NationStates Jolt Archive

August 01, 2007
Do We Have Permission to Win in Iraq?
By David Warren

So far as I can make out -- I am not writing from Iraq, but I do make a splendid effort to follow the plot there -- the Americans are finally doing what they should have been doing all along. They are taking the battle to the Islamist enemy, or rather, enemies, both Shia and Sunni. They are enlisting the help of tribal lords and other local allies against these enemies, de-emphasizing the grand "Marshall Plan" giveaways, and re-emphasizing small, visible, unbureaucratic improvements on that local scale. They have become less timid about inspections and searches, and thus have taken bigger risks of offending people, in the knowledge that providing better security is the only thing that will get them loved. They not only have more men now in theatre, but are using more proportionally up front and fewer in the rear. They are patrolling frontiers more pro-actively, and turning no blind eyes to suspicious incursions. By using different techniques in different districts, they are also breaking the enemy's ability to camouflage.

It is a little known fact -- at least, to the Western media -- that the vast majority of Iraqis cannot possibly want to live under the murderous tyranny of a relatively small number of Islamist psychopaths, of foreign inspiration, and will do everything except master the art of self-government to avoid it. What has changed, over the past few years, would seem to be the popular attitude towards the future, in Iraq. It contains more fear, and is therefore easier to harness towards such specific ends as finding Islamist terrorists and annihilating them.

A remarkable piece was published on the op-ed of the New York Times, on Monday. Remarkable not for its content (it told us what we should already know), but for who wrote it: Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, two non-friends of the Bush administration. Having just returned from Iraq, they said they were struck by a turnaround in morale, that could only be attributed to the recent arrival of Gen. David Petraeus, and the general offensive he was charged to oversee. "The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander; ... they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference." The authors also cited statistical indications that the tide is turning.

Contrast this with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, back in Washington: "This war is lost. There's simply no evidence that the escalation is working."

Sen. Reid has a long history of seeing no evidence where there is plenty of evidence, and plenty of evidence where there is no evidence, but that is beside the point. He represents the core, Democrat "defeatist" constituency. That constituency is not something recently formed. The idea that Iraq is "another Vietnam," and that any American enterprise (that doesn't involve the expansion of the welfare state) must necessarily be "another Vietnam," is, for these people, an article in a creed.

But it is important to remember the history. A previous generation of these Democrats first insisted on shoving their South Vietnamese allies aside, and trying to run the war for them; then of imposing all kinds of restraints on their battlefield commanders which, in aggregate, made victory impossible. And then, when they tired of the war, they abandoned the Vietnamese to their fate, with the additional Congressional touch of cutting off South Vietnam's supply of arms and ammunition. Finally, they just watched as the Communist guerrillas from the jungle were replaced by North Vietnamese regulars in tanks, driving openly down the American-built highways to receive the surrender of Saigon, while the U.S. Seventh Fleet was hovering offshore, with the equipment to "mow them down to marmalade."

It was a rout so ignominious, that it destroyed the credibility of the United States, probably adding ten years to the life of the Soviet Empire. It inspired Communist advances in Afghanistan, Angola, Ethiopia, Nicaragua, and elsewhere; and, little appreciated at the time, Islamist advances overtly in Iran, and covertly throughout the Muslim world.

Such Democrats -- not all Democrats, there were "Scoop Jackson Democrats" throughout the Cold War -- often complain that their Republican opponents "question their patriotism," when all they have done is advocate a policy of defeat and humiliation for the United States abroad. All I can add to Dr Johnson's famous remark that "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel," is the observation that traitors tend to be especially sensitive to the charge of treason.

There are background problems still not adequately confronted. The Iraqi political order is nearly dysfunctional, and there is little that can currently be done, politically or practically, about the sponsors of Islamist subversion in Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.

But given the hard geopolitical fact, that cutting and running from Iraq will be a catastrophe for the West, on a scale even bigger than cutting and running from Vietnam, let's just keep fighting until we win.

Dems’ 'Real Big Problem'
By Byron York
August 03, 2007
The Iraq debate that we’ve been watching this year has been about two bets.

After false starts and misplaced hopes in 2004, and 2005, and 2006, George W. Bush is betting his surge strategy will facilitate the political progress that could bring a semblance of stability to Iraq.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) are betting the surge will fail.

It’s as simple as that. If Bush wins his bet, Iraq will be a better place, the Middle East will be a better place, and America will be a safer place.

But Reid and Pelosi lose if Bush wins. Given the position they have staked out for themselves, the best possible outcome is for Gen. David Petraeus to give a downbeat report on the surge when he comes before Congress in September.
That would give tremendous momentum to those who want the quickest possible U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

It’s the dilemma of being in the opposition in wartime. By betting so much of their political capital on the issue, Reid and Pelosi have become invested in U.S. failure. A U.S. success would throw a wrench in their plans.

That sounds harsh. But just read what Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) told The Washington Post.

This week the paper reported that many Democrats “have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad.” But now, the Post continued, “there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive.”

And that, Clyburn told the paper, would be “a real big problem for us.”

Clyburn’s comments are the flip side of what Reid said in April when he declared, “We’re going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war. Sen. [Charles] Schumer has shown me numbers that are compelling and astounding.”

Schumer (D-N.Y.) also said, “Look at the poll numbers of Republican senators, and the war in Iraq is a lead weight attached to their ankle.” As a result, Schumer predicted, some Republicans face “extinction” while Democrats pick up more seats.

American success in Iraq could mess all of that up.

It’s a terrible position for Democrats to be in, one they could have avoided if they had given the surge time to succeed or fail. But they put all their chips on failure before it even began.

That’s why we have seen such frenzied criticism of what is probably the most debated op-ed of the year, this week’s article in The New York Times entitled “A War We Just Might Win,” by Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack.

The authors, both with the Brookings Institution, were early proponents of the war and later critics of Bush’s handling of it. Now, they write, “We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms,” and they see the possibility of “a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.”

