiamen, regardless of the many gaffes we have committed. To say that since our invasion was illegal, we shouldn't remain is illogical and woefully incorrect.

We will let you tell that to the next mother that loses her son in Iraq because he was part of the "surge".
You can walk up to her door and tell her that she had to pay "the cost" of this war!

An appeal to pity is not a valid argument. And, for that matter, I'd rather tell one American mother rather than 200 Iraqi mothers. Why do you value the life of an American more than the life of an Iraqi, let alone hundreds of Iraqis? Such arrogance is disgusting, frankly.

Not entirely. I have a moralistic approach; we went into this war as liberators and became occupiers. We went in based on lies and fallacies. We are there now as criminals. A criminal, having committed a crime, cannot stand around hoping to make things better by continuing the crime. A rapist, having realized he has made a mistake in choosing to rape a victim, cannot make things better by continuing the rape. He cannot make things better for the victim in any way but by leaving.

Your analogy isn't entirely apt, however. Let's say American forces were indeed rapists, who barged into a family's house and raped their daughter in front of their eyes. Obviously, they were infuriated at this act and attempted to attack the rapist. After punching him several times, to little effect, a murderer enters the house and starts systematically killing the family members. They are too weak to fend him off, and the police aren't coming; the only person powerful enough to defeat the murderer is the rapist. Well, sure, he's a criminal, but he's presented with a situation in which he can save the lives of the people he formerly victimized. If he refuses to act, they will all surely be killed. Regardless of his former crimes, I feel that the rapist should accept the noble task of rescuing the family from the murderer.

Perhaps because we knew this was a bad idea from the start and that once started, people like you would champion to continue it for no other reason than "finish what we began."

To whom are you referring as "people like me"? I thought the war was a terrible idea from the start. When seeing the rise of a (unified) insurgency, that was simply more reason to withdraw. However, since the formation of sectarian militias and the ensuing civil strife, I realized that the country could not pull itself out of its dire straits without the US lending a helping hand. I don't believe in finishing a crime once it begins; however, I do believe in preventing the futile and unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

No, the Bush administration is guilty of lying, and of invading a country for no real reason. You seem to be intelligent, so I'll let you figure out how that pitfall is rather different from the "pitfall" of wanting to withdraw.

Although the two pitfalls are distinct, they are predicated upon the same faulty logic. You aren't judging the merits of withdrawal objectively; you simply want to make our exeunt from the country because of previous "crimes" and a host of other reasons without caring about the Iraqis who will suffer as a result of such a decision. That was the same mistake committed by the Bush administration; they went to the planning board with their minds made up, and then selectively uncovered evidence to support their views. You are doing the same thing (or, if not you, many anti-war critics).

*snip*

Don't forget that historically speaking, US armed force training and mentality typically ignores workable counter insurgency operations and focuses more on target rich environments.

And what? You have spilled blood and have caused blood to be spilled of many many Iraqis unrighteously. For blood you shall render blood. In pain and bitterness you shall unlearn the lies of Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice and Powell.
The last line of the US national anthem is a question. And it can now be answered. The star sprangled banner now waves over the home of the ruthless, self-righteous, and proud.
And maybe we really see a piece of some higher justice at work here? There is no reason why Americans should sit on their couches before their tv screens and fill their bellies, while somewhere else people are dying because of their national arrogance which they erroneously name patriotism.

Now this isn't entirely fair. There were quite a few that were against invading Iraq from the very beginning.

What would be fair would have been if every single war supporter and war profiteer (from the beginning), was rounded up and sent there as is to deal with the situation and try to stabilize it. Wouldn't you agree?

To whom are you referring as "people like me"? I thought the war was a terrible idea from the start. When seeing the rise of a (unified) insurgency, that was simply more reason to withdraw. However, since the formation of sectarian militias and the ensuing civil strife, I realized that the country could not pull itself out of its dire straits without the US lending a helping hand. I don't believe in finishing a crime once it begins; however, I do believe in preventing the futile and unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

You're acting like the Mahdi Army just popped up in the last five years or something. Those militias existed during Saddam's rule, though they obviously didn't have the weight they do now, and those sectarian divisions existed too--they just weren't as outwardly visible as they are now. But experts in Iraq--experts the Bush administration either ignored or dismissed--knew the potential for all this.

You want to talk about a fallacy? The fallacy is that we were ever going to do this thing in a way that would turn out well for the Iraqis. Read your Orwell, especially "Marrakech." The Bush people, the PNACers and the Neocons, were all about establishing US hegemony--this is empire building, nothing less.

You want to talk about a fallacy? The fallacy is that we were ever going to do this thing in a way that would turn out well for the Iraqis. Read your Orwell, especially "Marrakech." The Bush people, the PNACers and the Neocons, were all about establishing US hegemony--this is empire building, nothing less.

I never claimed that Bush was Mother Teresa. Yes, the reasons for war were based on American strategic interests rather than the notion that the Iraqis were going to hop on their ships and invade New York. As I stated in my first post, the decision to invade Iraq was taken prior to the sedulous search for evidence to support such an invasion. The pretexts for invasion were simply to satisfy the American people. However, all that is tangential to the debate about what we should do now. Going to war in the first place was a nihilistic thing to do, as it condemned hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to their death for selfish reasons. Withdrawing now would also condemn hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to their death, and it would also be predicated upon selfish logic.

I never claimed that Bush was Mother Teresa. Yes, the reasons for war were based on American strategic interests rather than the notion that the Iraqis were going to hop on their ships and invade New York. As I stated in my first post, the decision to invade Iraq was taken prior to the sedulous search for evidence to support such an invasion. The pretexts for invasion were simply to satisfy the American people. However, all that is tangential to the debate about what we should do now. Going to war in the first place was a nihilistic thing to do, as it condemned hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to their death for selfish reasons. Withdrawing now would also condemn hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to their death, and it would also be predicated upon selfish logic.

Never mind. As long as you're going to make these ridiculous and insulting equivalencies, we're not going to get anywhere. Go on believing that the two groups are two sides of the same coin if you must--it's stupid and everyone here knows it.

Never mind. As long as you're going to make these ridiculous and insulting equivalencies, we're not going to get anywhere. Go on believing that the two groups are two sides of the same coin if you must--it's stupid and everyone here knows it.

It's not the same thing. It's similar to the difference between shooting a man and leaving him to die. One is killing by action and the other is killing by inaction. They are not equivalent acts, but they do have the same result.

Now this isn't entirely fair. There were quite a few that were against invading Iraq from the very beginning.Yes. French and Germans. Because they really know what war means.

What would be fair would have been if every single war supporter and war profiteer (from the beginning), was rounded up and sent there as is to deal with the situation and try to stabilize it. Wouldn't you agree?Blah. This is no fantastical setting in an imaginary courtroom.
Americans were daunted by the prospect of being called unpatriotic. There was no public outcry or even rage against your criminal government's plans or actions. You were all blinded by the real and assumed circumstances of 9/11, and the fear and panic that was seeded by those who committed this act let you lash out at anything that moved. You national arrogance and your vain pride in military strength and your inhuman pursuit of political, military, and economic world leadership with the simultaneous disregard for the feelings, lives, and needs of those beyond your borders are the reasons why US soldiers now are dying in Iraq, and that is only a small price compared to what Iraqis are paying for your typical US presumptuousness. And it seems the price still is not high enough.

I disagree entirely. Any administration that is fostered within a period of US administration and occupation will be irrevocably flawed, and thus incremental withdrawal will simply precipitate curther civil conflict. Civil war, if indeed it is not already extant, is an inevitability within Iraq, and thus either partition must occur, or Iraq must be left to resolve its own internal issues.

My word, how very effective national autonomy can be....:rolleyes:

Your analogy isn't entirely apt, however. Let's say American forces were indeed rapists, who barged into a family's house and raped their daughter in front of their eyes. Obviously, they were infuriated at this act and attempted to attack the rapist. After punching him several times, to little effect, a murderer enters the house and starts systematically killing the family members. They are too weak to fend him off, and the police aren't coming; the only person powerful enough to defeat the murderer is the rapist. Well, sure, he's a criminal, but he's presented with a situation in which he can save the lives of the people he formerly victimized. If he refuses to act, they will all surely be killed. Regardless of his former crimes, I feel that the rapist should accept the noble task of rescuing the family from the murderer.

