NationStates Jolt Archive

I have noticed many people on this forum showing a clear misunderstanding on what the surge is supposed to do, how it was designed and how long it is supposed to take.

What it is supposed to do: The purpose of the surge is to clear, hold and build Baghdad. It is thought that if a city like this could be pacified under this strategy, any city could be.


How it was designed: If you think back a while to when there was a lot of talk about Tal Afar you will remember a lot of talk about the clear, hold and build strategy. Col. H.R. McMaster decided to go against the overall strategy in Iraq and try his theory out. Needless to say, it worked. So, having the reduced foot print and give power to iraqis strategy not having success, the administration got a lot of people together to come up with how this could be replicated in Baghdad, meaning how many and how long. They came up with the 20,000-30,000 number.


How long is it supposed to take: Until September to see results.

I only have one thing to say:

Read this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/20/AR2006032001897_pf.html) to learn the REST of the story about Tal Afar.

I only have one thing to say:

Read this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/20/AR2006032001897_pf.html) to learn the REST of the story about Tal Afar.


It says that the sectarian violence increased however, this is to be expected. Sectarian violence throughout the country was quite low prior to the Samarra bombings. The Sectarian violence increased everywhere which means that that is not indicative of how the strategy worked, only indicative of a nationwide trend.

I have noticed many people on this forum showing a clear misunderstanding on what the surge is supposed to do, how it was designed and how long it is supposed to take.

What it is supposed to do: The purpose of the surge is to clear, hold and build Baghdad. It is thought that if a city like this could be pacified under this strategy, any city could be.


How it was designed: If you think back a while to when there was a lot of talk about Tal Afar you will remember a lot of talk about the clear, hold and build strategy. Col. H.R. McMaster decided to go against the overall strategy in Iraq and try his theory out. Needless to say, it worked. So, having the reduced foot print and give power to iraqis strategy not having success, the administration got a lot of people together to come up with how this could be replicated in Baghdad, meaning how many and how long. They came up with the 20,000-30,000 number.


How long is it supposed to take: Until September to see results.


Taking your talking points from John McCain? Let's have a reality check, dearie. You hawks have had your chance to play with your action figures, now it's time for the pragmatists to clean up after you.

Violence levels in Baghdad continue to rise. As do the number of deaths in Iraq as a whole. Last month was more deadly than any yet. Not only is violence in Baghdad rising, so is violence outside of Baghdad. All we have succeded in doing is dispersing the weaker militia groups to outside of Baghdad, and sending their ideologies with them. These are not desirable effects.

Now then, a number of independant groups were saying that it would take another 100,000 troops to solve the problem at the turn of the year. 20-30,000 is a small gratuity that is, unsuprisingly, not working. Moreover, the choice of the Shrub administration to ignore the ISG's recommendations were the final stray on the back of Iraq strategy. September is merely another extension for their failure. Now is time to end the escalation and begin a strategic drawdown of forces.

The only tenable strategy, at this point, is to have a surge of diplomacy and attempt to root out corruption in Iraq's armed forces and police. We need to drawdown to about 20,000 over the course of the next year, and, after handling corruption, focus on training the IA and IP up to par. This is their country, and it's no longer our job to prop it up for them.

Besides which, you're missing the main point. They don't want us there, why should we be fighting their civil war for them if they don't want us there?

I have noticed many people on this forum showing a clear misunderstanding on what the surge is supposed to do, how it was designed and how long it is supposed to take.

What it is supposed to do: The purpose of the surge is to clear, hold and build Baghdad. It is thought that if a city like this could be pacified under this strategy, any city could be.


How it was designed: If you think back a while to when there was a lot of talk about Tal Afar you will remember a lot of talk about the clear, hold and build strategy. Col. H.R. McMaster decided to go against the overall strategy in Iraq and try his theory out. Needless to say, it worked. So, having the reduced foot print and give power to iraqis strategy not having success, the administration got a lot of people together to come up with how this could be replicated in Baghdad, meaning how many and how long. They came up with the 20,000-30,000 number.


How long is it supposed to take: Until September to see results.

Good gouge.

