NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0738937520070308?pageNumber=1

Worst. Idea. Ever.
Why would you pull the plug right when we are gaining momentum? Why right when cities like Ramadi and Baghdad are calming down would you introduce something like this to steal that from us and the iraqis? To secure your seat in congress? They were obviously wrong on the surge, now they are trying to steer the positive media coverage back to the negative of a few months ago. Iraqis don't want us to leave just yet. Iraqi forces are making great strides. Even the police in many areas are capable of operating w/o coalition support. We owe it to them to get them back on their feet.

Momentum? Are we reading the same headlines? You know, the ones where there's a car bombing killing 30+ people in Baghdad every freaking day? I guess not.

Why would you pull the plug right when we are gaining momentum?
Wha... What?

We should suck it up. That's what we should do.

The US made it's bed. And now it should lie there for the time being.

What momentum? How the hell have things improved recently?

It would seem that the Iraqis are largely uncapable of providing for their own security, especially when they are confronted with a serious challenge from the terrorists. Also, there have been instances in which the Iraqi police and military have been directly implicated in killing Americans and their fellow Iraqis because of religious differences. Only Americans can bring peace to Iraq. At best, Iraqis could act as a supplement, but they are not to be trusted.

That being said, a time-table is a terrible idea. Our strategy should be based on the progress we make, not elapsed time. And if you're an insurgent, a time-table tells you how long you gotta lay low until the Americans leave, and then you can be a gleeful participant in the process of all-hell-breaking-loose.

It would seem that the Iraqis are largely uncapable of providing for their own security, especially when they are confronted with a serious challenge from the terrorists. Also, there have been instances in which the Iraqi police and military have been directly implicated in killing Americans and their fellow Iraqis because of religious differences. Only Americans can bring peace to Iraq. At best, Iraqis could act as a supplement, but they are not to be trusted.

That being said, a time-table is a terrible idea. Our strategy should be based on the progress we make, not elapsed time. And if you're an insurgent, a time-table tells you how long you gotta lay low until the Americans leave, and then you can be a gleeful participant in the process of all-hell-breaking-loose.Let me disabuse you of a couple of notions. First of all, outside terrorists are a minor nuisance in Iraq compared to the real problem--the power struggle for control. Secondly, it doesn't matter what we do--the second we're out the door, there's going to be a full-on civil war. The Sunnis from Saudi Arabia and the Shiites from Iran have pretty much decided it, so the best thing from a US point of view is to just get out of the way and let it happen.

Apparently we don't talk to the same people. I've got few buddies in Ramadi right now. Over the past couple of months they've turned the place from one of the most dangerous in iraq to a place where you can walk out in the open w/o fear. Huge swaths of baghdad have been cleared to the point where journalists don't need body armor. The IP and IA are making huge strides. We've had 3 iraqi battalions operating in western al anbar for the past year as equals of american forces. I've seen estimates that the majority of the operations in iraq will be iraqi controlled within 6-8 months. If that's not progress then idk what is.

What momentum? How the hell have things improved recently?

The poster still thinks it's 2004 and that Joe Lieberman has a chance at the nomination? No, that was Joe-mentum. They're about the same in terms of effectiveness though.

Let me disabuse you of a couple of notions. First of all, outside terrorists are a minor nuisance in Iraq compared to the real problem--the power struggle for control. Secondly, it doesn't matter what we do--the second we're out the door, there's going to be a full-on civil war. The Sunnis from Saudi Arabia and the Shiites from Iran have pretty much decided it, so the best thing from a US point of view is to just get out of the way and let it happen.

I really hope the US does the right thing and gives up its army after that then.

Apparently we don't talk to the same people. I've got few buddies in Ramadi right now. Over the past couple of months they've turned the place from one of the most dangerous in iraq to a place where you can walk out in the open w/o fear. Huge swaths of baghdad have been cleared to the point where journalists don't need body armor. The IP and IA are making huge strides. We've had 3 iraqi battalions operating in western al anbar for the past year as equals of american forces. I've seen estimates that the majority of the operations in iraq will be iraqi controlled within 6-8 months. If that's not progress then idk what is.