So you are saying the "murderers" are somehow worse than the "rapist." But it's the same thing: troops killing people for no real good reason. The rapist is not noble for continuing the violence in the house. He should get out, and turn himself into the authorities. Period. Particularly because we all know that after he kills the "murderer" he'll just go back to raping everyone. In fact, he will be raping them at the same time he's tangoing with the murderer.

To whom are you referring as "people like me"? I thought the war was a terrible idea from the start.

I am referring to people who think we should "stay the course." Like yourself.

When seeing the rise of a (unified) insurgency, that was simply more reason to withdraw. However, since the formation of sectarian militias and the ensuing civil strife, I realized that the country could not pull itself out of its dire straits without the US lending a helping hand.

Yeah, I guess that's sorta like how the USA couldn't get out of the ACW without being invaded by France.

I don't believe in finishing a crime once it begins; however, I do believe in preventing the futile and unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

You believe in continuing the same situation which caused so many deaths already. You DO believe in finishing a crime once it begins. You didn't agree on the crime initially, but now you're all for it.

Although the two pitfalls are distinct, they are predicated upon the same faulty logic. You aren't judging the merits of withdrawal objectively; you simply want to make our exeunt from the country because of previous "crimes" and a host of other reasons without caring about the Iraqis who will suffer as a result of such a decision.

You aren't judging the merits of staying objectively; you simply want to "save people" with the same things that wound up killing them in the tens of thousands in the first place. You do not care about the Iraqis who will suffer as a result of such a decision.

I agree with you that pulling out would be ridiculous and only lead to the creation of another dictatorship akint to the one that Saddam lead, one that might require invasion () at another date and thus make this war fruitless.wait a minute.

are you saying: "the Invasion was required in the First place" ?
are you saying: "the US-Iraq War was required" ??

wait a minute.

are you saying that the Invasion was required in the First place?
are you saying that the US-Iraq War was required?

It hardly matters at this point. That part is way over.

What, are you saying that we can put Saddam back in power? Leave and put a corpse back in office?

Quick, before he gets cold!

I disagree entirely. Any administration that is fostered within a period of US administration and occupation will be irrevocably flawed, and thus incremental withdrawal will simply precipitate curther civil conflict. Civil war, if indeed it is not already extant, is an inevitability within Iraq, and thus either partition must occur, or Iraq must be left to resolve its own internal issues.

My word, how very effective national autonomy can be....:rolleyes:As if there were no US invasion?
It is the USA's responsibility and obligation to leave Iraq in a better condition than that prior to the invasion. You can't just start wars and then beat it when everything blows up in your face. :upyours:

What, are you saying that we can put Saddam back in power? Leave and put a corpse back in office?he seems to say.. If somonelse we dont like (another Saddam) gets to become President.. we'll have to invade Iraq again.

and all I am saying is: WTF??? (asking those 2 questions is my way to say "You are an idiot")

It's not the same thing. It's similar to the difference between shooting a man and leaving him to die. One is killing by action and the other is killing by inaction. They are not equivalent acts, but they do have the same result.
Most Iraqis see the presence of US troops as the biggest part of the problem in Iraq today. So you remove the biggest part of the problem?

Most Iraqis Want U.S. Troops Out Within a Year (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/250.php?nid=&id=&pnt=250&lb=hmpg1)

A new WPO poll of the Iraqi public finds that seven in ten Iraqis want U.S.-led forces to commit to withdraw within a year. An overwhelming majority believes that the U.S. military presence in Iraq is provoking more conflict than it is preventing and there is growing confidence in the Iraqi army. If the United States made a commitment to withdraw, a majority believes that this would strengthen the Iraqi government. Support for attacks on U.S.-led forces has grown to a majority position—now six in ten. Support appears to be related to a widespread perception, held by all ethnic groups, that the U.S. government plans to have permanent military bases in Iraq.


Never mind "staying the course".

As if there were no US invasion?
It is the USA's responsibility and obligation to leave Iraq in a better condition than that prior to the invasion. You can't just start wars and then beat it when everything blows up in your face. :upyours:
But you are making it worse not better.

Bush stated that the US forces would leave Iraq if asked to do so. I don't think too many people believe that Bush is telling the truth.

With 14 "enduring bases" being built in Iraq, the US will leave when she wants to, and not before.

"Staying the course", really means http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/250.php?nid=&id=&pnt=250&lb=hmpg1:

Support appears to be related to a widespread perception, held by all ethnic groups, that the U.S. government plans to have permanent military bases in Iraq.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/images/sep06/Iraq_Sep06_graph1g.jpg

The quality US lives are of no interest. US lives cause death and destruction in Iraq. US lives are directly responsible for what is going on in Iraq because they put a moron in the White House twice. You messed up, now clean up. Properly. You went into Iraq to improve Iraqi lives (although you've been changing alibis for the invasion quite often), so now just do that. You are in fact trying to weasel out of this. Who doesn't show responsibility for his deliberate wrong decisions is a coward. You created the situation in Iraq and now you want to fail to render assistance. You should be sent to Iraq.
And what? You have spilled blood and have caused blood to be spilled of many many Iraqis unrighteously. For blood you shall render blood. In pain and bitterness you shall unlearn the lies of Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice and Powell.
The last line of the US national anthem is a question. And it can now be answered. The star sprangled banner now waves over the home of the ruthless, self-righteous, and proud.
And maybe we really see a piece of some higher justice at work here? There is no reason why Americans should sit on their couches before their tv screens and fill their bellies, while somewhere else people are dying because of their national arrogance which they erroneously name patriotism.
I utterly and totally agree with both of these sentiments. Letting hundreds of thousands of Iraqis die due to a conflict we started just because we're tired of the burden it puts on our troops and their families is irresponsible to the people whose lives we have overturned.

So you are saying the "murderers" are somehow worse than the "rapist." But it's the same thing: troops killing people for no real good reason.

So you're saying that American troops killing terrorist insurgents whose only goal is violence and destruction is "no real good reason?"

The rapist is not noble for continuing the violence in the house. He should get out, and turn himself into the authorities. Period. Particularly because we all know that after he kills the "murderer" he'll just go back to raping everyone. In fact, he will be raping them at the same time he's tangoing with the murderer.

So you believe that the U.S. will kill the insurgents and then proceed to start up more violence with the Iraqi people that will just breed more terrorist insurgents in the country?

You believe in continuing the same situation which caused so many deaths already. You DO believe in finishing a crime once it begins. You didn't agree on the crime initially, but now you're all for it.

And you believe that now that the crime has been committed and we have started a war, we should just let it continue and allow everything over there to go to hell. Great. Very "peaceful" of you.

he seems to say.. If somonelse we dont like (another Saddam) gets to become President.. we'll have to invade Iraq again.

and all I am saying is: WTF??? (asking those 2 questions is my way to say "You are an idiot")

On the contrary, asking those two questions was your way of showing what a useless, half-witted, piece of shit moron you are. I don't even feel the need to discuss my views on the initial invasion because IT'S OVER and now we have to discuss what the hell we're going to do now that we're there. Trying to start up confrontations based on your idiotic "reading between the lines" (which is laughable, by the way) only serves to bring up moot points. I think I'm starting to see a theme, here: those who favor immediate withdrawl can only use the fact that the initial invasion was wrong as evidence for their cause. In other words, people like you are as guilty as the Bush administration -- backing up your cause with meaningless evidence that has no pertinence to the situation at hand. Arguing with you people looks something like this:

"Why should we withdraw?"
"We should have never gone there in the first place!!!!"
"But now that we're there, why just up and leave while the country is still in chaos?"
"Bush lied!!! American soldiers are dying!!!"
"But if we leave, a great deal more Iraqi citizens will die than American soldiers are dying right now due to a conflict that we started."
"BUSH LIED! NOOOOO WMDDDDSS!!! WE R EVIL!!!!"
"That doesn't make sense..."
U LOEV BUHS!!!!1111 neopfdsacon-ASSHUL!!!j0-324~!!!"

*snip*

It's not our fight. Honestly, we're not the ruler of the world, despite what the Imperialists say. Iraq isn't the 51st state in the Union. The US has an obligation to protect the lives of the citizens of it's country, not other countries.

In case you dismiss what I said above, I add this: the US in Iraq is likely causing more death then a civil war without the US. Anti-American terrorists are charging in their to fight. If we leave, Iraq will have a Civil War, and it's likely Iran or some other nation will conquer. Eventually, and sooner then if the US stayed, Iraq will be more or less peacful.