It says that the sectarian violence increased however, this is to be expected.It says a lot more than that.

Among other things, it cites a military counter-insurgency expert who expresses doubts that the strategy can be as successful in other Iraqi cities, particularly Baghdad.

More importantly, perhaps, it explains that this "clearing," much like the first one, shows significant signs of being only temporary.

Violence levels in Baghdad continue to rise. As do the number of deaths in Iraq as a whole. Last month was more deadly than any yet. Not only is violence in Baghdad rising, so is violence outside of Baghdad. All we have succeded in doing is dispersing the weaker militia groups to outside of Baghdad, and sending their ideologies with them. These are not desirable effects.
Hmm, violence levels rising during an escalation of force? Well thanks. I bet that that was never expected. As Petreaus said himself, we have 1/2-2/3 of Baghdad under control and the Surge has just been fully implemented a few days ago. There is still 3 months to go to determine its success. The clear, hold, build strategy is tried and true.

Now then, a number of independant groups were saying that it would take another 100,000 troops to solve the problem at the turn of the year. 20-30,000 is a small gratuity that is, unsuprisingly, not working. Moreover, the choice of the Shrub administration to ignore the ISG's recommendations were the final stray on the back of Iraq strategy. September is merely another extension for their failure. Now is time to end the escalation and begin a strategic drawdown of forces.
100,000 to solve the problems in all of Iraq, not just Baghdad. And quite frankly, the ISG thought that Iraq was Ireland. And I ask you, with all of your knowledge on military affairs, what significant advantage would be brought to us by leaving now as opposed to in 3 months? The only possible thing that would happen is that we would lose our chance at victory.

The only tenable strategy, at this point, is to have a surge of diplomacy and attempt to root out corruption in Iraq's armed forces and police. We need to drawdown to about 20,000 over the course of the next year, and, after handling corruption, focus on training the IA and IP up to par. This is their country, and it's no longer our job to prop it up for them.
A surge of diplomacy? You're pretty good at rhetoric. Do you honestly think that 20,000 troops is enough to do ANYTHING in Iraq?

Besides which, you're missing the main point. They don't want us there, why should we be fighting their civil war for them if they don't want us there?
Where is the legislation ordering us out? According to this poll (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm), the majority of every sect except for Sunnis think that the war was worth it. And you are the kind of person, with your "it's their war" attitude, that allows genocide to occur.

I only have one thing to say:

Read this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/20/AR2006032001897_pf.html) to learn the REST of the story about Tal Afar.

The 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment "did a wonderful thing" in retaking Tall Afar, said Ahmed Hashim

Holy crap! Not only is the Regiment actually getting press, but it's positive press! Of course, it doesn't make up for the lack of press when our brigade sized element controlled all of Al Anbar province by ourselves...

*former member of the 3d ACR*

It says a lot more than that.

Among other things, it cites a military counter-insurgency expert who expresses doubts that the strategy can be as successful in other Iraqi cities, particularly Baghdad.

More importantly, perhaps, it explains that this "clearing," much like the first one, shows significant signs of being only temporary.

I have much more respect for Kagan and the general who worked with him (his name escapes me at this time) than any "expert."

According to this poll (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm), the majority of every sect except for Sunnis think that the war was worth it.

First, the date of the article is 4/28/2004. There's been three years of heavy violence since.

And what did Iraqis actually say in this poll?

Let's look at the key findings (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-gallup-iraq-findings.htm?loc=interstitialskip):

52% think the war cannot at all or somewhat cannot be justified morally.

46% think the coalition forces have done more harm than good, as opposed to 33% who say more good than harm.

57% think the US should leave immediately.

58% believe that US forces have conducted themselves fairly badly or very badly.

So much for your argument.

Hmm, violence levels rising during an escalation of force? Well thanks. I bet that that was never expected. As Petreaus said himself, we have 1/2-2/3 of Baghdad under control and the Surge has just been fully implemented a few days ago. There is still 3 months to go to determine its success. The clear, hold, build strategy is tried and true.

No, the number of bombings is rising. That is completely seperate from escalation related combat. The number of civilians killed is rising. That shows that the surge is not working. And the silly method may "work" on paper, but it isn't working in practice, and AnarchyeL's example shows that it's "true" status may be questionable.