If that is the case why isn't "the wonder of our successful Iraqi adventure" being shoved in our faces by Bush and Blair? If things were going the right way they would make sure we all heard about it wouldn't they?

Let me disabuse you of a couple of notions. First of all, outside terrorists are a minor nuisance in Iraq compared to the real problem.
For someone who measures success based on deaths that really doesn't make much sense. Though there are fewer foreign fighters they account for most of the deaths inside iraq.
the power struggle for control. Secondly, it doesn't matter what we do--the second we're out the door, there's going to be a full-on civil war.
I disagree completely. With a state monopoly on warfare then civil war won't occur. That is why we must continue to support those forces.
The Sunnis from Saudi Arabia and the Shiites from Iran have pretty much decided it, so the best thing from a US point of view is to just get out of the way and let it happen.

That is why we are working on initiating negotiations with Iraq right now.

Momentum? Are we reading the same headlines? You know, the ones where there's a car bombing killing 30+ people in Baghdad every freaking day? I guess not.

Al Sadr has scampered off to Iran. That should give you some indication right there.

Violence in Baghdad is declining:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq28aug28,0,5085663.story?track=tothtml

Here's what the US soldiers themselves have to say:
http://www.crosstabs.org/stories/spotlight_blogs/the_surge_is_working

If that is the case why isn't "the wonder of our successful Iraqi adventure" being shoved in our faces by Bush and Blair? If things were going the right way they would make sure we all heard about it wouldn't they?

You'd think but i guess not. My guess is that Bush has touted success too often and him doing so now would only discredit it.

Let me disabuse you of a couple of notions. First of all, outside terrorists are a minor nuisance in Iraq compared to the real problem--the power struggle for control. Secondly, it doesn't matter what we do--the second we're out the door, there's going to be a full-on civil war. The Sunnis from Saudi Arabia and the Shiites from Iran have pretty much decided it, so the best thing from a US point of view is to just get out of the way and let it happen.

The ethno-sectarian violence is indeed the major problem. Did I ever say otherwise?

On the average, an insurgency takes a decade to defeat. Some last longer. But I don't think the American public has the patience to see it through, even though this war is completely winnable.

So where does that leave us?

Realistically, Joe Biden's plan of splitting Iraq three ways seems like the best idea. If Iraq is cleanly divided, then no ethnic cleansing will need to take place to divide it in the first place. Of course, Iran will have way more control of Iraq than we would like by this point. But short of dismantling their government and installing a military regime that takes orders from us, there's nothing to be done about that.

I can't imagine how this timetable could ever go wrong. I mean, we're only:

1. Leaving before the job is done, creating a huge security risk for the Iraqi people.
2. Announcing said timetable to the enemy so they know exactly when we're pulling out and when we'll entirely have left.
3. Risking further Middle-East tensions by abandoning the people to multiple terrorist organizations and warring factions.

I really hope the US does the right thing and gives up its army after that then.

Would you willingly have your own country give up its own military? Would you deprive yourself of your right to self-defense?

Would you willingly have your own country give up its own military? Would you deprive yourself of your right to self-defense?

The US army is not for self-defense.

I can't imagine how this timetable could ever go wrong. I mean, we're only:

1. Leaving before the job is done, creating a huge security risk for the Iraqi people.
2. Announcing said timetable to the enemy so they know exactly when we're pulling out and when we'll entirely have left.
3. Risking further Middle-East tensions by abandoning the people to multiple terrorist organizations and warring factions.

It's not so bad. You can study it and place your oil calls accordingly.

The US army is not for self-defense.

:rolleyes:

Oh, pleeeaase...

I hope you realize that if the US did that, the world would dissolve into total anarchy, right?

The US army is not for self-defense.

Who do you think invaded Afghanistan after 9/11? The New York Waste Department?

You can think what you like about Iraq, and some other wars the US has fought, but there is no debate that Afghanistan was a defensive war.

Who do you think invaded Afghanistan after 9/11? The New York Waste Department?


Well that's going swimmingly too, isn't it? How long until afganistan gets dumped too?

If you paid attention, you would see that I believe that the US should stay in iraq for as long as is needed, and should figure out how to resolve the situation.