It's not our fight. Honestly, we're not the ruler of the world, despite what the Imperialists say. Iraq isn't the 51st state in the Union. The US has an obligation to protect the lives of the citizens of it's country, not other countries.
We have an interest to make the billions of dollars we have spent and 3,000 people we have lost due to this war worth something. It is every bit our fight. Frankly, I don't understand the arguments that "hawks" don't care about life when "doves" like you are so callous about the hundreds of thousands Iraqis who have already died and the more who will die if we leave.

In case you dismiss what I said above, I add this: the US in Iraq is likely causing more death then a civil war without the US. Anti-American terrorists are charging in their to fight. If we leave, Iraq will have a Civil War, and it's likely Iran or some other nation will conquer. Eventually, and sooner then if the US stayed, Iraq will be more or less peacful.
Wow...Iran or some other Middle Eastern nation conquering. That would be so ideal...

What the hell makes you think that a country that had to go through a bloody civil war in order to come into existence would somehow be "more or less" peaceful? What also makes you believe that an anti-American regime taking control of the nation would be good for the United States? And, finally, what makes you think that a massive, loving orgy will occur between Sunnis and Shiites if we leave? There are two sects of people killing each other in Iraq. The violence against the United States has everything to do with the U.S.'s perceived support of one sect over another. This religious-based violence will not end if the U.S. leaves. It will, no doubt, escalate, without the 132,000 American troops there to keep a great deal of it at bay.

It's not our fight. Honestly, we're not the ruler of the world, despite what the Imperialists say. Iraq isn't the 51st state in the Union. The US has an obligation to protect the lives of the citizens of it's country, not other countries.

In case you dismiss what I said above, I add this: the US in Iraq is likely causing more death then a civil war without the US. Anti-American terrorists are charging in their to fight. If we leave, Iraq will have a Civil War, and it's likely Iran or some other nation will conquer. Eventually, and sooner then if the US stayed, Iraq will be more or less peacful.Of course it's your fight. Or wasn't it the US that invaded Iraq?

An appeal to pity is not a valid argument. And, for that matter, I'd rather tell one American mother rather than 200 Iraqi mothers. Why do you value the life of an American more than the life of an Iraqi, let alone hundreds of Iraqis? Such arrogance is disgusting, frankly.

How dare you accuse me of arrogance while prefacing your OP with a statement that says that while "the Bush administration and other parties conspired to invade Iraq" we must "stay the course"!
Conspired is a pretty strong word that implies criminal wrong doing.
Which, by the way, is exactly what happed.
This war is illegal!

You then go on to accuse people like myself that have spoken out against this war even before it was launched and have had to live with being called traitors and cowards and terrorist sympathizers, (and yes this has happened to me in real life...I had to quit a job because back in 2003 I dared to point out that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11) of being "subject to the same pitfalls as the Bush administration" because we, myopically in your eyes, focus on ending the war in the only way it can be ended which is withdrawing our troops from Iraq.

Eventually our troops will have to leave Iraq.
Whether it is now, after 3000 of our brave men and women have died and over 20,000 have been wounded, or years from now after who knows how many more must lose their lives, limbs and perhaps their souls/sanity.
The Vietnam war was escalated in the same manner by LBJ and we went from 5000 American lives lost to over 57,000 lost.
Not to mention the enormous loss of life for the Vietnamese.
And yet we still lost!

I never once said that I value American life more than Iraqi life.
Perhaps you should read Riverbend's (http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/) blog about how wonderful her country has become since we invaded it.
WE are the problem in Iraq!
Only by withdrawing our troops, and our contractors with their no bid contracts to "rebuild" what we have destroyed, will the violence subside.

Do you even know anything of the history of Iraq?
The people that are fighting each other there now have been doing so for 1300 years!
Saddam may well have been a brutal dictator, whom we were happy to support when it suited us, but he at least kept the factions that are now slaughtering each other in check.

The U.S. government, under the same scum that is running the show now from behind the curtains, sold weapons to BOTH SIDES of the Iran/Iraq war because they (Reagan/Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Baker...etc.) were more than happy to see Muslims slaughter each other while the companies that put them in power, companies that most of them had personal stakes in, made a tidy profit on the death and destruction.

And the slaughter goes on, in broad daylight, in spite of 130,000 U.S. troops on the ground.
Do you actually believe that 20, 000 more troops thrown in the meat grinder is going to stop it?

I have a very personal stake in this.
One of my closest friend just came back from Iraq 2 months ago.
He was there for 2 years.
Away from his friends and his family who worried about him every day.
Who hoped every time that we heard another soldier was killed, another car bomb went off, another soldier lost an arm or a leg that it would not be Albert that was hurt or killed.

Now he is probably going to be sent back to that hell hole thanks to Bush's "surge".
Since you are a cheer leader for the war why don't you take his place?!?!

So you're saying that American troops killing terrorist insurgents whose only goal is violence and destruction is "no real good reason?"

So you are saying if American troops kill anyone, they must have been terrorist insurgents whose only goal is violence and destruction?

How lovely a world you live in. Bullets are magical badguy-seeking missiles. Same with shrapnel and bombs. I wish I lived in that kind of world, but I think reality is interfering with my emigration.

So you believe that the U.S. will kill the insurgents and then proceed to start up more violence with the Iraqi people that will just breed more terrorist insurgents in the country?

We were killing Iraqi civilians before there WAS an insurgency.

As for breeding more terrorist insurgents... guess what, our presence there is doing that too. In fact, I've often heard it stated that that was part of our reasons for staying - we intentionally lure 'terrorists' to Iraq to be killed, because hey as long as they're in Iraq they're not in the USA. Disgusting.

And you believe that now that the crime has been committed and we have started a war, we should just let it continue and allow everything over there to go to hell. Great. Very "peaceful" of you.

Everything there is going to go to hell whether we stick around or not. I guess I just don't want to be part of a raping, conquering nation involved in foreign civil wars... whereas you do. Or maybe you think that if raping someone is bad, raping them some MORE is somehow good.

If you look past meaningless sound-bytes, you'll find that the answer is unequivocally "yes." Although the US army was the cause of the current sectarian crisis, it is also the only entity with sufficient power to quell the violence. It is clear that the Sunnis and Shias are not going to start hugging each other if US forces withdraw; they'll simply have a freer hand to slaughter each other, and innocent civilians. The best estimate of the civilian death toll is 650,000; of those, only 5% were caused by American troops. The "problems" in Iraq are not being worsened by an American troop presence, but rather alleviated; we have seen modest successes in targeting insurgents and militiamen, regardless of the many gaffes we have committed. To say that since our invasion was illegal, we shouldn't remain is illogical and woefully incorrect.

Oh for crying out loud are people really this naive.

If there was any justice in the world US forces would be being led out of Iraq in chains and the ultimate "deciders" tried and convicted for their warcrimes.
I do understand that many americans love to remove context from any situation but there is no separation that can be made between the illegal invasion and the ongoing occupation. They are both part of one and the same thing.

The various factions have almost 100% free hand in slaughtering each other
as it stands. The only relatively secure place outside of Kurdish controlled
territory is the green zone and that is effectively under siege.

There will be no genuine US withdrawal at any point.
The goal was control of Iraqi oil, the US wishes to reach a point where
reduced troops can sit pretty but be capable of force projection while
"Iraqi's" present an Iraqi face to policing.

The US initially had to deal with protests and objections
which then changed to very limited insurgency and despite the previous
sunni ascendancy very little in the way of sectarian strife.
Divide and conquer tactics then led to the drastically sectarian faces of
insurgency and government that now exist in Iraq.
They were not unforseen or an accident they were deliberate policy.
Even so, the shia as a whole have not yet joined in insurgency but they will as the american policy of never leaving becomes impossible to ignore.
Kurds have done quite well so far but they still hope for a Kurdish homeland
when they are clear that the US will have nothing to do with either giving it to them nor allowing them to take it, they will fight too.

There is no even remotely good solution now, there is no action that can be taken that will halt violence but the one necessity for any endpoint to be arrived at in Iraq is US withdrawal. Unless the US withdraws things will continue to get worse and worse but of course as I said the US has no intention of ever doing so.

So by all means say you need more US troops to try to secure control of the oil but for crying out loud stop lying to yourself and everyone else by pretending that it is about anything else.

So you are saying if American troops kill anyone, they must have been terrorist insurgents whose only goal is violence and destruction?