100,000 to solve the problems in all of Iraq, not just Baghdad. And quite frankly, the ISG thought that Iraq was Ireland. And I ask you, with all of your knowledge on military affairs, what significant advantage would be brought to us by leaving now as opposed to in 3 months? The only possible thing that would happen is that we would lose our chance at victory.

The ISG is a better (although not particularly good) source of information and opinion that Shrubya. And what could 3 months cost us? How about good American soldiers? How about the continued function of our armed forces? We're already fucking our army over bad enough. Why don't you support the troops?

And why should I trust you when you say 3 months now? The generals are already upping the anty. Hell, Petraeus is talking about 10 years. Fuck that. You've had your chance. Now it's time to let the mature pragmatists take the reigns.

A surge of diplomacy? You're pretty good at rhetoric. Do you honestly think that 20,000 troops is enough to do ANYTHING in Iraq?

No. Why do you think 20,000 more will? I think that 20,000 troops are enough to keep American bases defended so that we can have trainers on hand for the Iraqi military. I expect the IA to start pulling it's weight. And yes, a surge of diplomacy. We need to work on lowering sectarian tensions. If this doesn't work, we fall back on a three state confederation solution.

Where is the legislation ordering us out? According to this poll (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm), the majority of every sect except for Sunnis think that the war was worth it. And you are the kind of person, with your "it's their war" attitude, that allows genocide to occur.


http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/sep06/Iraq_Sep06_rpt.pdf

Nice trick, using a 3 year old poll to cover for more recent polls. And how about the legislation currently being worked on by the Iraqi parliament? You can't win a civil war from the outside. You can work to end it by trying to lower tensions, but that isn't what a military does. That's what diplomats do. Moreover, we are not the world police and it is neither our job nor our business, until the international community decides to act.

Clarification of the "Surge"

Surge = the delicious Coke equivalent of Pepsi's Mountain Dew.

And that's the way it is.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/06/Cronkite.jpg

No, the number of bombings is rising. That is completely seperate from escalation related combat. The number of civilians killed is rising. That shows that the surge is not working. And the silly method may "work" on paper, but it isn't working in practice, and AnarchyeL's example shows that it's "true" status may be questionable.

You can keep thinking that an idiot with a bomb equals us failing but the greatest military minds of our generation disagree.


The ISG is a better (although not particularly good) source of information and opinion that Shrubya. And what could 3 months cost us? How about good American soldiers? How about the continued function of our armed forces? We're already fucking our army over bad enough. Why don't you support the troops?.
We are not going to lose any function in 3 months. And I am perfectly okay with the fact that the more senior part of my career will be based on helping to fix a broken military.
And why should I trust you when you say 3 months now? The generals are already upping the anty. Hell, Petraeus is talking about 10 years. Fuck that. You've had your chance. Now it's time to let the mature pragmatists take the reigns.
So abandoning strategic interests and dooming a country to genocide is pragmatic? Interesting.


No. Why do you think 20,000 more will? I think that 20,000 troops are enough to keep American bases defended so that we can have trainers on hand for the Iraqi military. I expect the IA to start pulling it's weight. And yes, a surge of diplomacy. We need to work on lowering sectarian tensions. If this doesn't work, we fall back on a three state confederation solution.
20,000-30,000 is enough to secure Baghdad with the combined efforts of all MNF's around the country. 20,000 by itself isn't even enough to secure Baghdad.




Nice trick, using a 3 year old poll to cover for more recent polls. And how about the legislation currently being worked on by the Iraqi parliament? You can't win a civil war from the outside. You can work to end it by trying to lower tensions, but that isn't what a military does. That's what diplomats do. Moreover, we are not the world police and it is neither our job nor our business, until the international community decides to act.

1) If legislation passes that orders us out, I'd assume that our leaders would take that opportunity to get out without a bad rep.

2) Since when could diplomats conduct diplomacy with groups like Al-Qaeda?

Hmm, violence levels rising during an escalation of force? Well thanks. I bet that that was never expected.Ummm... Wasn't the whole point to reduce violence?