They might be wrong; in the fifth year of this war, anyone who is not deeply skeptical about reports of progress just isn’t being realistic. And even if the surge is working, war supporters can be rightly furious at Bush for not doing it years ago.

But at least they aren’t betting on — haven’t staked their hopes on — American failure.

Who would want to do that?

But given the hard geopolitical fact, that cutting and running from Iraq will be a catastrophe for the West, on a scale even bigger than cutting and running from Vietnam, let's just keep fighting until we win.

Nice to see such wisdom expounded to the masses. Yes, let's keep fighting until we win. Even if it takes us another few centuries and reduces Iraq to an empty wasteland. We can't afford to let those evil terrorist communists win.

Just leave Iraq alone. The United States has done enough damage for one century.

Smells like spam to me. No commentary and no attribution.


Don't just post articles verbatim, comment on them.

Even if it takes us another few centuries and reduces Iraq to an empty wasteland.

The fact that you could even think that is astounding.

Define how to 'win in Iraq'.

hey krem?

how about you post your OWN thoughts? maybe highlight a bit of the passages from your posts to illustrate where you think he was most right?

if i wanted to read 3rd party blogs, id be on a blog site.

Wasn't there this little bit about winning hearts and minds?

August 01, 2007
Do We Have Permission to Win in Iraq?
By David Warren

So far as I can make out -- I am not writing from Iraq, but I do make a splendid effort to follow the plot there -- the Americans are finally doing what they should have been doing all along. They are taking the battle to the Islamist enemy, or rather, enemies, both Shia and Sunni. They are enlisting the help of tribal lords and other local allies against these enemies, de-emphasizing the grand "Marshall Plan" giveaways, and re-emphasizing small, visible, unbureaucratic improvements on that local scale. They have become less timid about inspections and searches, and thus have taken bigger risks of offending people, in the knowledge that providing better security is the only thing that will get them loved. They not only have more men now in theatre, but are using more proportionally up front and fewer in the rear. They are patrolling frontiers more pro-actively, and turning no blind eyes to suspicious incursions. By using different techniques in different districts, they are also breaking the enemy's ability to camouflage.

It is a little known fact -- at least, to the Western media -- that the vast majority of Iraqis cannot possibly want to live under the murderous tyranny of a relatively small number of Islamist psychopaths, of foreign inspiration, and will do everything except master the art of self-government to avoid it. What has changed, over the past few years, would seem to be the popular attitude towards the future, in Iraq. It contains more fear, and is therefore easier to harness towards such specific ends as finding Islamist terrorists and annihilating them.

A remarkable piece was published on the op-ed of the New York Times, on Monday. Remarkable not for its content (it told us what we should already know), but for who wrote it: Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, two non-friends of the Bush administration. Having just returned from Iraq, they said they were struck by a turnaround in morale, that could only be attributed to the recent arrival of Gen. David Petraeus, and the general offensive he was charged to oversee. "The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander; ... they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference." The authors also cited statistical indications that the tide is turning.

Contrast this with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, back in Washington: "This war is lost. There's simply no evidence that the escalation is working."

Sen. Reid has a long history of seeing no evidence where there is plenty of evidence, and plenty of evidence where there is no evidence, but that is beside the point. He represents the core, Democrat "defeatist" constituency. That constituency is not something recently formed. The idea that Iraq is "another Vietnam," and that any American enterprise (that doesn't involve the expansion of the welfare state) must necessarily be "another Vietnam," is, for these people, an article in a creed.

But it is important to remember the history. A previous generation of these Democrats first insisted on shoving their South Vietnamese allies aside, and trying to run the war for them; then of imposing all kinds of restraints on their battlefield commanders which, in aggregate, made victory impossible. And then, when they tired of the war, they abandoned the Vietnamese to their fate, with the additional Congressional touch of cutting off South Vietnam's supply of arms and ammunition. Finally, they just watched as the Communist guerrillas from the jungle were replaced by North Vietnamese regulars in tanks, driving openly down the American-built highways to receive the surrender of Saigon, while the U.S. Seventh Fleet was hovering offshore, with the equipment to "mow them down to marmalade."

It was a rout so ignominious, that it destroyed the credibility of the United States, probably adding ten years to the life of the Soviet Empire. It inspired Communist advances in Afghanistan, Angola, Ethiopia, Nicaragua, and elsewhere; and, little appreciated at the time, Islamist advances overtly in Iran, and covertly throughout the Muslim world.

Such Democrats -- not all Democrats, there were "Scoop Jackson Democrats" throughout the Cold War -- often complain that their Republican opponents "question their patriotism," when all they have done is advocate a policy of defeat and humiliation for the United States abroad. All I can add to Dr Johnson's famous remark that "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel," is the observation that traitors tend to be especially sensitive to the charge of treason.

There are background problems still not adequately confronted. The Iraqi political order is nearly dysfunctional, and there is little that can currently be done, politically or practically, about the sponsors of Islamist subversion in Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.

But given the hard geopolitical fact, that cutting and running from Iraq will be a catastrophe for the West, on a scale even bigger than cutting and running from Vietnam, let's just keep fighting until we win.


Good evening F&G.

Define how to 'win in Iraq'.

Yeah, I was just wondering where the arrogance was comming from that people still think they CAN "win" in Iraq.

We've won in Iraq. No country that size can withstand the power of the American military. Iraq fell to American might. Of course, Iraq is much different from terrorism. Terrorism is a way of doing things, for lack of a better description, like shooting sub-machine guns from the hip. It's ridiculous to think that's we're going to defeat terrorism in Iraq when the enemy isn't even known. Frankly, the US is wasting time, money, and soldiers on a fruitless cause.

Same with Islam. Muslims are all over the place, of all sorts of nationalities. Religions of all types have been persecuted over the centuries, and have thrived as a result. Don't count on getting rid of Islam, violent as it is.

Yeah, I was just wondering where the arrogance was comming from that people still think they CAN "win" in Iraq.

I was wondering myself where the ignorance was coming from that these people cannot see that the USA's already lost. Their heads in the sand are just prolonging the fait accompli.