How lovely a world you live in. Bullets are magical badguy-seeking missiles. Same with shrapnel and bombs. I wish I lived in that kind of world, but I think reality is interfering with my emigration.
I've got news for you buddy -- civillians are being killed by insurgents in addition to the evil Americans. Regardless of what you've convinced yourself into believing in order to justify the death of hundreds of thousands of more Iraqis, the United States is restraining much of the violence the insurgents could be doing if they were not there. 132,000 troops are not just sitting around, raping and killing Iraqis. When will you comprehend that if we leave, the violence will only be exacaberated, that the absence of 132,000 troops who had once acted against the insurgents will cause the warfare to explode?

As for breeding more terrorist insurgents... guess what, our presence there is doing that too. In fact, I've often heard it stated that that was part of our reasons for staying - we intentionally lure 'terrorists' to Iraq to be killed, because hey as long as they're in Iraq they're not in the USA. Disgusting.

Do you understand that if the United States leaves, Sunnis will still hate Shias, insurgents will still hate the Iraqi government, and both sides will continue to kill each other and civillians? Why not try and quell the violence as best as we can while we're there? Further, why just give up, making the 3,000 U.S. military deaths we've suffered worth absolutely nothing without trying as hard as we can (and don't tell me that using one failed strategy for three years is the best that we can do)?

You then go on to accuse people like myself that have spoken out against this war even before it was launched and have had to live with being called traitors and cowards and terrorist sympathizers, (and yes this has happened to me in real life...I had to quit a job because back in 2003 I dared to point out that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11) of being "subject to the same pitfalls as the Bush administration" because we, myopically in your eyes, focus on ending the war in the only way it can be ended which is withdrawing our troops from Iraq.

I also spoke out against this war prior to its being launched; hell, I even protested against the war in Afghanistan, which was, and remains today, a very unpopular viewpoint. I've been treated with my fair share of scorn and ridicule for my political viewpoints; you are not alone in that regard. And I never for one moment claimed that those who were opposed to the war in Iraq were erroneous in the same way that the Bush administration was mistaken. I stated that those who wish to withdraw are committing a grave blunder on par with that of Bush. Pulling back our troops will do nothing to end the war in Iraq; without any sort of check against the power of the sectarian militias, Iraq will erupt into violence and bloodshed on an incomprehensible level.

B]WE[/B] are the problem in Iraq!
Only by withdrawing our troops, and our contractors with their no bid contracts to "rebuild" what we have destroyed, will the violence subside.

I must say that this is an extremely naive viewpoint. You claimed further down that the various sects have been feuding for over a thousand years; what on earth makes you believe that withdrawing the US forces, which are the only constructive entity in Iraq, will be conducive to peace? Do you think that the sectarian strife will end simply because there are no more American troops? No, the power vacuum will only add fuel to an already devastating fire. We have committed an incredible amount of oversights in Iraq; don't add withdrawal to that list.

Saddam may well have been a brutal dictator, whom we were happy to support when it suited us, but he at least kept the factions that are now slaughtering each other in check.

Thanks for the history lesson, but we're dealing with the present. Saddam is dead. The rival factions are slaughtering each other, and the only arbitrator in the situation is the US. Perhaps many Iraqis are nostalgic for the old days, but they're gone and we must accept this and do whatever is possible to create a better future for Iraq, free from its current predicament. Withdrawing will not achieve this, but rather compound the problem.

Do you actually believe that 20, 000 more troops thrown in the meat grinder is going to stop it?

Progress is being made, albeit slowly. The pace will only be increased by an added influx of troops. If we are willing to commit ourselves to this effort, I am sure that substantial gains will be made. Whether it will be sufficient to subdue the sectarian militias remains to be seen, but it's our only shot if we wish to avert and utter and irrevocable catastrophe in Iraq, more destructive than is visible today.

Since you are a cheer leader for the war why don't you take his place?!?!

I am sorry to hear that you have a friend fighting in such a dangerous situation. But that question is irritating to no end; what is right is independent of who does it. I may not donate millions of dollars to charity, but I can still encourage people to do so. I may not be fighting in the Iraq War, but I can still extol the virtues of helping the unfortunate Iraqi people and saving their lives.

So you're saying that American troops killing terrorist insurgents whose only goal is violence and destruction is "no real good reason?"
Perhaps you should first learn the difference between "insurgents" and "terrorists"?

So you believe that the U.S. will kill the insurgents and then proceed to start up more violence with the Iraqi people that will just breed more terrorist insurgents in the country?
Perhaps you could learn that the mere presence of US troops is what continues to "provoke" the conflict in Iraq?

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/images/sep06/Iraq_Sep06_graph1d.jpg

And you believe that now that the crime has been committed and we have started a war, we should just let it continue and allow everything over there to go to hell. Great. Very "peaceful" of you.
Yes, the Iraqis should learn to be able to take care of themselves. Also, see above link.

On the contrary, asking those two questions was your way of showing what a useless, half-witted, piece of shit moron you are.
I could call you a "useless, half-witted, piece of shit moron", but I do not believe that would be conducive to the debate at hand. Besides, it is a violation of the rules here on NSG. :p

I don't even feel the need to discuss my views on the initial invasion because IT'S OVER and now we have to discuss what the hell we're going to do now that we're there. Trying to start up confrontations based on your idiotic "reading between the lines" (which is laughable, by the way) only serves to bring up moot points. I think I'm starting to see a theme, here: those who favor immediate withdrawl can only use the fact that the initial invasion was wrong as evidence for their cause. In other words, people like you are as guilty as the Bush administration -- backing up your cause with meaningless evidence that has no pertinence to the situation at hand.
More rhetoric and characther assasination. Good God. :rolleyes:


Arguing with you people looks something like this:

"Why should we withdraw?"
Because the US presence is feeding the conflict.

"But now that we're there, why just up and leave while the country is still in chaos?"
Bushite propaganda i.e, "stay the course".

"Bush lied!!! American soldiers are dying!!!"
So very true. :(

"But if we leave, a great deal more Iraqi citizens will die than American soldiers are dying right now due to a conflict that we started."
Please provide PROOF for this statement.

"BUSH LIED! NOOOOO WMDDDDSS!!! WE R EVIL!!!!"
Some people think so.

"That doesn't make sense..."
U LOEV BUHS!!!!1111 neopfdsacon-ASSHUL!!!j0-324~!!!"
This jibberish makes zero sense. :p

I also spoke out against this war prior to its being launched; hell, I even protested against the war in Afghanistan, which was, and remains today, a very unpopular viewpoint. I've been treated with my fair share of scorn and ridicule for my political viewpoints; you are not alone in that regard. And I never for one moment claimed that those who were opposed to the war in Iraq were erroneous in the same way that the Bush administration was mistaken. I stated that those who wish to withdraw are committing a grave blunder on par with that of Bush. Pulling back our troops will do nothing to end the war in Iraq; without any sort of check against the power of the sectarian militias, Iraq will erupt into violence and bloodshed on an incomprehensible level.



I must say that this is an extremely naive viewpoint. You claimed further down that the various sects have been feuding for over a thousand years; what on earth makes you believe that withdrawing the US forces, which are the only constructive entity in Iraq, will be conducive to peace? Do you think that the sectarian strife will end simply because there are no more American troops? No, the power vacuum will only add fuel to an already devastating fire. We have committed an incredible amount of oversights in Iraq; don't add withdrawal to that list.



Thanks for the history lesson, but we're dealing with the present. Saddam is dead. The rival factions are slaughtering each other, and the only arbitrator in the situation is the US. Perhaps many Iraqis are nostalgic for the old days, but they're gone and we must accept this and do whatever is possible to create a better future for Iraq, free from its current predicament. Withdrawing will not achieve this, but rather compound the problem.



Progress is being made, albeit slowly. The pace will only be increased by an added influx of troops. If we are willing to commit ourselves to this effort, I am sure that substantial gains will be made. Whether it will be sufficient to subdue the sectarian militias remains to be seen, but it's our only shot if we wish to avert and utter and irrevocable catastrophe in Iraq, more destructive than is visible today.



I am sorry to hear that you have a friend fighting in such a dangerous situation. But that question is irritating to no end; what is right is independent of who does it. I may not donate millions of dollars to charity, but I can still encourage people to do so. I may not be fighting in the Iraq War, but I can still extol the virtues of helping the unfortunate Iraqi people and saving their lives.

It seems we actually agree more than we disagree and I am sorry if I am seeming to attack you personally.
As you can tell for me this is very personal and it is extremely frustrating that, at this point, people seem to believe that escalating the war is going to make anything better.