The clear, hold, build strategy is tried and true.It's probably a good thing for our military that not all of them are dumb enough to think that "if it works one place, it will work everywhere." Of course, "work" is a relative term when the one place it was proclaimed a success is going backwards. It only "works" if it still works after we pull out.

And I ask you, with all of your knowledge on military affairs, what significant advantage would be brought to us by leaving now as opposed to in 3 months?We would save money, resources...
The only possible thing that would happen is that we would lose our chance at victory.We've already lost it. If we had a chance at victory in Iraq (and that's a big "if") we lost it on Day 1 when we neglected to send the number of troops we needed in the first place. We LET the country descend into civil war, and now there's nothing we can do about it.

Do you honestly think that 20,000 troops is enough to do ANYTHING in Iraq?Not really, but then I'm not the one claiming that 20,000 more could do anything.

Where is the legislation ordering us out? According to this poll (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm), the majority of every sect except for Sunnis think that the war was worth it.You need to read the other poll questions, like the one where they ask if the U.S. should get out. "The war was worth it" and "The U.S. should leave" are very different questions, with very different answers.

I have much more respect for Kagan and the general who worked with him (his name escapes me at this time) than any "expert."I don't remember Kagan working with any general, so for now I'll go with the real military expert rather than a neo-conservative academic, thanks. (Unless you were thinking of a different Kagan?)

You can keep thinking that an idiot with a bomb equals us failing but the greatest military minds of our generation disagree.

And that's your failing right there. You don't understand that this war is not a war of armies or positions. This is not a war of drawn lines or trenches. The militias are those idiots with bombs. Until you understand that, you're just boxing with shadows.

We are not going to lose any function in 3 months. And I am perfectly okay with the fact that the more senior part of my career will be based on helping to fix a broken military.

Bullshit we aren't. We're already talking about expanding beyond the already extended 15 month tours. Guess what, bucko, we're fucking ourselves up even worse every week we spend there. Worse yet, we're hurting our recruitment requirement. It's gonna cost good taxpayer money to fix the military from this shit, and you may not care about that fact, but that's my money, and I don't want to just keep pouring it down the drain to fix something we should never have continued to break worse and worse.

So abandoning strategic interests and dooming a country to genocide is pragmatic? Interesting.

We're not abandoning them under my plan. We're allowing the Iraqi's to take care of the military side of things, and continuing to work on diplomatic issues.

20,000-30,000 is enough to secure Baghdad with the combined efforts of all MNF's around the country. 20,000 by itself isn't even enough to secure Baghdad.

Why should I beleive that number? Nothing that Bush or our military leaders has told us so far has been true. Why should we trust them now?

1) If legislation passes that orders us out, I'd assume that our leaders would take that opportunity to get out without a bad rep.

2) Since when could diplomats conduct diplomacy with groups like Al-Qaeda?

1) We'll see soon, since the President vetoed the Dems attempt to stop his sorry ass.

2) That's another part of what you just don't get. See, Al Quaeda isn't the major problem. Militias and partisan groups are the problem. Al Quaeda is just feeding that violence and making it worse. Our diplomats need to work with the sectarian groups to bring them together, or at least to bring something akin to peace. Al Quaeda will be easy to deal with, once the political and social climate has stabalized.

Even if Baghdad were pacified, it'd still be useless for Iraq in the long run. First off, it'd be much, much harder to tame the countryside, where anyone can undoubtedly operate from, and probably cause trouble in Baghdad. Secondly, do we really want all of those US forces patrolling Baghdad? It looks suspiciously like we have the intention to occupy a soveriegn nation, and an ally on top of that. That sends the wrong message to the Iraqis, the int'l community, and most importantly, the American electorate.

You can keep thinking that an idiot with a bomb equals us failing but the greatest military minds of our generation disagree.

I don't see much room the "greatest military minds of our generation" have to quibble with the notion that regular and increasing bombings is indicative of a failure to achieve stability and security.

Taking your talking points from John McCain? Let's have a reality check, dearie. You hawks have had your chance to play with your action figures, now it's time for the pragmatists to clean up after you.