But if the US just decides to drop everything and run, I fail to see the reason why it should continue to support such a large strike force, since it will never have the balls to actually use it to any good effect. I can see the justification for a national guard with a small cadre - 100,000 or so - of full time professionals in the muddy boots squad, no more.

The airforce, and a reduced navy can protect the US from the rest. Then we can continue to piss our money away on homeland security to our hearts content.

I hope you realize that if the US did that, the world would dissolve into total anarchy, right?

It really wouldn't.

It would just hasten the US's slide into irrelevancy.

It really wouldn't.

It would just hasten the US's slide into irrelevancy.

Uh, yes it would. We aren't called the police of the world for nothing.

...No, the US won't be irrelevant for a looooong time, unless, of course, it completely disbands its military, in which case we would subsequently be conquered by... somebody, anyway.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0738937520070308?pageNumber=1

Worst. Idea. Ever.
Why would you pull the plug right when we are gaining momentum? Why right when cities like Ramadi and Baghdad are calming down would you introduce something like this to steal that from us and the iraqis? To secure your seat in congress? They were obviously wrong on the surge, now they are trying to steer the positive media coverage back to the negative of a few months ago. Iraqis don't want us to leave just yet. Iraqi forces are making great strides. Even the police in many areas are capable of operating w/o coalition support. We owe it to them to get them back on their feet.


I suppose you missed the 132 dead yesterday? The continued growth of militia and insurgent groups (the real threat in Iraq)? A proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia?

Yeah, we're stuck between the Partisans of Ali and the Sunnis, and we aren't likely to do much except have innocent soldiers killed.

Well that's going swimmingly too, isn't it? How long until afganistan gets dumped too?

If you paid attention, you would see that I believe that the US should stay in iraq for as long as is needed, and should figure out how to resolve the situation.

But if the US just decides to drop everything and run, I fail to see the reason why it should continue to support such a large strike force, since it will never have the balls to actually use it to any good effect. I can see the justification for a national guard with a small cadre - 100,000 or so - of full time professionals in the muddy boots squad, no more.

The airforce, and a reduced navy can protect the US from the rest. Then we can continue to piss our money away on homeland security to our hearts content.

So...you don't want the US to have an Army, yet you want it pacify Iraq?

If we didn't have a military, we wouldn't have been able to invade Afghanistan after we were attacked. If we didn't have a military, China or Iran would become the next super-power. Whatever America's abuses were, I can't expect that either of those two countries will do as much good for the world as the US has done.

Uh, yes it would. We aren't called the police of the world for nothing.

...No, the US won't be irrelevant for a looooong time, unless, of course, it completely disbands its military, in which case we would subsequently be conquered by... somebody, anyway.

Did I say disband the military? No. Just the army, which is essentially a strike force, not a defensive one.

And world police blah, blah, blah. Errant nonsense.

So...you don't want the US to have an Army, yet you want it pacify Iraq?

If we didn't have a military, we wouldn't have been able to invade Afghanistan after we were attacked. If we didn't have a military, China or Iran would become the next super-power. Whatever America's abuses were, I can't expect that either of those two countries will do as much good for the world as the US has done.

No, I want the US to pacify Iraq. But if it doesn't do that, then I want it to give up the expensive and largely ornamental army.

*ponders whether to argue...*

Did I say disband the military? No. Just the army, which is essentially a strike force, not a defensive one.

And world police blah, blah, blah. Errant nonsense.

With the exception of the Coast Guard, all the branches are strike forces. Especially the Marine Corps. And the Navy and Air Force pack a punch too. Shall we disband them, also?

Momentum? Are we reading the same headlines? You know, the ones where there's a car bombing killing 30+ people in Baghdad every freaking day? I guess not.

Why do you hate freedom? :(












;) [/sarcasm]

If that is the case why isn't "the wonder of our successful Iraqi adventure" being shoved in our faces by Bush and Blair? If things were going the right way they would make sure we all heard about it wouldn't they?