I just don't see that happening.

Such anti-war individuals were proponents of withdrawal from the first day. They became more vehement with the rise of the insurgency. The sectarian conflict only served to increase their determination. Ultimately, the present-day situation only solidified their opposition. The idea of withdrawal has been irreversibly implanted in their mind. This predetermined concept clouds their objectivity; they see only the evidence which supports their thesis and disregard all else to the contrary. In short, they are subject to the same pitfalls as the Bush administration.


You know absolutely nothing about me or my reasoning, and attempting to drag everyoe who was against this particular war and the means decided upon to wage it is utter crap. While I agreed with the first paragraph of your argument to some extent, you lost me here, and I refuse to read any more because your logic is such shit. If you can't even state your primary data properly, obviously your argument itself is not going to be worth a damn. Many of us have never demanded withdrawal. Most of us in fact have argued for properly prosecuting this stupid war, even if it is a stupid idea. That we have a moron for a commander in chief does NOT mean this war couldn't be waged successfully, nor that many of us who want to pull out feel we SHOULD pull out. Many of us just believe the current administration has fucked things up so badly that it is now unwinnable.

I am a lot more concerned about Iran and Syria and their intentions than I am the civil war in Iraq, per se. The Iraqi's brought this on themselves. They can kiss my ass. If they really cared to, they could indeed have a safe and happy country to live in. Instead they allowed Huseein to rule for all those decades. Then when we got rid of him they decided to fight everybody instead of putting their country back together. As a result I do not have much sympathy for anyone who lives there: they had their chance. If we pull out now we simply cede control to Iran, which is bad, but not as bad as staying there in the middle of a civil war for the next 25 years.
The Iraqi's can pound sand as far as I am concerned.

There will be no genuine US withdrawal at any point. The goal was control of Iraqi oil, the US wishes to reach a point where
reduced troops can sit pretty but be capable of force projection while
"Iraqi's" present an Iraqi face to policing.
QFT

So you are saying if American troops kill anyone, they must have been terrorist insurgents whose only goal is violence and destruction?

How lovely a world you live in. Bullets are magical badguy-seeking missiles. Same with shrapnel and bombs. I wish I lived in that kind of world, but I think reality is interfering with my emigration.



Unfourtunately, bullets don't discern between innocent and not so innocent. That is why in war innocents die. If there is no lee way for civilian casualties then the bad guys can roam unimpeded. You can't win if you fight with both hands tied behind your back. All anti-war protestors do is impede the U.S. militaries ability to bring peace and stability to the region. They put pressure on the gov't who then puts pressure on the military and then the military has to go all hearts and minds and get clearance for every shot fired up through the chain of command. The initiative is lost and victory is impossible. So i say either the gov't and civvies shut up or let the military come home.

The Iraqi's brought this on themselves. They can kiss my ass. If they really cared to, they could indeed have a safe and happy country to live in.

Really? How is an ordinary, law-abiding citizen supposed to reform the country for the better? The moderates and the pacifists, which are by far in the majority, have no hand in the current conflict. They did nothing to incur the wrath of sectarian militias except have a particular religious view, pray in the wrong mosque, go to the wrong outdoor market, or simply be in the wrong place at the wrong time. They are the people we need to protect; those who, because of our invasion, have been put at the mercy of the brutal killers. If the US military has not been successful in stopping the strife, what makes you think that your typical Iraqi citizen, who does not resort to violence, can alter the situation? And, if he cannot change what is happening, does he deserve to be left to die? This level of violence is a direct consequence of our foolish war; innocents are dying because of Bush's nihilism. To say that such people can "kiss your ass" is highly inflammatory and imbecilic to no end.

Instead they allowed Huseein to rule for all those decades.

I believe they tried to stop him. One man attempted to assassinate him, and over a hundred others were murdered in a reprisal as a result. There were uprisings around the time of the first war in Iraq, and they were gruesomely suppressed; hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians were slaughtered on a whim because of the most tenuous connections to rebel groups. It's not easy to depose a dictator, and I'll be damned if someone judges me because I "allowed" Bush to rule for 8 years. The truth of it is, we Americans (maybe not you) had much more choice than they did, yet we nonetheless allowed a madman to serve two terms as president. Imagine what it would be like if political dissidents were systematically killed; there would be absolutely no way to oust the ruler.

I am a lot more concerned about Iran and Syria and their intentions than I am the civil war in Iraq, per se. The Iraqi's brought this on themselves. They can kiss my ass. If they really cared to, they could indeed have a safe and happy country to live in. Instead they allowed Huseein to rule for all those decades. Then when we got rid of him they decided to fight everybody instead of putting their country back together. As a result I do not have much sympathy for anyone who lives there: they had their chance. If we pull out now we simply cede control to Iran, which is bad, but not as bad as staying there in the middle of a civil war for the next 25 years.
The Iraqi's can pound sand as far as I am concerned.
Sure, blame the Iraqis for their present circumstances. Perhaps a review of their history would help, especially where it dovetails with US policy. The US is totally innocent in all of this?

All anti-war protestors do is impede the U.S. militaries ability to bring peace and stability to the region.
Before the US invasion, Iraq was relatively peaceful and the Middle East was relatively stable. Anti-war protestors tried their damdest to keep the US from invading Iraq to no avail. Since the Us invasion, there is no peace in Iraq and the Middle East is totally unstable. BTW, the US has had almost 4 years to restore the peace that they disturbed but it is now worse then before.

Yeah blame the anti-war protestors.....we all need a good laugh. :p

Such anti-war individuals were proponents of withdrawal from the first day. They became more vehement with the rise of the insurgency.

Hey! Some of us who opposed the war did, amongst other things, because if the US did go to war it would have to stay there for several years, not just three or four, but more like 10 or 20 and more likely the country wouldn't have the will to do so, preferring to leave the place a mess instead.

The only thing that surprises me about this war is how many people are surprised at how it turned out. There were many like me saying the same thing, not because we are super intelligent, but because it was patently obvious.

Before the US invasion, Iraq was relatively peaceful and the Middle East was relatively stable. Anti-war protestors tried their damdest to keep the US from invading Iraq to no avail. Since the Us invasion, there is no peace in Iraq and the Middle East is totally unstable. BTW, the US has had almost 4 years to restore the peace that they disturbed but it is now worse then before.

Yeah blame the anti-war protestors.....we all need a good laugh. :p

Mabye you missed the point of my post. The very same politicians that gave the green light for the invasion and sent thousands of lives into danger are preventing those same lives from completing their missions and coming home with victory. You can look to the past all that you want but at this time, protestors are only hurting iraq. The reason that we have not been able to restore peace is because of the vast restrictions placed upon our military. Politicians have taken away the ability to take the initiative when a mistake is made by the enemy. How is the U.S. supposed to win a war like that?

I'm glad I found this topic! I started this (http://modernwarstudies.net/viewtopic.php?t=526) topic in order to start some conterversy. It was a proposition made by my grandfather.

Mabye you missed the point of my post. The very same politicians that gave the green light for the invasion and sent thousands of lives into danger are preventing those same lives from completing their missions and coming home with victory. You can look to the past all that you want but at this time, protestors are only hurting iraq. The reason that we have not been able to restore peace is because of the vast restrictions placed upon our military. Politicians have taken away the ability to take the initiative when a mistake is made by the enemy. How is the U.S. supposed to win a war like that?
If there wasn't "vast restrictions" placed on your military, God knows that the death toll would probably be double what it is today.

The whole war has been a war of mistakes, and adding more troops will make the mistakes less? Most advice has been against adding more troops, especially since it is only 21,000 more troops.

Don't blame the protestors for this travesty in Iraq.

BTW: I didn't "miss the point of your post". The new policy (stabilizing Baghdad) is just replacing the old policy (stating the course) but with a few more troops.

The reason that we have not been able to restore peace is because of the vast restrictions placed upon our military.

Cases in point for the "vast restrictions placed on our military": Haditha and Abu Ghraib. If only our military had shown more restraint, then perhaps the tide of public opinion in Iraq would not be so dead-set against us and we could have made more progress. Whatever success we can hope to salvage from Iraq cannot be won only by bullets; we need cooperation from the Iraqi people, and that's hard to attain when we're committing such vile atrocities.