Violence levels in Baghdad continue to rise. As do the number of deaths in Iraq as a whole. Last month was more deadly than any yet. Not only is violence in Baghdad rising, so is violence outside of Baghdad. All we have succeded in doing is dispersing the weaker militia groups to outside of Baghdad, and sending their ideologies with them. These are not desirable effects.

Now then, a number of independant groups were saying that it would take another 100,000 troops to solve the problem at the turn of the year. 20-30,000 is a small gratuity that is, unsuprisingly, not working. Moreover, the choice of the Shrub administration to ignore the ISG's recommendations were the final stray on the back of Iraq strategy. September is merely another extension for their failure. Now is time to end the escalation and begin a strategic drawdown of forces.

The only tenable strategy, at this point, is to have a surge of diplomacy and attempt to root out corruption in Iraq's armed forces and police. We need to drawdown to about 20,000 over the course of the next year, and, after handling corruption, focus on training the IA and IP up to par. This is their country, and it's no longer our job to prop it up for them.

Besides which, you're missing the main point. They don't want us there, why should we be fighting their civil war for them if they don't want us there?
The above clearly demonstrates the appropriateness of your Nation State's name...."Kinda Sensible people".

Now IF only they could have a few Kinda Sensible people in DC, then some progress could be made in Iraq, beginning with the reduction of troop levels.

The only real "surge" taking place in Iraq right now is that of more violence, bloodshed, and death!!

Taking your talking points from John McCain? Let's have a reality check, dearie. You hawks have had your chance to play with your action figures, now it's time for the pragmatists to clean up after you.

Violence levels in Baghdad continue to rise. As do the number of deaths in Iraq as a whole. Last month was more deadly than any yet. Not only is violence in Baghdad rising, so is violence outside of Baghdad. All we have succeded in doing is dispersing the weaker militia groups to outside of Baghdad, and sending their ideologies with them. These are not desirable effects.

Now then, a number of independant groups were saying that it would take another 100,000 troops to solve the problem at the turn of the year. 20-30,000 is a small gratuity that is, unsuprisingly, not working. Moreover, the choice of the Shrub administration to ignore the ISG's recommendations were the final stray on the back of Iraq strategy. September is merely another extension for their failure. Now is time to end the escalation and begin a strategic drawdown of forces.

The only tenable strategy, at this point, is to have a surge of diplomacy and attempt to root out corruption in Iraq's armed forces and police. We need to drawdown to about 20,000 over the course of the next year, and, after handling corruption, focus on training the IA and IP up to par. This is their country, and it's no longer our job to prop it up for them.

Besides which, you're missing the main point. They don't want us there, why should we be fighting their civil war for them if they don't want us there?

Because then, they would be asking, "why didn't you pull your own weight and clean up this damn mess? It's your fault it got here in the first place." And then, those "pragmatists" who advocated pulling out, would switch camp and claim that we abandoned the Iraqis in their deepest plight.

You're pretty good at rhetoric.
Apparently, so are you. :p

According to this poll (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm), the majority of every sect except for Sunnis think that the war was worth it. And you are the kind of person, with your "it's their war" attitude, that allows genocide to occur.
You really didn't take a good look at the poll results did you?

From the article attached, I found this quote to be quite representative:

"I'm not ungrateful that they took away Saddam Hussein," says Salam Ahmed, 30, a Shiite businessman. "But the job is done. Thank you very much. See you later. Bye-bye."

BTW, that poll was taken 3 years ago, you should try a more recent one. :)

I have noticed many people on this forum showing a clear misunderstanding on what the surge is supposed to do, how it was designed and how long it is supposed to take.
I dont give a sh*t about all the word spinnings the politicians can pull out of their ass.

Until September to see results.I know the results.. I clearly stated them on this forum before the surge launched

You really didn't take a good look at the poll results did you?

The funny thing is that they weren't even hidden.

The relevant facts were right in the first paragraph.

The funny thing is that they weren't even hidden.

The relevant facts were right in the first paragraph.
So very true!!

you're funny, whose puppet are you?

you're funny, whose puppet are you?

I haven't seen Corny around lately.....