Snip

That was a nice read of the current Iraq situation.

Really, thanks for posting it.

Too bad you'll be scoffed and rideculed since this goes against the forum's strong liberal bias.

Yes, the only way to eradicate terrorism is to use the 'Mongol method' and lay waste to anything that could possibly be of advantage to them. This includes just about every Muslim male over the age of 12, every building, every bomb making material, every single, last resource, every city, every thing that they believe in, that is the only way to destroy a belief system, destroy everything critical to it. And that’s called the Mongol method for a reason, the Mongols were one of the few peoples though out history who could do it and get away with it.

That was a nice read of the current Iraq situation.

Really, thanks for posting it.

Too bad you'll be scoffed and rideculed since this goes against the forum's strong liberal bias.

Its called a reality bias

Its called a reality bias

Case in point. :rolleyes:

Case in point. :rolleyes:

Just 'cause you push your head deeper, doesn't mean the sand will somehow give way to air.

That was a nice read of the current Iraq situation.

Really, thanks for posting it.

Too bad you'll be scoffed and rideculed since this goes against the forum's strong liberal bias.

since the OP has left and you seem to want to take up his cause

what in those posts (which i didnt read and wont read) did you find illustrative of the current situation in iraq?

what in YOUR opinion is the point of the question "do we want to win in iraq?"


oh and...

kremlorn cant be scoffed at and ridiculed since he posted nothing of his own. we can only scoff at mr warren and mr york who actually wrote the posts. not that that would be much fun since they cant respond.

Just 'cause you push your head deeper, doesn't mean the sand will somehow give way to air.

Really?

Maybe I like to take notice to the positive things as opposed to the negative ones that people don't seem to stray from.

Really?

Yup, because sooner or later you hit either bedrock or water, both of which bring your denial to an abrupt end.

Maybe I like to take notice to the positive things as opposed to the negative ones that people don't seem to stray from.

"Aww, gee, will you look at that festering, mismanaged and atrocious quagmire. There's a wilted weed in it! How comparatively pretty."

August 01, 2007
Do We Have Permission to Win in Iraq?
By David Warren

So far as I can make out -- I am not writing from Iraq, but I do make a splendid effort to follow the plot there -- the Americans are finally doing what they should have been doing all along. They are taking the battle to the Islamist enemy, or rather, enemies, both Shia and Sunni. They are enlisting the help of tribal lords and other local allies against these enemies, de-emphasizing the grand "Marshall Plan" giveaways, and re-emphasizing small, visible, unbureaucratic improvements on that local scale. They have become less timid about inspections and searches, and thus have taken bigger risks of offending people, in the knowledge that providing better security is the only thing that will get them loved. They not only have more men now in theatre, but are using more proportionally up front and fewer in the rear. They are patrolling frontiers more pro-actively, and turning no blind eyes to suspicious incursions. By using different techniques in different districts, they are also breaking the enemy's ability to camouflage.

It is a little known fact -- at least, to the Western media -- that the vast majority of Iraqis cannot possibly want to live under the murderous tyranny of a relatively small number of Islamist psychopaths, of foreign inspiration, and will do everything except master the art of self-government to avoid it. What has changed, over the past few years, would seem to be the popular attitude towards the future, in Iraq. It contains more fear, and is therefore easier to harness towards such specific ends as finding Islamist terrorists and annihilating them.

A remarkable piece was published on the op-ed of the New York Times, on Monday. Remarkable not for its content (it told us what we should already know), but for who wrote it: Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, two non-friends of the Bush administration. Having just returned from Iraq, they said they were struck by a turnaround in morale, that could only be attributed to the recent arrival of Gen. David Petraeus, and the general offensive he was charged to oversee. "The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander; ... they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference." The authors also cited statistical indications that the tide is turning.

Contrast this with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, back in Washington: "This war is lost. There's simply no evidence that the escalation is working."

Sen. Reid has a long history of seeing no evidence where there is plenty of evidence, and plenty of evidence where there is no evidence, but that is beside the point. He represents the core, Democrat "defeatist" constituency. That constituency is not something recently formed. The idea that Iraq is "another Vietnam," and that any American enterprise (that doesn't involve the expansion of the welfare state) must necessarily be "another Vietnam," is, for these people, an article in a creed.

But it is important to remember the history. A previous generation of these Democrats first insisted on shoving their South Vietnamese allies aside, and trying to run the war for them; then of imposing all kinds of restraints on their battlefield commanders which, in aggregate, made victory impossible. And then, when they tired of the war, they abandoned the Vietnamese to their fate, with the additional Congressional touch of cutting off South Vietnam's supply of arms and ammunition. Finally, they just watched as the Communist guerrillas from the jungle were replaced by North Vietnamese regulars in tanks, driving openly down the American-built highways to receive the surrender of Saigon, while the U.S. Seventh Fleet was hovering offshore, with the equipment to "mow them down to marmalade."

It was a rout so ignominious, that it destroyed the credibility of the United States, probably adding ten years to the life of the Soviet Empire. It inspired Communist advances in Afghanistan, Angola, Ethiopia, Nicaragua, and elsewhere; and, little appreciated at the time, Islamist advances overtly in Iran, and covertly throughout the Muslim world.

Such Democrats -- not all Democrats, there were "Scoop Jackson Democrats" throughout the Cold War -- often complain that their Republican opponents "question their patriotism," when all they have done is advocate a policy of defeat and humiliation for the United States abroad. All I can add to Dr Johnson's famous remark that "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel," is the observation that traitors tend to be especially sensitive to the charge of treason.

There are background problems still not adequately confronted. The Iraqi political order is nearly dysfunctional, and there is little that can currently be done, politically or practically, about the sponsors of Islamist subversion in Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.

But given the hard geopolitical fact, that cutting and running from Iraq will be a catastrophe for the West, on a scale even bigger than cutting and running from Vietnam, let's just keep fighting until we win.