Well, it's not really that much up to Bush and Blair to do the shoving; it's mostly the media that informs the public of the situation in Iraq. And the media focuses its main attention on all the bad things in happening in the world. The good things get in there, but it's almost never front-page New York Times or anything. Plus, most people would generally want to know more about all the violence in Iraq, then about how people there 'feel safe' when American soldiers are there. The media will usually give what the people want.

No, I want the US to pacify Iraq. But if it doesn't do that, then I want it to give up the expensive and largely ornamental army.

So using your logic, we should have disbanded the Army after Vietnam?

We defeated Saddams' 400,000 man military in 3 weeks, with less than half of what he had. By military textbook definitions, that's a classic ass-whippin.

Unfortunately, we've squandered our brilliant victory through mistakes made during the occupation, and now here we are. We have the power to destroy, but not to control. We can fight and win any conventional military conflict right now, but insurgency are fundamentally different and tend to take longer. One of the guerillas' main tactics is to discourage the public of the country it's fighting, to make it seem like the guerillas are invisible ghosts just picking our guys off. The casualty figures paint a different picture. By conservative estimates, even, 20,000 Iraqi insurgents have been killed.

So using your logic, we should have disbanded the Army after Vietnam?

There was a massive stand down after vietnam. That's what I am saying should happen.

BTW, I consider the whole vietnam episode to be the most disgraceful chapter in US history. And not because the US fought there.

We defeated Saddams' 400,000 man military in 3 weeks, with less than half of what he had. By military textbook definitions, that's a classic ass-whippin.

Agreed.

Unfortunately, we've squandered our brilliant victory through mistakes made during the occupation, and now here we are. We have the power to destroy, but not to control. We can fight and win any conventional military conflict right now, but insurgency are fundamentally different and tend to take longer. One of the guerillas' main tactics is to discourage the public of the country it's fighting, to make it seem like the guerillas are invisible ghosts just picking our guys off. The casualty figures paint a different picture. By conservative estimates, even, 20,000 Iraqi insurgents have been killed.

And I don't believe the US should pull out. I recognize that it takes sometimes decades to put down insurgencies. In fact, I think the US is morally committed to staying for however long it takes.

But if it doesn't I just don't see the point of keeping this type of force structure hanging around. If the US lacks the constancy to see these projects through, then keeping this type of force is largely ornamental. Vietnam, and then this, indicates that the US probably should not get involved.

And afganistan could have been accomplished with the type of smaller force I am talking about since it is NATO operation anyway.

:rolleyes:

Oh, pleeeaase...

I hope you realize that if the US did that, the world would dissolve into total anarchy, right?

whats wrong with anarchy? i think taking the profit out of war and giving civil rights to the people might be a bit of a step up from facism, dont ya think?

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0738937520070308?pageNumber=1

Worst. Idea. Ever.
Why would you pull the plug right when we are gaining momentum? Why right when cities like Ramadi and Baghdad are calming down would you introduce something like this to steal that from us and the iraqis? To secure your seat in congress? They were obviously wrong on the surge, now they are trying to steer the positive media coverage back to the negative of a few months ago. Iraqis don't want us to leave just yet. Iraqi forces are making great strides. Even the police in many areas are capable of operating w/o coalition support. We owe it to them to get them back on their feet.

I feel dirty for quoting the same article twice in two days, but here we go...

Unfortunately, this isn't a surge, just a reinforcement, and a pretty small one. And if you have to ask whether it'll work, you don't understand guerrilla war. Of course it won't work. Classic guerrilla doctrine - Hell, plain common sense - says when the occupier floods the city with troops, the guerrilla lays low. Which the Iraqis are doing. And yet people are so stupid they're already crowing that "incidents are down" since the Surge.

Well, duh. That's the idea: avoid battle, watch the Arabic-subtitled Dynasty reruns, let the clueless foreigners zoom up and down the alleys. Meanwhile, every soccer-playing kid in the street is memorizing patrol times and tipping his uncle off about the vulnerable small outposts we're now occupying as part of our meet-&-greet policy.

http://www.exile.ru/2007-February-23/the_modocs_a_beautiful_little_war.html


It's funny...I figured a Marine would know the nuts and bolts of guerrilla warfare better than most people.

Whatever happened to your "less Iraq, more Afghanistan"?