Cases in point for the "vast restrictions placed on our military": Haditha and Abu Ghraib. If only our military had shown more restraint, then perhaps the tide of public opinion in Iraq would not be so dead-set against us and we could have made more progress. Whatever success we can hope to salvage from Iraq cannot be won only by bullets; we need cooperation from the Iraqi people, and that's hard to attain when we're committing such vile atrocities.

Im not talking Haditha and Abu Ghraib, i'm talking U.S. forces not being allowed to leave their base when there are too many casualties being reported in the media, i'm talking having to wait an hour to get clearance to attack a target that is only exposed for 10 minutes, i'm talking not being able to go into the neighborhoods where attacks are originating b/c some politician doesn't want to upset somebody. We can't get cooperation from the Iraqi people, they have too many differing motives that cooperation is impossible. Not only does hearts and minds not work but in most training excersises, casualties are way too great to even consider but politicians and civilians still want the military to conduct those types of operations.

If there wasn't "vast restrictions" placed on your military, God knows that the death toll would probably be double what it is today.
The civilian casualties aren't being generated by the U.S. military. It is almost unanimously by sectarian and insurgent violence. U.S. aggressiveness would raise the amount that we have killed but the amount killed by others would go down so dramatically that there would be a net gain of surviviors.

The whole war has been a war of mistakes, and adding more troops will make the mistakes less? Most advice has been against adding more troops, especially since it is only 21,000 more troops.
I never said anything about troop numbers but if thats what you want to talk about. If the troops are going to be embedded with iraqi units then it could have aa very great benificial value to the effort. Some corruption in the IA and IP could be curbed through this.

Sure, blame the Iraqis for their present circumstances. Perhaps a review of their history would help, especially where it dovetails with US policy. The US is totally innocent in all of this?

Not blaming them as much as being honest about their part in their present circumstances. They ceratinly could have made a LOT more progress if they had got over their need for revenge and greed, Instead they have decided to fight it out. Well I am fine with that, but if we're going to let them, we need to get our troops out of the way first.

As I have said before: we either need to commit to this stupid fight, including begging NATO and the UN for troops commitments, while acknowledging our fault and mistake--or we need to get the hell out and let them kill each other a while. Me, I vote for get the hell out. If they reduce the population of the middle east by 75%, we won't have as much trouble when we finally do go back to take over. Which we all know we will do.

The reason that we have not been able to restore peace is because of the vast restrictions placed upon our military.

Nice try, but no cigar. The reason why the US hasn't been able to restore peace is very simple. It's because the planners went in thinking it would be all flowers and stability, hence, they had no plans for creating stability. Remember the widespread looting that occurred after Baghdad was taken?

And without a proper plan, what do you think the army did? Fall back on their training naturally. Which was geared for fighting armies, not occupation and counter insurgency. Fallujah was handled by military planners who treated the situation as a hostile army in the city and not an insurgency.

Generals who had real plans for stability were forced to retire.

Don't try to foist this one onto protesters. Protesters couldn't do squat about government policy. It was incompetence and arrogance at the highest levels that are directly responsible for the mess that was caused here.

As I have said before: we either need to commit to this stupid fight, including begging NATO and the UN for troops commitments

This doesn't work if you don't make a few heads in the pentagon and white house roll. Particularly the ones who thought it would be sunshine and roses and didn't make an exit plan. As well as those who thought firepower=peacekeeping.

Nice try, but no cigar. The reason why the US hasn't been able to restore peace is very simple. It's because the planners went in thinking it would be all flowers and stability, hence, they had no plans for creating stability. Remember the widespread looting that occurred after Baghdad was taken?

And without a proper plan, what do you think the army did? Fall back on their training naturally. Which was geared for fighting armies, not occupation and counter insurgency. Fallujah was handled by military planners who treated the situation as a hostile army in the city and not an insurgency.
Ahhh Fallujah. Revenge was the motive for Fallujah 1 and sheer numbskullheadedness resulted in Fallujah 2. These two efforts alone severely damaged the "hearts and minds" campaign. Yet, the lesson still has not been learned by the US? Adding 21,000 troops to "pacify" Baghdad and Anbar proves that.

Generals who had real plans for stability were forced to retire.

Don't try to foist this one onto protesters. Protesters couldn't do squat about government policy. It was incompetence and arrogance at the highest levels that are directly responsible for the mess that was caused here.
Right you are Guv'nor.

I wont state my opinion on the start of the war, but I will say this:

Call me a cold bastard if you will, but some-thousand US soldiers is a small price to pay for millions of Iraqi's to have a chance at a decent life where the chance of being tourtured to death is relativly low.
Call me the son of an evil Republican if you will, but you should finish what you start. We screwed the country up, we should fix it. People are going to die, but they would die anyway if we just up and left, most likely more would die in the long run.
Call me politically insinsitive if you will, but I will happily extend a big 'Fuck you' to any in the audience who care to declare that simply leaving the Iraqi's to 'sort it out themselves' is the right thing. You throwbacks to the 19th century may think theyre a bunch of silly A-rabs who are going to fight no matter what unless they have an iron fisted dictator, but I whistled for a cab and when it came near the license plate said fresh and it had dice in the mirror
if anything I could say that this cab was rare but I thought man forget it yo homes to Bel-Air
I pulled up to the house about 7 or 8 and I yelled to the cabbie yo homes smell ya later
Looked at my kingdom I was finally there to sit on my throne as the Prince of Bel-Air.

I wont state my opinion on the start of the war, but I will say this:

Call me a cold bastard if you will, but some-thousand US soldiers is a small price to pay for millions of Iraqi's to have a chance at a decent life where the chance of being tourtured to death is relativly low.

A good proportion of the insurgents agree with you, that's why they're fighting.


Call me the son of an evil Republican if you will, but you should finish what you start. We screwed the country up, we should fix it.

Start a mugging, stay to finish the rape.

People are going to die, but they would die anyway if we just up and left, most likely more would die in the long run.
Call me politically insinsitive if you will, but I will happily extend a big 'Fuck you' to any in the audience who care to declare that simply leaving the Iraqi's to 'sort it out themselves' is the right thing. You throwbacks to the 19th century may think theyre a bunch of silly A-rabs who are going to fight no matter what unless they have an iron fisted dictator ...

Of course Iraqis are sophisticated enough and valuable enough to remain the property and playthings of the US of A. If anyone is going to do the killing
we all understand why the US wishes to be the main player.

Seeing as how we've pissed into the money pit for three years now in order to make this work -- yes.
In other words:
"Well it hasn't worked yet, so we best keep doing it because we've spent too much time and money to stop!"

Great logic there.

Who says Iran would be the one helping Iraq? In case you haven't heard the reports, Iraq's economy is actually quite stable, even booming in some parts.
That's utter bollocks.
The Fox-inspired reports that trumpet the 'amazing' growth of the Iraqi economy invariably use 2003 as it's baseline.
Y'know, when there wasn't an economy.

Going from 1° to 2° might mean the temperature's doubled but it hardly means you can now strip off and start sunbathing.

All this talk about 21000 troops being committed - how many will actually be combat troops and not support?

Anyone know whtat the current proportion of support troops to combat troops? I remember a figure of ~5:1 but can't find it.

So does 21000 troops mean just 3000 on the ground? Cause that really doesn't seem like much at all. I would have to wonder as to the effectiveness of this.

The real solution is more troops. However it isnt 20k its 200k more that will really be needed to do the job as it should be done.

The real solution is more troops. However it isnt 20k its 200k more that will really be needed to do the job as it should be done.

I take it your being ironic? tongue in cheek? LBJ approach to Vietnam? Anyway the more troops are sent the less likely a true Iraqi power develops as it will be based on the sponsorship of America and have no basis in the real politik of Iraq. The best option is to pull out see what happens and then deal with the government of Iraq that arises out of the civil war. If it some crazy militant islamic government then so be it. Whats the tale about King Canute and the sea? lessons from history and all that? Why doesn't someone sit down with George W Bush and read him a bed time story about the folly of man in some form or other...

Whats the tale about King Canute and the sea? lessons from history and all that? Why doesn't someone sit down with George W Bush and read him a bed time story about the folly of man in some form or other...
King Canute might be a bit beyond his reasoning skills.

How about 'The three billy goats Gruff'?
We already know he has a soft spot for stories about goats.
Focus on the moral of the story from the troll's perspective. Instead of getting what he could at the start, he gets greedy and hangs out for more and more, passing up better things until finally his greed destroys him.
Moral: Get in early and leave early.

The real solution is more troops. However it isnt 20k its 200k more that will really be needed to do the job as it should be done.