What a beautiful synopsis of the current Weimar mentality of the far right. We'd have won if those stab-in-the-back Jews, er, Democrats, hadn't taken WWI, er, Iraq, away from us. I say this not to call you racist, but to point out the fairly staggering similarity here between your take on the war, a war that was fought for roughly the same length of time it took us to get from Bull Run to Appomattox, and the Nazi take on WWI. This war has been run by a Republican president with the benefit of a Republican House and Senate, but has nevertheless been lost by Democrats, just like a war waged by Imperial Germans and Prussians was nevertheless lost by a bunch of watchmakers. Hmm, both of these things is exactly like the other, but one of them had some pretty bad consequences. I wonder how the other will turn out?

since the OP has left and you seem to want to take up his cause

what in those posts (which i didnt read and wont read) did you find illustrative of the current situation in iraq?

what in YOUR opinion is the point of the question "do we want to win in iraq?"


oh and...

kremlorn cant be scoffed at and ridiculed since he posted nothing of his own. we can only scoff at mr warren and mr york who actually wrote the posts. not that that would be much fun since they cant respond.

My opinion?

(Mind you I hate Bush and everything he stands for. I even wrote Rumsfeld a letter and mailed it to him telling him how faulty a job he was doing.That might be hard for people here to grasp since I'm somewhat defending the Iraq war right now.)

I believe that the American people as a whole are merley sunshine patriots when it comes to warfare nowadays.

Right when Bush and his regime gave the OK to invade Iraq, everyone was glad that our invincible army was going to go in, kick some ass, and get out like we've done in every other war with the exception of Vietnam.

Sure enough, we rolled in, kicked ass, found Saddam and sent him to jail.

Did the media ever focus on the negative aspects then? No, of course not. Why show anything negative when there are so many more positive things to spoint out?

Then of course, gradually the tides shifted, and all the sudden losing one soldier seemed to become the same as losing one hundred.

Now that the military isn't doing anything as monumental as capturing a capital city and overthrowing a disgusting dictator, nothing it does will be able to live up to that, therefore making it look incompetant.

But do the American people want to win the war in Iraq?

I can tell you they sure as hell don't, not when that would require a God damned draft which is so needed right now. But nooooo, when it comes to risking our loved ones who aren't in the military, the war suddenly goes from their doorstep to ours. We can't have that now can we? We can't risk any of our fathers, brothers, and sons even though the Iraqis lose theirs everyday.

After all, Bush is in the White House as a representative of the people, and since the people put him in office, they should be willing to accept the responsibilites of their own actions.

So we could be "winning" the war, we could be doing more, but it just won't happen because the American people as a whole just don't care that much.

what in those posts (which i didnt read and wont read) did you find illustrative of the current situation in iraq?

Why are you asking me if you didn't even read the article?

Really?

Maybe I like to take notice to the positive things as opposed to the negative ones that people don't seem to stray from.

OK I'll bite

Positives

- Saddam has now gone and his cruel government has been disbanded.

- Err,.........


Negatives

- Power, water, healthcare and other facilities have still not been restored to pre war levels and the people suffer as a result.

- The US army seems to operate on the basis of wanting to kill rather than protect

- Thousands upon thousands of Iraqis are dead

- Of the billions of US taxpayers money invested in Iraq (during the US "govornorship") a large percentage of it went missingand is still missing

- The US administration seems to have no clearly defined goals in Iraq, they seem to change every couple of weeks.

- US friendly fire in Iraq concerning their allies (Italian journalists and British troops) have resulted in widespread international conjsemnation, thanks to the US government refusing to even co-operate with investigations

- US coercion and bullying to privatise the Iraqi oil industry have now alienated many members of the Iraqi government. It is pretty likely we will soon be in the situation where both the people and the government of Iraq no longer want the US there.

- The whole basis for starting the war, Saddam owning WMDs, WAS FALSE.


Well, few more positives would be nice.

Liberal bias or just plain old reality?:rolleyes:

I would recommend checking out "The Fog of War" by Robert McNamara (the Don Rumsfeld if Nam)

Vietnam and Bushnam

In both wars we went in with no cause. In both wars we had no understanding of the enemy. (Aristotle said that was mandatory 2300 years ago.) In both wars we did not lose a major battle. In both wars the president saw war as a first option and didn't consider any other option. In both wars the president saw a quick win that would boost prestige and get them reelected. In both wars we don't have the support of the people on the street (qualifier--In order to have a government you need not just a simple majority but a vast support. Even a 10% opposition that is willing to fight is too much.) In both wars there were those that could see victory. In both wars the people (of the US and both Nams) were better off before we got involved. (The best thing to ever happen to the Vietnamese was for the US to pull out.) In both wars we looked for that final big battle in vain. In both wars we fought the people we supposedly were there to protect. In both wars we could take anything we wanted to take, we just couldn't hold it. In both wars we set up a corrupt puppet government that didn't have the support of the people. In both wars poor kids died for the benefit of rich kids. In both wars fewer people were being killed by the enemy government than were killed under US control. In both wars we had no idea of what victory meant. In both wars the reason for the war kept changing until it became, "We can't leave because the US doesn't lose."


This is the first 5 minutes off the top of my head. The only logic is Bushnam is Vietnam. When someone is high during history they are bound to repeat it. (especially when one can make $billions$ from it.)

OK I'll bite

Positives

- Saddam has now gone and his cruel government has been disbanded.

- Err,.........


Negatives

- Power, water, healthcare and other facilities have still not been restored to pre war levels and the people suffer as a result.
- The US army seems to operate on the basis of wanting to kill rather than protect

- Thousands upon thousands of Iraqis are dead

- Of the billions of US taxpayers money invested in Iraq (during the US "govornorship") a large percentage of it went missingand is still missing

- The US administration seems to have no clearly defined goals in Iraq, they seem to change every couple of weeks.