Whatever happened to your "less Iraq, more Afghanistan"?

I think it is hidden with "we are the worlds policeman" and "two major wars and one minor war" stuff.

Turns out - can you believe it - that the US government and its employees were full of shit. Go godamn figure.

I was referring to the OP's own earlier thread about less Iraq, more Afghanistan.

If you want more Afghanistan, you need less Iraq. To get less Iraq, you need to make sure that the Iraqis know when they'll be left on their own.

So, you know, setting a timetable might actually let you focus on Afghanistan.

I was referring to the OP's own earlier thread about less Iraq, more Afghanistan.

If you want more Afghanistan, you need less Iraq. To get less Iraq, you need to make sure that the Iraqis know when they'll be left on their own.

So, you know, setting a timetable might actually let you focus on Afghanistan.

There is such the thing as the draft.

There is such the thing as the draft.

That, however, would be ridiculous. Sending a bunch of poorly trained soldiers to places they've never heard of... well...

Then you will get an exact analogy to Vietnam.

That, however, would be ridiculous. Sending a bunch of poorly trained soldiers to places they've never heard of... well...

Then you will get an exact analogy to Vietnam.

There is no reason why they have to be poorly trained. And it worked pretty fucking well in malaya.

I, for one, do not condone ditching the good people in Iraq just because the US has fucked up this far. It is now the US's problem, and the US therefore must fix it somehow.

Running away should not be an option.

Hmm...
I'm actually a little undecided on this one. I think it's down to how the Iraqi people respond to the current initiative. There'll be violence for ages of course, but there has actually been a fairly sharp drop in the number of attacks in certain key areas, according to Al-Jazeera UK this morning (they were quoting Associated Press, I seem to recall). It could well just be a temporary effect though; the underlying tensions are massive. It's very hard for anybody to tell what exactly is going on in Iraq, of course, but I wouldn't dismiss the reports that things are improving out of hand... we'll just have to wait and see. It's a question of to what extent a will to co-operate with a widely resented occupation force can be created, and if it's possible at all then Petraeus is probably the man for the job. Just don't let that idiot in the White House open his mouth. Let him make an prat of himself in South America, he's safer there.
I'm not one of those pro-war leftists, by the way, I firmly opposed the war at the time of invasion. But now we've caused this mess we have a responsibility to find the best (or least bad) option for the Iraqi people.

Uh, yes it would. We aren't called the police of the world for nothing.

...No, the US won't be irrelevant for a looooong time, unless, of course, it completely disbands its military, in which case we would subsequently be conquered by... somebody, anyway.

You don't honestly believe that, do you? As if there were hordes of Chinese or Arab troops sitting in non-existent transport ships just waiting for their chance to invade the US.

Sorry, but wars of conquest don't work very well in this age of assymetric warfare. Especially against a country like the US with a large, armed population.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070308/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_petraeus;_ylt=Amvg1p1yitueZX948xTP0zqs0NUE

The news today says attacks are intensifying, so I'm not quite sure what the OP is talking about. As a fellow marine I'd love to see it his way, but it's not what seems to be shown by the administration, the Brits, the news, intel reports, etc. The violence seems to be getting worse and more spectacular.

whats wrong with anarchy? i think taking the profit out of war and giving civil rights to the people might be a bit of a step up from facism, dont ya think?

Aside from the fact that in anarchy nothing stops anyone from taking everything you own and then torturing you to death?

There is no reason why they have to be poorly trained. And it worked pretty fucking well in malaya.

I, for one, do not condone ditching the good people in Iraq just because the US has fucked up this far. It is now the US's problem, and the US therefore must fix it somehow.

Running away should not be an option.

Drafting people does not function.

Factor 1) They are not motivated. Vietnam is a perfect example of why drafting people and sending them to war is stupid - All they wanted to do was stay alive. They had no interest in winning.

Factor 2) Training takes time. Real training takes lots of time, at least a year, if not more. Four months is the bare minimum.

Factor 3) Training costs money. Do you really want to spend more money on an already hugely inflated army that cannot adequately apply the tools given to them?