There aren't 200k infantry in the US military.

Think of around 60,000 total infantry in the US military. That's it - including the National Guard.

We didn't design our military for counterinsurgency. It's designed for annihilating a large conventional army through airstrikes and swift movement and destruction of national infrastructure in a few weeks.

Not for counterinsurgency.

It's very good at what it's designed to do - not so good at what it's not designed to do.

Nice try, but no cigar.

Thanks for quoting me on something somebody else said, and I vehemently disagreed with. Look before you post, else you'll look like an idiot.

There aren't 200k infantry in the US military.

Think of around 60,000 total infantry in the US military. That's it - including the National Guard.



Then we hire more. Do what you have to do to get the job done. This is a nation that mobilized its entire economy for war in its past. This is just a matter of personel and training. Nothing that isnt fully and easily within our abilities. Surely an insufficient reason to wave the white flag.

Daistallia, in a previous thread, convincingly argued that the required amount of troops necessary to control the insurgency/civil war/sectarian crisis would be more than the USA could field.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12197225&postcount=33

So, if that is true, what is the USA going to do? Well, one option is asking the UN for help. Mind you, the Europeans will probably only help if they can get a piece of the oil pie. And the people who invested in this war will probably not enjoy having to share their profits. So let's call that Plan B.

Right now, it looks like Plan A is to hunker down, consolidate Baghdad, protect the oil, let the civil war peter out, and pray it doesn't last forever. Please note that in this scenarion, the Iraqi people are forced to fend for themselves without even the basic infrastructure they had under Hussein. Please file under 'collateral damage'.

A good proportion of the insurgents agree with you, that's why they're fighting.


Start a mugging, stay to finish the rape.


Of course Iraqis are sophisticated enough and valuable enough to remain the property and playthings of the US of A. If anyone is going to do the killing
we all understand why the US wishes to be the main player.

Somebody didnt get the joke.

By the way, nice way to compare to totaly different situations. I like how you took one context and compared it to the worst situation you could come up with. I mean, I wouldnt have thought of that, I might have tried presenting some philosophical arguement about how war is wrong or something, but you, you go and drag rape into this.
Thats almost has good as Hitler.

OH CRAP GODWINS LAW! RUN FOR IT!

Thanks for quoting me on something somebody else said, and I vehemently disagreed with. Look before you post, else you'll look like an idiot.

Geh, sorry about that. I forgot to replace the names when I did the quote. Fixed.

Geh, sorry about that. I forgot to replace the names when I did the quote. Fixed.

No problem. Sorry for my reply, but it annoys me when my position on Iraq is misrepresented; often, when I advocate staying in Iraq, I'm criticized for being a "gung-ho" supporter of the war who doesn't care for our troops in Iraq and all that, when I'm really not. When I say something about staying in Iraq, I'm often branded as a fervent Bush supporter and ultra-conservative military nut. I realize it was an honest mistake, but some people automatically and incorrectly assume a lot about you from your stance on a particular issue.

You know absolutely nothing about me or my reasoning, and attempting to drag everyoe who was against this particular war and the means decided upon to wage it is utter crap. While I agreed with the first paragraph of your argument to some extent, you lost me here, and I refuse to read any more because your logic is such shit. If you can't even state your primary data properly, obviously your argument itself is not going to be worth a damn. Many of us have never demanded withdrawal. Most of us in fact have argued for properly prosecuting this stupid war, even if it is a stupid idea. That we have a moron for a commander in chief does NOT mean this war couldn't be waged successfully, nor that many of us who want to pull out feel we SHOULD pull out. Many of us just believe the current administration has fucked things up so badly that it is now unwinnable.

I am a lot more concerned about Iran and Syria and their intentions than I am the civil war in Iraq, per se. The Iraqi's brought this on themselves. They can kiss my ass. If they really cared to, they could indeed have a safe and happy country to live in. Instead they allowed Huseein to rule for all those decades. Then when we got rid of him they decided to fight everybody instead of putting their country back together. As a result I do not have much sympathy for anyone who lives there: they had their chance. If we pull out now we simply cede control to Iran, which is bad, but not as bad as staying there in the middle of a civil war for the next 25 years.
The Iraqi's can pound sand as far as I am concerned.

The Iraqis brought nothing on themselves. What a bloody bullshit. Just like stating that leaving would mean to cede anything to Iran. You are so propaganda-fed it ain't even funny.

Then we hire more. Do what you have to do to get the job done. This is a nation that mobilized its entire economy for war in its past. This is just a matter of personel and training. Nothing that isnt fully and easily within our abilities. Surely an insufficient reason to wave the white flag.

this latest "surge" escalation is just a futile attempt for GWB to find a way out, desperately searching for a way where he can save face for himself and america, to claim victory.
Like Vietnam there can be no final victory in Iraq the USA has already been defeated. No amount of additional troops will salvage this, more will have died in vain for a lost cause.

this latest "surge" escalation is just a futile attempt for GWB to find a way out, desperately searching for a way where he can save face for himself and america, to claim victory.
Like Vietnam there can be no final victory in Iraq the USA has already been defeated. No amount of additional troops will salvage this, more will have died in vain for a lost cause.
QFT.

#1 What should US/we do? Stop shooting/bombing and Leave, like the Brits.

#2 Is there to ever be peace again in Iraq someday? YES, of course.

#3 Can we win? NO.

#4 Will the Iraqui hate US for what we did to them? YES,of course

#5 Are US/we Guilty of anything? the War party is guilty. and we are accomplices.

#6 What should US/we do after? ..One day the Iraquis will make peace (a few months/years AFTER we leave)?
I dont know.. we destroyed their Country.. We are going to hell.
-- Maybe we should do like with the Vietnames people.. install a few NIKE factories there.. buy a lot of their stuff so their economy can recover a bit..

The Iraqis brought nothing on themselves. What a bloody bullshit. Just like stating that leaving would mean to cede anything to Iran. You are so propaganda-fed it ain't even funny.


Oh for god's sake. Don't be stupid. I served in the first desert storm, worked Army Intelligence for years, and assuredly know enough to have an opinion about Iraq. If you are dumb enough to think taht the Iraqi's weren't thrilled to get Hussein in the first place, and didn't support him for years when he started a war 3with Iran, and then didn't support him when he invaded Kuwait, and then didn't as a group leave him in charge because they were just to scared to revolt and because they were PROUD to have him standing up to us, then you need your head examined.

They brought this on themselves. Then when we finally invaded, they started acting like hooligans because they didn't have enough self respect or respect for each other to attemot to build a real nation. They are too used to life under the gun barrel to actually know what to do. So fuck them. And while I am at it, fuck you and your insults. I AM and HAVE been, Anti Bush and Anti this war since it began. But I have always said this war couod have been won had we set about it properly instead of going in like cowboys expecting everyone to throw flowers and offer blowjobs. It IS our fault that hussein is gone. It is THEIR fault they aren't on theiur way to a decent nation.

...But I have always said this war couod have been won had we set about it properly instead of going in like cowboys expecting everyone to throw flowers and offer blowjobs.they did not want to Blowjobs-us.. so we forced our way in anyways.

... and didn't support him for years when he started a war 3with Iran, and then didn't support him when he invaded Kuwait, and then didn't as a group leave him in charge because they were just to scared to revolt ..that part I igree.
Saddam was a dictator.

Really? How is an ordinary, law-abiding citizen supposed to reform the country for the better? The moderates and the pacifists, which are by far in the majority, have no hand in the current conflict. They did nothing to incur the wrath of sectarian militias except have a particular religious view, pray in the wrong mosque, go to the wrong outdoor market, or simply be in the wrong place at the wrong time. They are the people we need to protect; those who, because of our invasion, have been put at the mercy of the brutal killers. If the US military has not been successful in stopping the strife, what makes you think that your typical Iraqi citizen, who does not resort to violence, can alter the situation? And, if he cannot change what is happening, does he deserve to be left to die? This level of violence is a direct consequence of our foolish war; innocents are dying because of Bush's nihilism. To say that such people can "kiss your ass" is highly inflammatory and imbecilic to no end.