- US friendly fire in Iraq concerning their allies (Italian journalists and British troops) have resulted in widespread international conjsemnation, thanks to the US government refusing to even co-operate with investigations

- US coercion and bullying to privatise the Iraqi oil industry have now alienated many members of the Iraqi government. It is pretty likely we will soon be in the situation where both the people and the government of Iraq no longer want the US there.

- The whole basis for starting the war, Saddam owning WMDs, WAS FALSE.


Well, few more positives would be nice.

Liberal bias or just plain old reality?:rolleyes:

I'm not disagreeing with any of the things I've bold faced by any stretch of the imagination.

However,

I do believe Saddam murdered lots of people for all of his stability.

He was nothing short of a modern day Vlad the Impalor.

Mattorn;12952304']Religions of all types have been persecuted over the centuries, and have thrived as a result

Being Jewish, I am baffled by this statement.

I'm not disagreeing with any of the things I've bold faced by any stretch of the imagination.

However,

I do believe Saddam murdered lots of people for all of his stability.

He was nothing short of a modern day Vlad the Impalor.

There is no argument that Saddam killed criminals, treasoners, and their family and friends.

There is also no argument that the US has killed more per year than Saddam and are doing it at random.

At least under Saddam if you weren't a criminal, treasoner, or the family or friend of such you were safe to walk the street and live in relative peace (not what the West sees as freedom, but peace.) Now the average citizen has no freedom or peace.

What and Who do you compare that to?

I'm not disagreeing with any of the things I've bold faced by any stretch of the imagination.

However,

I do believe Saddam murdered lots of people for all of his stability.

He was nothing short of a modern day Vlad the Impalor.

I'm glad you didn't say "modern day Hitler" as most do.

Saddam was a busted flush. His military possessed no capability to project itself very far beyond it's borders, he was fighting an insurgency within Iraq at the time from both the Shia and Kurdish peoples, he had no industrial base to re-arm or build WMDs and was an international pariah.

The reason of murdering his own citizens is, however, very true, but then we come to the point of why Iraq and not others - Sudan, Myanmar, Zimbabwe to name but a few.

As to the points you havn't bolded, the first one is indeed debatable, but that is my opinion, an opinion diffcult to prove granted, but an opinion nonetheless.

The second one, I am afraid to say, is indeed very true. In both the Italian and British investigations into the friendly fire incidents, the US DoD refused to hand over video evidence. Whilst they were under no obligation to do so, refusal is not the action of a close ally. Through these actions and many others the current US administration has alienated itself to a large degree amongst the rest of the world. That is why the "coalition of the willing" has been shrinking, not because of cowerdice or anti-americanism.

Kaibôo...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12949314&postcount=51

Any points you think you have are dissected.

i am for tad bin bin allah shoo fagoot in you ass da victories in many wars so you can be happies with your cheap wine and hookers in da assfield!

i am for tad bin bin allah shoo fagoot in you ass da victories in many wars so you can be happies with your cheap wine and hookers in da assfield!

Pretty good name adequacy you've got there.

Pretty good name adequacy you've got there. You fucking faggot ****** raghead spic!:upyours::upyours::upyours::upyours::upyours::upyours::upyours:



Thats not very nice. :(

Thats not very nice. :(

...

The mods know you altered the quote.

...

The mods are assholes and don't know you altered the quote.


REALLY!!!!:eek:

Why are you asking me if you didn't even read the article?

because this isnt a clip service. its a debate forum.

now its not YOUR fault that the OP didnt put in any opinion but you seemed very impressed by them.

the quoted material isnt particularly important except as a backup of a real poster's opinion.

without your opinion, there is nothing to respond to so all we get is a childish back and forth about who is the most stupid.

because this isnt a clip service. its a debate forum.

now its not YOUR fault that the OP didnt put in any opinion but you seemed very impressed by them.

the quoted material isnt particularly important except as a backup of a real poster's opinion.

without your opinion, there is nothing to respond to so all we get is a childish back and forth about who is the most stupid.

You didn't actually read my opinion, did you?

My opinion?

(Mind you I hate Bush and everything he stands for. I even wrote Rumsfeld a letter and mailed it to him telling him how faulty a job he was doing.That might be hard for people here to grasp since I'm somewhat defending the Iraq war right now.)

I believe that the American people as a whole are merley sunshine patriots when it comes to warfare nowadays.

Right when Bush and his regime gave the OK to invade Iraq, everyone was glad that our invincible army was going to go in, kick some ass, and get out like we've done in every other war with the exception of Vietnam.

Sure enough, we rolled in, kicked ass, found Saddam and sent him to jail.

Did the media ever focus on the negative aspects then? No, of course not. Why show anything negative when there are so many more positive things to spoint out?

Then of course, gradually the tides shifted, and all the sudden losing one soldier seemed to become the same as losing one hundred.

Now that the military isn't doing anything as monumental as capturing a capital city and overthrowing a disgusting dictator, nothing it does will be able to live up to that, therefore making it look incompetant.

But do the American people want to win the war in Iraq?

I can tell you they sure as hell don't, not when that would require a God damned draft which is so needed right now. But nooooo, when it comes to risking our loved ones who aren't in the military, the war suddenly goes from their doorstep to ours. We can't have that now can we? We can't risk any of our fathers, brothers, and sons even though the Iraqis lose theirs everyday.

After all, Bush is in the White House as a representative of the people, and since the people put him in office, they should be willing to accept the responsibilites of their own actions.