Factor 4) It is despicable to force people to go to war.

whats wrong with anarchy? i think taking the profit out of war and giving civil rights to the people might be a bit of a step up from facism, dont ya think?

anarchy doesn't come close to giving civil rights to people. Who gives it to them exactly?

anarchy doesn't come close to giving civil rights to people. Who gives it to them exactly?

Why, the non-existent or ineffectual "government," of course. ;)

Why, the non-existent or ineffectual "government," of course. ;)

The problem here is that the US stuck its dick in a hornet's nest and expected.....honey? They went in just thinking "we'll overthrow Saddam because he sucks and then we'll figure it out from there." I say we send Bush and Cheney over there to lead the government and figure it all out. I'm sure they won't be ripped from their palace and torn to shreds in the street while being burned alive. Come on, it's time for the decider to "bring democracy to Iraq" like he always says. ;)

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0738937520070308?pageNumber=1

Worst. Idea. Ever.
Why would you pull the plug right when we are gaining momentum? Why right when cities like Ramadi and Baghdad are calming down would you introduce something like this to steal that from us and the iraqis? To secure your seat in congress? They were obviously wrong on the surge, now they are trying to steer the positive media coverage back to the negative of a few months ago. Iraqis don't want us to leave just yet. Iraqi forces are making great strides. Even the police in many areas are capable of operating w/o coalition support. We owe it to them to get them back on their feet.

Because the Dems are just like the Socialists in Spain. They are cowards and do not care about the suffering of other people in different countries.

Apparently we don't talk to the same people. I've got few buddies in Ramadi right now. Over the past couple of months they've turned the place from one of the most dangerous in iraq to a place where you can walk out in the open w/o fear. Huge swaths of baghdad have been cleared to the point where journalists don't need body armor. The IP and IA are making huge strides. We've had 3 iraqi battalions operating in western al anbar for the past year as equals of american forces. I've seen estimates that the majority of the operations in iraq will be iraqi controlled within 6-8 months. If that's not progress then idk what is.

Don't worry about these leftists. They believe what is being reported by the Mass Media. What can you expect from that. Damn Media for trying to turn this into Vietnam.

You'd think but i guess not. My guess is that Bush has touted success too often and him doing so now would only discredit it.

Sad but true.

Because the Dems are just like the Socialists in Spain. They are cowards and do not care about the suffering of other people in different countries.

Oh, is that the reason of the week for why we're in Iraq?

First it was WMD...woops none of them.
Then it was the link to Al Qaeda....crap that didn't work.
Now it's to lessen the suffering of people...except there is more suffering now than there was before.

Funny how the administration is having a real hard time justifying the war it started huh?

Oh, is that the reason of the week for why we're in Iraq?

First it was WMD...woops none of them.
Then it was the link to Al Qaeda....crap that didn't work.
Now it's to lessen the suffering of people...except there is more suffering now than there was before.

Funny how the administration is having a real hard time justifying the war it started huh?

hmmm the WMD's went somewhere check out Syria and Iran if you like.


And as for the people suffering more? you obviously have not been talking to the Iraqi people have you? Most of the ones I talked to said they are leading a better life now then before, and while things may be dangerous they beleive they will become better in time. But hey must be alkl BS since it was said by an Iraqi and not the press right?

It's funny...I figured a Marine would know the nuts and bolts of guerrilla warfare better than most people.

It is pretty standard guerilla warfare during other conflicts. This insurgency has proven to act quite different. When we attacked fallujah they left the majority of their force to fight. Whenever we conduct operations that is where the insurgency goes b/c they want to kill americans. When we first reinforced baghdad they upped the violence. This insurgency is anything but normal and that is one characteristic that makes it difficult to fight.

Whatever happened to your "less Iraq, more Afghanistan"?

Let me clarify, i believe we should redeploy at least 20,000 from iraq to afghanistan. This is not all together leaving iraq like the new plan says. I believe that we've made so much progress w/ iraqi forces that its time to draw down a few thousand. No more.

Because the Dems are just like the Socialists in Spain. They are cowards and do not care about the suffering of other people in different countries.

Hmmmm. Perhaps you could list the dates on which the Republicans planned to liberate the people of Burma and the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem?

hmmm the WMD's went somewhere check out Syria and Iran if you like.