I believe they tried to stop him. One man attempted to assassinate him, and over a hundred others were murdered in a reprisal as a result. There were uprisings around the time of the first war in Iraq, and they were gruesomely suppressed; hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians were slaughtered on a whim because of the most tenuous connections to rebel groups. It's not easy to depose a dictator, and I'll be damned if someone judges me because I "allowed" Bush to rule for 8 years. The truth of it is, we Americans (maybe not you) had much more choice than they did, yet we nonetheless allowed a madman to serve two terms as president. Imagine what it would be like if political dissidents were systematically killed; there would be absolutely no way to oust the ruler.

you are a loon. NObody is innocent in that country. They supported him when he killed Kuirds with poison gas. They supported him when he started a war with Iran. They supported him when he invaded Iraq, and they supported him all those years he thumbed his nose at us while we dropped bombs on them in some weird attempt to "pacify" them. They then proceeded to tacitly support insurgents when theys tarted shooting US, the only stabilizing influence on that country. Fux them. Let them kill each other for a few years, or ask the UN and NATO for help. Those are our choices. I'm willing to do either, but not to go it alone any more. That was always a stupid choice, and so it remains.

that part I igree.
Saddam was a dictator.

sorry dude, you're wrong. They supported him like gangbusters during this period, and even after desert storm when we started bombing them. They hated US, and supported him for standing up to us. Well recorded history. He was a dictator, but he was actually supported for invading Kuwait, and Iran, and killing the kurds. believe it or not a large part of the reason he did those thinsg was specifically to garner support. disgusting but true.

THink about it. the 18-30 year old morons who are joining the military in america are generlaly supportive of Bush and his stupid operations. Taht's because (generally) they are young and dumb and full of cum and don't much thik about what they are causing. Iraqi 18-30 years olds are exactly the same. When he suggested they go kick some ass, they applauded him and did.

they did not want to Blowjobs-us.. so we forced our way in anyways.

I agree completely. At the time I pointed out how stupid this thought process was and like Eric Shinseki I said we needed at least 200k troops to maintain order. And I was then told I was an idiot.
I never supported this invasion, and I still don't. But militarily I believe it is still winnable--just not the way Bush is doing it. Again.

Leaving Iraq now implies that it's better than what it was once before or admitting failure on behalf of the armed forces of the United States and its coalition.

Not leaving entails that there's still work to be done.

Neither solution is happy, but the question is this: Are you willing to risk the thousands of lives now to save/lose the same thousands later?

What was Iraq is history - what is Iraq is a mess, so who wants to clean it up?

sorry dude, you're wrong. They supported him like gangbusters during this period, and even after desert storm when we started bombing them. They hated US, and supported him for standing up to us. Well recorded history. He was a dictator, but he was actually supported for invading Kuwait, and Iran, and killing the kurds. believe it or not a large part of the reason he did those thinsg was specifically to garner support. disgusting but true.

THink about it. the 18-30 year old morons who are joining the military in america are generlaly supportive of Bush and his stupid operations. Taht's because (generally) they are young and dumb and full of cum and don't much thik about what they are causing. Iraqi 18-30 years olds are exactly the same. When he suggested they go kick some ass, they applauded him and did.
__________________ hmm.. the second part is kinda true..

but you need to check your "intelligence" in the first part.

Leaving Iraq now implies that it's better now than what it was once before (the Invasion)..dude.. It is not better now.. and it is not going to be better for a long looong time.
We are not going to win.
We have to leave sooner or later.. we are just delaying the inevitable.

Its like the Dentist visit.. youve seen the Rx.. your molar root is death.. rotten.. leaving it for next week is not going to bring it back to life.

you are a loon. NObody is innocent in that country. They supported him when he killed Kuirds with poison gas. They supported him when he started a war with Iran. They supported him when he invaded Iraq, and they supported him all those years he thumbed his nose at us while we dropped bombs on them in some weird attempt to "pacify" them.

What the hell are you ranting on about? And who the hell are you calling a loon? :rolleyes:

What the hell are you ranting on about? And who the hell are you calling a loon? :rolleyes:

oh hell I missedited again. When he invaded kuwait. Sorry. Oh, and I called you a loon. Not sure if I should call you a left wing loon or a right wing loon but your ideas are loony, whatever end of the scale they fall on.:D

You think the Iraqi's didn't want someone strong leading them. I say they did--he stabilized the country which was at least better than the other option, whcih we caused. They also supported him when he attacked other countries, and actually prasied him when he stood up to us--they saw him as being David in David and Goliath. Now that he is gone they have decided that they can start killing each other to win the country. Not sure what you think is propaganda tehre but it's pretty much accepted history, unless you're a supporter of loony tunes political idealism...oh wait....

hmm.. the second part is kinda true..

but you need to check your "intelligence" in the first part.
no, I don't. Only minorities wanted him out. And those minorities didnt control the army or Chemical weapons so they generally died out when he gassed them. The kurds you will notice, don't really consider themselves part of Iraq so I am not really placing them in the equation. Its the only stable part of the nation now because they have been able to secede, if only informally. If we should stay anywhere, it would be up north with the kurds, and then in defiance of Turkey who has statedt they would invade the Kurdish region if we helped them split off. Shows how wonderful turkey is.

You think the Iraqi's didn't want someone strong leading them.

I'm pretty sure the tens of thousands of Iraqis who were tortured didn't want someone "strong" leading the country. I'm fairly certain that the secretive political dissidents weren't so infatuated with Saddam. The hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died as a result of Hussein's campaign of genocide weren't so thrilled with having such a "powerful" and "decisive" leader. No, Iraqis quickly grew disillusioned with their dictator. Perhaps they admired him for his tough stance on the US, but the vast majority hated him otherwise. The Iraqis had no recourse but to be obsequiously subservient to Saddam; otherwise, they might have been purged like so many others before them. However, following the downfall of the Iraqi regime, almost all Iraqis greeted the news cheerfully, although they may have disliked one evil being replaced by an even worse one.

you're right in the sense that some minorities built a network to resist him. But those networks were far more involved in resisting the OTHER minorities underground networks than they were in resisting him. Unfortunately as in the case of Tito and Yugoslavia, Hussein was if not liked, then supported in a case of us against them. Again, they built this system, they deserve to get the chance to kill each other untiil they realize it isn't working. OR conversely, we need to move in in force, as we did in yugoslavia, and with world support, as we did in yugoslavia, until it settles down. I don't really care which, but whatr we have now is utter stupidity and needs to be fixed. Do you somehow not agree whith my final judgement or would you rather we leave things the way they are, with Iraqi's and American's being killed daily for no reason?

I'm pretty sure the tens of thousands of Iraqis who were tortured didn't want someone "strong" leading the country. I'm fairly certain that the secretive political dissidents weren't so infatuated with Saddam. The hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died as a result of Hussein's campaign of genocide weren't so thrilled with having such a "powerful" and "decisive" leader. No, Iraqis quickly grew disillusioned with their dictator. Perhaps they admired him for his tough stance on the US, but the vast majority hated him otherwise. The Iraqis had no recourse but to be obsequiously subservient to Saddam; otherwise, they might have been purged like so many others before them. However, following the downfall of the Iraqi regime, almost all Iraqis greeted the news cheerfully, although they may have disliked one evil being replaced by an even worse one.

in any dictatorship there are torturees and those who trun them in to gain personal gain. The survivors today were complicent at some stage in this process. I therefore don't have much sympathy for them now. The only people in the country you can actually claim are inniocent are the kurds, who we failed back in the early 90's, and even earlier when we gave old Saddam the chemical weapons in the first plce. Can you say Cheney or Rumsfield?

The survivors today were complicent at some stage in this process.

No shit! What do you expect them to do? Pull a Tiananmen Square on Saddam? They couldn't just topple the dictator on a whim; they were powerless to do anything. Acting out would not only be futile, but it would be tantamount to suicide. Your comments are extremely insulting to the Iraqi people who despised Saddam but could not do anything to depose him.

crap! thta's basically how they got huseein in the first place. No, he stayed where he was by placating just enough people to avoid their rising up. Enough people were satisfied with the staus quo that they weren't willing to take a risk. The Kurds certainly tried, and then the people of Iraq supported him in gassing them. No innocents in that country, less they're under age 12.

No innocents in that country, less they're under age 12.is there any innocents in your Country? (whareva dat iz)

Well, I live in the good old USA, land of fat kindergardners, SUV's, and the redneck. So no, there aren't many. However, We DO manage to (generally) follow the rule of law for ourselves, and we DO attempt to be decent to others, even if it does seem to come out more like a skull crushing hammer blow to the back of the head... Oh, and we invade other countries on false pretext and then whine when they shoot at us. I'm not sure how we could claim innocence after that one...