So we could be "winning" the war, we could be doing more, but it just won't happen because the American people as a whole just don't care that much.


as to your opinion...

did they have anything to do with the first 2 posts? (not that it matters, just wondering)

i dont think there is any PATRIOTISM involved in this war. it has nothing to do with the security of the united states (except in a negative way in that it has made us less safe).

we were duped into this war by a president who wanted to invade iraq from the day he got into office. he used our fear after 9/11 to scare us witless that we might be facing an attack from iraq. it was only that lingering fear that kept us from seeing how very stupid the notion was. even if hussein had had some WMD capability, he was never going to attack the US.

we were sold a bill of goods. we went into war well before we ever should have (not that we would have gone if we had waited until our military had the proper equipment for the situation). and we were told that it was going to be as short and as painless as the first gulf war.

now WE are to blame for coming to our senses and seeing that there is nothing to be gained by continuing the occupation of iraq? i dont think so. it was as forseeable as the iraqi resistance to our occupation.

yes most of us have a childish desire to cut and run, leaving iraq in a shambles. we want to pretend it never happened and that we have no further responsibility to the people whose lives we have destroyed.

that would be wrong

but that doesnt mean we have to stay forever continuing to make mistake after mistake that kills more iraqis and more US military personnelle. we need to do whatever will give the iraqi people the best outcome. that almost certainly means that we need to withdraw our troops, drop our plans for permanent bases, and scale back our american palace embassy to a size meant for a foreign friend instead of occupier.

You didn't actually read my opinion, did you?

oh ye of little faith!

i just did the easy part first.

Mattorn;12952304']We've won in Iraq.

Exactly. The military has won in Iraq. This is best military solution possible in Iraq. From here on, it's pretty much more of the same. Good men dying pointlessly.

Its called a reality bias

Don't say the R-word. It's another one of those things that Republicans consider rude and bad.

"Aww, gee, will you look at that festering, mismanaged and atrocious quagmire. There's a wilted weed in it! How comparatively pretty."

I believe that the American people as a whole are merley sunshine patriots when it comes to warfare nowadays...

...But do the American people want to win the war in Iraq?

...I can tell you they sure as hell don't, not when that would require a God damned draft...

I agree with this as far as it goes. But you don't need to bring up the draft. Do the Republicans want to win the war enough to forego their tax decreases? People are dying for this @!@# war, and Bush wants to decrease the taxes on Halliburton?

If the war isn't worth paying for in money, where the HELL does Chimpy McCokespoon get off trying to convince us its worth ONE human life.

I'm not disagreeing with any of the things I've bold faced by any stretch of the imagination.

However,

I do believe Saddam murdered lots of people for all of his stability.

He was nothing short of a modern day Vlad the Impalor.

True. So was Pinochet. We found him a perfectly viable ally. Or how about Musharraf in Pakistan. Why aren't we sending the army in to take him out. And apparently keeping real life nuclear weapons out of the hands of the North Koreans wasn't worth much effort.

There is no argument that Saddam killed criminals, treasoners, and their family and friends.

There is also no argument that the US has killed more per year than Saddam and are doing it at random.

At least under Saddam if you weren't a criminal, treasoner, or the family or friend of such you were safe to walk the street and live in relative peace (not what the West sees as freedom, but peace.) Now the average citizen has no freedom or peace.

What and Who do you compare that to?

Well this is wrong. Unless by crime or treason you mean speech against the regime in power. You know people were killed for telling the truth about Saddam.

Let's be honest, Saddam was worse than Bush. Not much of a reccomendation for Bush, but hey.

as to your opinion...

did they have anything to do with the first 2 posts? (not that it matters, just wondering)

i dont think there is any PATRIOTISM involved in this war. it has nothing to do with the security of the united states (except in a negative way in that it has made us less safe).

we were duped into this war by a president who wanted to invade iraq from the day he got into office. he used our fear after 9/11 to scare us witless that we might be facing an attack from iraq. it was only that lingering fear that kept us from seeing how very stupid the notion was. even if hussein had had some WMD capability, he was never going to attack the US.

we were sold a bill of goods. we went into war well before we ever should have (not that we would have gone if we had waited until our military had the proper equipment for the situation). and we were told that it was going to be as short and as painless as the first gulf war.

now WE are to blame for coming to our senses and seeing that there is nothing to be gained by continuing the occupation of iraq? i dont think so. it was as forseeable as the iraqi resistance to our occupation.

yes most of us have a childish desire to cut and run, leaving iraq in a shambles. we want to pretend it never happened and that we have no further responsibility to the people whose lives we have destroyed.

that would be wrong

but that doesnt mean we have to stay forever continuing to make mistake after mistake that kills more iraqis and more US military personnelle. we need to do whatever will give the iraqi people the best outcome. that almost certainly means that we need to withdraw our troops, drop our plans for permanent bases, and scale back our american palace embassy to a size meant for a foreign friend instead of occupier.

Basically this whole war is a case of "My name is George Dubya Bush. You nearly killed mah daddy. Prepare to die." (Cookie for the reference)

Basically this whole war is a case of "My name is George Dubya Bush. You nearly killed mah daddy. Prepare to die." (Cookie for the reference)

The Princess Bride?

Basically this whole war is a case of "My name is George Dubya Bush. You nearly killed mah daddy. Prepare to die." (Cookie for the reference)

and you know what's worse, sr montoya?

the iraqis never tried to kill his father and everyone in the administration knew it.

I'm not disagreeing with any of the things I've bold faced by any stretch of the imagination.

However,

I do believe Saddam murdered lots of people for all of his stability.

He was nothing short of a modern day Vlad the Impalor.

Nope can't disagree with any of it I agree. I would like to hear those positives that people insist are occuring though. That would make my day.

I'm not disagreeing with any of the things I've bold faced by any stretch of the imagination.

However,

I do believe Saddam murdered lots of people for all of his stability.

He was nothing short of a modern day Vlad the Impalor.

Yes he was. By simply accepting that, we enter a new age in human history. An age where it is simply okay to accept our surrounding without trying to improve them because the temporary sacrifices that would have to be endured are just not worth it. An age where progress stops.

Yes he was. By simply accepting that, we enter a new age in human history. An age where it is simply okay to accept our surrounding without trying to improve them because the temporary sacrifices that would have to be endured are just not worth it. An age where progress stops.

Of course him being such a baddie with his own people wasn't the reason we invaded now was it? That was after the fact. Of course we never help other troubled countries being murdered by their leaders. I wonder why that is?

Nope can't disagree with any of it I agree. I would like to hear those positives that people insist are occuring though. That would make my day.