Odd because according to the paper records they werent there to begin with. And if the IAEA can tell that materials have been moved with their limited surveillance satellite access, are you telling me the US wouldn't have been able to trace such things had they existed in the first place?

Yeah, why the fuck would anyone want to go along with the overwhelming wishes of the people in Iraq as regards the occupation of their own country?

Only delusional leftists, obviously.

:rolleyes:

And we've been "gaining momentum" every other month since March 2003. Some of us have stopped believing it.

Sad but untrue.

fixed.

Momentum? Are we reading the same headlines? You know, the ones where there's a car bombing killing 30+ people in Baghdad every freaking day? I guess not.

hell bet you they film it too

Don't worry about these leftists. They believe what is being reported by the Mass Media. What can you expect from that. Damn Media for trying to turn this into Vietnam.

If all this was the case than Bush would be crowing about these successes. Yet all we have are generalizations. So I would have to question this especially as the death toll of Iraqi civilians hasn't gotten any better. When that falls significantly then we can talk about improvement.

It is pretty standard guerilla warfare during other conflicts. This insurgency has proven to act quite different. When we attacked fallujah they left the majority of their force to fight. Whenever we conduct operations that is where the insurgency goes b/c they want to kill americans. When we first reinforced baghdad they upped the violence. This insurgency is anything but normal and that is one characteristic that makes it difficult to fight.

So very true.

The biggest problem with a timetable is that once your enemy knows when you'll be leaving they'll just lay low until you're gone and then take over after you've left.

It is pretty standard guerilla warfare during other conflicts. This insurgency has proven to act quite different. When we attacked fallujah they left the majority of their force to fight. Whenever we conduct operations that is where the insurgency goes b/c they want to kill americans. When we first reinforced baghdad they upped the violence. This insurgency is anything but normal and that is one characteristic that makes it difficult to fight.

Hmm, let's see, guerilla fighters tend to target their occupiers, either directly or at their supply lines.

This would seem to be exactly what you're describing. So how is it different from "typical" guerilla warfare?

Because the Dems are just like the Socialists in Spain. They are cowards and do not care about the suffering of other people in different countries.
...

Yes...

Saddam killed, in total, about 250,000 Iraqi civilians, and that includes the Kurds, in about twenty-five years

Coalition troops have killed, in total, about 200,000 in three (there's no way I'm taking the Lancet's report, or people would complain, but I'm adding a touch to the Iraqi Health Ministry's reports to factor in unreported deaths. IBC can shove its numbers up its arse).

Quite who doesn't care about suffering in other countries?

The biggest problem with a timetable is that once your enemy knows when you'll be leaving they'll just lay low until you're gone and then take over after you've left.

Pretty much.

The biggest problem with a timetable is that once your enemy knows when you'll be leaving they'll just lay low until you're gone and then take over after you've left.

Well that's different than the enemy fighting really hard and just holding out until the deadline. At least your little theory is new to me. Of course, we could keep fighting with no deadline, have the extremists lie low, we pull out whenever and then they emerge and start blowing things up again. If we were going to assume that they have any patience. Which they don't. The entire point is for them to terrorize the people in Iraq now, deadline or no deadline.

Well that's different than the enemy fighting really hard and just holding out until the deadline. At least your little theory is new to me. Of course, we could keep fighting with no deadline, have the extremists lie low, we pull out whenever and then they emerge and start blowing things up again. If we were going to assume that they have any patience. Which they don't. The entire point is for them to terrorize the people in Iraq now, deadline or no deadline.
To be honest, the only reason why civilian casualties from violence aren't in their thousands per day is because there are US troops around with a shoot first, ask questions later attitude keeping the average man on the street from shooting anyone that looks at him a bit funny, as will inevitably happen when the foreign troops leave.

Yeah, why the fuck would anyone want to go along with the overwhelming wishes of the people in Iraq as regards the occupation of their own country?

Only delusional leftists, obviously.

:rolleyes:

And we've been "gaining momentum" every other month since March 2003. Some of us have stopped believing it.

You hate freedom, too? :p





(Once again, I kid.)