Because then, they would be asking, "why didn't you pull your own weight and clean up this damn mess? It's your fault it got here in the first place." And then, those "pragmatists" who advocated pulling out, would switch camp and claim that we abandoned the Iraqis in their deepest plight.

It's easy to prognosticate about something that will never occur, isn't it?

You'll notice that, first, my plan is not about just up and abandoning Iraq (and neither are the plans of any of the sane politicians in Washington), my plan is about building an Iraq that can handle it's own war. We need to root out corruption in the IA and IR, and bolster their strength. Given that fighting Terrorism is really a police action anyway, this is the proper course of action. Then, we need to work on finding a solution that lessens sectarian tensions. That means that we need to either reestablish the sense of Iraqi unity, or we need to create a three-state solution akin to the one Senator Brownback (Gah... Now I need to wash my mouth out with soap) is suggesting. None of these things requires the presence of the number of troops we have there now.

Second, Talk of "rebuilding" Iraq is a pipe dream. We had our chance, and we squandered that away completely. By not sending enough troops, not making the effort to understand the country we were entering, and not handling the actual process of rebuilding properly, we eliminated any chance of rebuilding Iraq in our own way. We need to let Iraq rebuild itself now, because it has no interest in our feeble attempts. We can help in the way I suggested, but we need to stop acting like it's our job. Iraq doesn't want that, and the American people do not want that.

Because then, they would be asking, "why didn't you pull your own weight and clean up this damn mess? It's your fault it got here in the first place." And then, those "pragmatists" who advocated pulling out, would switch camp and claim that we abandoned the Iraqis in their deepest plight.
Perhaps if you had to put your life on the line to defend the current Iraq debacle, you might not give a damn what the "pragmatists" had to say afterward about the poor Iraqis "plight"?

How long is it supposed to take: Until September to see results.

We can see the preliminary results now: Failure. After failure. After failure...

your incorrect on a number of points,but i am too tired and drunk to explain it now.

I suggest you don't post drunk...it's not even a challenge.

Taking your talking points from John McCain? Let's have a reality check, dearie. You hawks have had your chance to play with your action figures, now it's time for the pragmatists to clean up after you.

Violence levels in Baghdad continue to rise. As do the number of deaths in Iraq as a whole. Last month was more deadly than any yet. Not only is violence in Baghdad rising, so is violence outside of Baghdad. All we have succeded in doing is dispersing the weaker militia groups to outside of Baghdad, and sending their ideologies with them. These are not desirable effects.

Now then, a number of independant groups were saying that it would take another 100,000 troops to solve the problem at the turn of the year. 20-30,000 is a small gratuity that is, unsuprisingly, not working. Moreover, the choice of the Shrub administration to ignore the ISG's recommendations were the final stray on the back of Iraq strategy. September is merely another extension for their failure. Now is time to end the escalation and begin a strategic drawdown of forces.

The only tenable strategy, at this point, is to have a surge of diplomacy and attempt to root out corruption in Iraq's armed forces and police. We need to drawdown to about 20,000 over the course of the next year, and, after handling corruption, focus on training the IA and IP up to par. This is their country, and it's no longer our job to prop it up for them.

Besides which, you're missing the main point. They don't want us there, why should we be fighting their civil war for them if they don't want us there?


your incorrect on a number of points,but i am too tired and drunk to explain it now.
i will say that your wrong,in that we have (and i read a post poo-poing the idea that we armed sunni's to help us)but the fact of the matter is..we are choking them off,the al-quaida ones that is)we need to get the fuck out of there asap,but do you advocate us leaving a bloodbath behind us,or do do you want that just to prove ho evil the u.s. is?
my kid is going there in september,do you really think i want him there????

the fact that everyone is avoiding is that we are fighting al quiada there,and not here..we are killing them off,at great loss to our kids,and that we are winning against them...we have saddams own guys taking up arms against these murderous assholes,and that is a step in the right direction.
trust me,i am by no means a right wing hawk..lol not even close,but i am saying we are there,we may as well win and kill as many nuts as we can.