- Iraqis beginning to get tired of fighting. This is usually the first step to an insurgency dying. The populace tolerates the fighting for a while, even supports it, but eventually that populace is done enduring and the insurgency stops.

- Anbar being pacified. Al Anbar was once said to be unwinnable (much like the whole of Iraq right now) but is now very much turning for the better

- 1/3 less civilian deaths recently

- Violence stemming in Baghdad

- Incompetent Iraqi forces have gone from the norm to the exception

To name a few

Of course him being such a baddie with his own people wasn't the reason we invaded now was it? That was after the fact. Of course we never help other troubled countries being murdered by their leaders. I wonder why that is?

No, i think the entire war was about him. We gave him an ultimatum to leave the country. If he had left, we would not have invaded. That should tell you a lot. However, that is not the point. The point is that to say that a sacrifice to make improvements is not worth it is cowardly.

The point is that to say that a sacrifice to make improvements is not worth it is cowardly.

I see.

The troops are making sacrifices.

The civilians caught in the crossfire are being FORCED to make sacrifices.

Are YOU making any sacrifices?

The troops are making sacrifices.
Uh huh.
The civilians caught in the crossfire are being FORCED to make sacrifices.
If you take a look at what is happening in Iraq, civilians are joining local police forces in mass.
Are YOU making any sacrifices?
Yes, you?

Originally Posted by New Stalinberg
I'm not disagreeing with any of the things I've bold faced by any stretch of the imagination.

However,

I do believe Saddam murdered lots of people for all of his stability.

He was nothing short of a modern day Vlad the Impalor.
So? So what?

He was NOT a threat to the US, and the President of the US is responsible for protecting the people of the US, not of other countries - especially when they are not asking him to. As far as I know, only one Iraqi in the whole world asked Bush to remove Saddam, and that was Chalabi, and at the time, he was not in Iraq and, therefore, also not threatened by Saddam. Furthermore, he has been completely discredited since then, as well as accused of corruption and embezzlement of government funds in Iraq since the take-down of Saddam. Gosh, makes me wonder exactly why Chalabi, of all people, wanted Bush to get Saddam out of his way.

Also there is a major flaw in your analogy in that, in his own day, Vlad the Impaler was considered a valuable military and political asset to rulers of larger territories in Europe, and his absolute power and authority to be as vicious and ruthless as he liked was not only respected but was, in fact, normal operating procedure for governments. Further, today, Vlad the Impaler is considered a national hero of Romania thanks to his battles against the Turks. I suppose you are predicting that Saddam Hussein will also be considered a national hero, thanks to the US. You are probably right about that.

Yes he was. By simply accepting that, we enter a new age in human history. An age where it is simply okay to accept our surrounding without trying to improve them because the temporary sacrifices that would have to be endured are just not worth it. An age where progress stops.
What the hell are you talking about? What does this gibberish even mean?

I direct you to my remarks above, in which I point out that the President of the US is responsible for taking care of the US, not the whole world. Let Bush put his own house in order before he presumes to "fix" other peoples'. Same goes for you.

- Iraqis beginning to get tired of fighting. This is usually the first step to an insurgency dying. The populace tolerates the fighting for a while, even supports it, but eventually that populace is done enduring and the insurgency stops.

- Anbar being pacified. Al Anbar was once said to be unwinnable (much like the whole of Iraq right now) but is now very much turning for the better

- 1/3 less civilian deaths recently

- Violence stemming in Baghdad

- Incompetent Iraqi forces have gone from the norm to the exception

To name a few


Ah, you mean pushing the insurgents to other areas of Iraq instead. We after all don't have the numbers to secure every community in the country.

I would also like to suggest that the people of Iraq were always tired of the fighting and don't care to be killed by terrorists, insurgents and occupying foreign soldiers. I don't think this is some kind of new phenomenon.

No, i think the entire war was about him. We gave him an ultimatum to leave the country. If he had left, we would not have invaded. That should tell you a lot. However, that is not the point. The point is that to say that a sacrifice to make improvements is not worth it is cowardly.

Right. If only he had left his own country. We have no responsibility for the situation whatsoever. And the so called improvements haven't exactly occured. I think I would like to see the country return to Saddam era level of infanstructure in country.

No, i think the entire war was about him. We gave him an ultimatum to leave the country. If he had left, we would not have invaded. That should tell you a lot.
It tells me just one thing: That you are lying.

Kindly quote any reliable news and/or government source, from any time since 9/11, that shows anyone giving Saddam Hussein an ultimatum in which he was asked to leave his country.

That never happened.

And frankly, neither did any of the other things you claim to be facts but have provided no proof of so far.

However, that is not the point. The point is that to say that a sacrifice to make improvements is not worth it is cowardly.
Iraq was not ours to improve. Wrap your mind around that.

What the hell are you talking about? What does this gibberish even mean?
You not understanding it is a reflection on you, not me.
I direct you to my remarks above, in which I point out that the President of the US is responsible for taking care of the US, not the whole world. Let Bush put his own house in order before he presumes to "fix" other peoples'. Same goes for you.
I'd say that being the lone superpower would qualify as in order. No?

You not understanding it is a reflection on you, not me.
It is a reflection of the utter detachment from reality of your remarks, as well as their irrelevance to the situation. And your grammar wasn't perfect, either.

I'd say that being the lone superpower would qualify as in order. No?
No.

Unless you believe that "superpower" = "global dictator." It doesn't, by the way.

Ah, you mean pushing the insurgents to other areas of Iraq instead. We after all don't have the numbers to secure every community in the country.
No not quite. If you have really been keeping track of what has been going on you would know that we have had simultaneous operations in surrounding areas to prevent that. But i guess it takes too much effort to know that.
I would also like to suggest that the people of Iraq were always tired of the fighting and don't care to be killed by terrorists, insurgents and occupying foreign soldiers. I don't think this is some kind of new phenomenon.
Yes it is. When Al-Qaeda first came into Sunni areas, they loved the idea of fighting with the mujahadeen. After a few years of oppression from Al-Qaeda, they have changed their minds and are working with us and against Al-Qaeda and other extremist groups.
Right. If only he had left his own country. We have no responsibility for the situation whatsoever. And the so called improvements haven't exactly occured. I think I would like to see the country return to Saddam era level of infanstructure in country.
And the infrastructure will return. It's called patience.