...

Yes...

Saddam killed, in total, about 250,000 Iraqi civilians, and that includes the Kurds, in about twenty-five years

Coalition troops have killed, in total, about 200,000 in three (there's no way I'm taking the Lancet's report, or people would complain, but I'm adding a touch to the Iraqi Health Ministry's reports to factor in unreported deaths. IBC can shove its numbers up its arse).

Quite who doesn't care about suffering in other countries?

But Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction! And, uh, he supported Al Qaeda! And we needed to spread democracy! And, uh...why do you hate freedom?


[/sarcasm] :D

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0738937520070308?pageNumber=1

Worst. Idea. Ever.
Why would you pull the plug right when we are gaining momentum? Why right when cities like Ramadi and Baghdad are calming down would you introduce something like this to steal that from us and the iraqis? To secure your seat in congress? They were obviously wrong on the surge, now they are trying to steer the positive media coverage back to the negative of a few months ago. Iraqis don't want us to leave just yet. Iraqi forces are making great strides. Even the police in many areas are capable of operating w/o coalition support. We owe it to them to get them back on their feet.

The Iraqis are not on our side.Never have been,never will be.We gave them freedom,which they quickly put to use in the form of sectarian violence.Saddam was a dictator because in Iraq thats all you can have there.Otherwise people will just be killing each other,they're primitive monsters almost.The solution was to occupy the country,destroy anything opposed to the US,then kick Irans ass if it tried to take over Iraq,which is what they are doing now and nobody cares.Then leave.This didnt have to take four years.

If all this was the case than Bush would be crowing about these successes. Yet all we have are generalizations. So I would have to question this especially as the death toll of Iraqi civilians hasn't gotten any better. When that falls significantly then we can talk about improvement.

This guy is just a troll,probably a liberal in the real world,dont take them seriously.

...

Yes...

Saddam killed, in total, about 250,000 Iraqi civilians, and that includes the Kurds, in about twenty-five years

Coalition troops have killed, in total, about 200,000 in three (there's no way I'm taking the Lancet's report, or people would complain, but I'm adding a touch to the Iraqi Health Ministry's reports to factor in unreported deaths. IBC can shove its numbers up its arse).

Quite who doesn't care about suffering in other countries?

200000 killed by Coalition forces?Ive lost what little respect I have for my fellow NS posters.

Don't worry about these leftists. They believe what is being reported by the Mass Media. What can you expect from that. Damn Media for trying to turn this into Vietnam.

So lets the blame the media for misreporting and claim they have a liberal bias again. Great.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Here in the UK the VAST majority of the press has an overwhelming CONSERVATIVE bias, yet we are not hereing about these "great successes in Iraq". So why not?

If all this was the case than Bush would be crowing about these successes. Yet all we have are generalizations. So I would have to question this especially as the death toll of Iraqi civilians hasn't gotten any better. When that falls significantly then we can talk about improvement.

Of course, there's also the point that most leftists don't believe the mass media.

Right-wingnuts like Corny believe the mass media that tells them that the "liberal media" is not telling the whole story about Iraq. And where are you supposed to go to get the "real" story about how the war in Iraq is going? Why, the president of course. Because as the liberal media will tell you, you can't trust the liberal media. You can only trust the President. Because if anyone is in touch with the people, it's the Harvard educated son of a Connecticut millionaire.

hmmm the WMD's went somewhere check out Syria and Iran if you like.

There has never been any proof supporting this claim. This claim is a false claim manufactured to provide an excuse for a war we should never have fought. In fact, the final report by weapons inspectors, following the war, was that there were no WMDs in the hands of the Iraqis at the time the U.S. invaded.

And as for the people suffering more? you obviously have not been talking to the Iraqi people have you? Most of the ones I talked to said they are leading a better life now then before, and while things may be dangerous they beleive they will become better in time. But hey must be alkl BS since it was said by an Iraqi and not the press right?

So the fact that over 70% of Iraqis want us out of Iraq means that they're enjoying our presence? The fact that there is now a full civil war being waged by militia and insurgent groups is a sign of how happy they are?

If that's happy, I never want to see a sad Iraq...