all the argue ments aside about a war for oil and other rhetoric..fact is,they want to kill us cause we are there,fact....well then dont buy a computer made with petroleum,dont drive,dont have a fucking subway ticket,dont have electricity.
we are all there for a reason,they know it and we know it.

at some point..do you want to turn a blind eye towards sharia law and watch in horror(like darfur)and do nothing,or do you want to win and get your you new dell...sour logic..but the truth.
it sounds hideous,and it is,but maybe if we win everyone wins?

and i can post a link that the crazies(you know the ones..that think blowing up innocent kids are losing)i will....what the hell...hate america and the west all you want..do you really think all will be great if you capitulate?
do you really think that they will stop at having the arabian peninsula?

ok,we are whores for the oil..they are whores for god knows what...sewing vaginas shut when they go away for a few days...for beating women into submission,for autocratic rule by mullahs.
my personal feeling is that these men(and it is mostly)are seriously threatened by womwen...read there dogma..they are really afraid of women being in any other then there place...in the kitchen...they like to say they respect women,but within the boundries they set..what does that tell you?

i drank too much..time for bed..i just feel bad for the women is all.

snip
The affects alcohol has on one's mind to spell, maintain good grammar, and to stay on one, orderly topic are astonishing.

your incorrect on a number of points,but i am too tired and drunk to explain it now.
i will say that your wrong,in that we have (and i read a post poo-poing the idea that we armed sunni's to help us)but the fact of the matter is..we are choking them off,the al-quaida ones that is)we need to get the fuck out of there asap,but do you advocate us leaving a bloodbath behind us,or do do you want that just to prove ho evil the u.s. is?
my kid is going there in september,do you really think i want him there????

Sir, if you were not drunk, perhaps you could spare the attention to what I wrote, rather than to the talking points you have been fed. I do not beleive in leaving a bloodbath. I beleive in reconstructing and cleaning out the IA and IP, and letting the Iraqi people (now properly equiped and prepared) handle their nation the way they want to.

the fact that everyone is avoiding is that we are fighting al quiada there,and not here..we are killing them off,at great loss to our kids,and that we are winning against them...we have saddams own guys taking up arms against these murderous assholes,and that is a step in the right direction.
trust me,i am by no means a right wing hawk..lol not even close,but i am saying we are there,we may as well win and kill as many nuts as we can.

What has winning to do with "killing as many nuts as we can"? Winning has to do with preventing a further terrorist threat to the US and to the world. Guns are only so much good in fighting terrorism. Terrorism is best fought by combatting the hate and fear that create it, rather than by shooting at people. Dead terrorists are merely magnets for more conversions.

And don't insult my intelligence by bringing the "fight them there so we don't fight them here" talking point in here. It was tripe when it was first suggested, and it remains tripe now.


at some point..do you want to turn a blind eye towards sharia law and watch in horror(like darfur)and do nothing,or do you want to win and get your you new dell...sour logic..but the truth.
it sounds hideous,and it is,but maybe if we win everyone wins?

and i can post a link that the crazies(you know the ones..that think blowing up innocent kids are losing)i will....what the hell...hate america and the west all you want..do you really think all will be great if you capitulate?
do you really think that they will stop at having the arabian peninsula?

ok,we are whores for the oil..they are whores for god knows what...sewing vaginas shut when they go away for a few days...for beating women into submission,for autocratic rule by mullahs.
my personal feeling is that these men(and it is mostly)are seriously threatened by womwen...read there dogma..they are really afraid of women being in any other then there place...in the kitchen...they like to say they respect women,but within the boundries they set..what does that tell you?

i drank too much..time for bed..i just feel bad for the women is all.

Eh... Please just post sober from now on. This doesn't even make sense to me. However, you seem to beleive (incorrectly) that force of arms can make shari'a law or radical islamism go away. This is nonsense. The greatest tool used to fight backwards religious nutsos of all kinds is modernity. With modernity and financial security come women's rights and social equality. It is an uncomfortable path, but it is one that will exist in any free-willed world. The best thing we can do for places like Iraq is help grow their economies (on something more stable than oil, which is only going to be a real market for 30 years) and continue to allow modernity to grow. Force of arms cannot do these things.