It is a reflection of the utter detachment from reality of your remarks, as well as their irrelevance to the situation. And your grammar wasn't perfect, either.
1) You still haven't even addressed it except for saying you don't understand

2) Fuck commas

No.

Unless you believe that "superpower" = "global dictator." It doesn't, by the way.
If the most powerful and wealthy country in the world isn't "in order" then i guess nobody else is.

You not understanding it is a reflection on you, not me.


no really, it was crap.

i know it wasnt your statement but why the fuck would you subscribe to the notion that PROGRESS STOPS?

It tells me just one thing: That you are lying.

Kindly quote any reliable news and/or government source, from any time since 9/11, that shows anyone giving Saddam Hussein an ultimatum in which he was asked to leave his country.

That never happened.

And frankly, neither did any of the other things you claim to be facts but have provided no proof of so far.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/17/sprj.irq.main/index.html
Feel dumb?
Iraq was not ours to improve. Wrap your mind around that.
Then who's?

no really, it was crap.

i know it wasnt your statement but why the fuck would you subscribe to the notion that PROGRESS STOPS?

Yes, it was my statement. And it stops b/c the status quo is acceptable. How do you think change would occur if nobody brought about change?

And the infrastructure will return. It's called patience.

In other words the improvement on the lives of Iraqis is secondary to the U.S. Shocker that. We invade and then expect all the stuff we destroyed to just magically rebuild itself. Obviously this didn't happen, we can say "have patience" but I would bet that the Iraqis are long out of it.

It tells me just one thing: That you are lying.

Kindly quote any reliable news and/or government source, from any time since 9/11, that shows anyone giving Saddam Hussein an ultimatum in which he was asked to leave his country.

That never happened.

And frankly, neither did any of the other things you claim to be facts but have provided no proof of so far.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/17/sprj.irq.main/index.html

Feel dumb yet?
Iraq was not ours to improve. Wrap your mind around that.
Then who's.

Edit: Sorry if this post is there 5 times, it wouldn't post it so kept reposting it.

1) You still haven't even addressed it except for saying you don't understand

2) Fuck commas


If the most powerful and wealthy country in the world isn't "in order" then i guess nobody else is.

how is she supposed to address something that makes no sense?

and there is a big difference between being "in order" and being a world class bully. we are destabilizing the world with our terrible foreign policies.

In other words the improvement on the lives of Iraqis is secondary to the U.S. Shocker that. We invade and then expect all the stuff we destroyed to just magically rebuild itself. Obviously this didn't happen, we can say "have patience" but I would bet that the Iraqis are long out of it.

Yes they are, and that is why things are starting to improve. And the rest of your post is just bullshit. If you can't see why it's wrong then i think we're done here.

I have 2 words for the US troops in Iraq: LOL PWNED

how is she supposed to address something that makes no sense?
It makes perfect sense, other posters were able to reply sensibly. She, however, was not.
and there is a big difference between being "in order" and being a world class bully. we are destabilizing the world with our terrible foreign policies.
Though the middle east was temporarily destabilized with the invasion, it will ultimately lead to more stability. And she was trying to say that we were not in order domestically. Which is false.

Uh huh.

If you take a look at what is happening in Iraq, civilians are joining local police forces in mass.

Yes, you?

I'm not an American. I don't have to make sacrifices for Bush's thirst for oil and blood. So far the only sacrifice you've proven able to make is sitting on your PC blasting "ebil librulz".

Yes, it was my statement. And it stops b/c the status quo is acceptable. How do you think change would occur if nobody brought about change?

this is your statement

" By simply accepting that, we enter a new age in human history. An age where it is simply okay to accept our surrounding without trying to improve them because the temporary sacrifices that would have to be endured are just not worth it. An age where progress stops."

its pompous and silly at the same time. do you really mean to suggest that if we dont keep following george bush into the abyss that all human progress will stop?

that if we dont let some politician define what our sacrifice should be that no change will ever happen?

it seems to me that this is exactly the kind of change we need. to stand up to the kind of men who drag us into stupid wars for stupid reasons and say "NO, you cannot waste the lives of our military men and women this way. we will not let you"

then we might have some true human progress.

Yes they are, and that is why things are starting to improve. And the rest of your post is just bullshit. If you can't see why it's wrong then i think we're done here.

What is bullshit is Bush invading a country and then having no plan on what to do afterwards. But I suppose we can't talk about that anymore can we? Too many people I've talked to about it simply wave it off as "old news" as if it makes the point any less valid.

This thread is devoling into a mere flame war. there is no need to use insults when superior logic will suffice for that purpose.

It makes perfect sense, other posters were able to reply sensibly. She, however, was not.

Though the middle east was temporarily destabilized with the invasion, it will ultimately lead to more stability. And she was trying to say that we were not in order domestically. Which is false.

we are not in order domestically. when congress has to ponder the wisdom of impeaching the attorney general of the country, we are having some problems with law and order.

I'm not an American. I don't have to make sacrifices for Bush's thirst for oil and blood. So far the only sacrifice you've proven able to make is sitting on your PC blasting "ebil librulz".

That and making it through PLC-C 06.

it seems to me that this is exactly the kind of change we need. to stand up to the kind of men who drag us into stupid wars for stupid reasons and say "NO, you cannot waste the lives of our military men and women this way. we will not let you"

then we might have some true human progress.

This is exactly what I am talking about. You consider sacrificing for progess a waste of lives.

we are not in order domestically. when congress has to ponder the wisdom of impeaching the attorney general of the country, we are having some problems with law and order.

No not really. A few lawyers really doesn't mean anything to the country as a whole.

What is bullshit is Bush invading a country and then having no plan on what to do afterwards. But I suppose we can't talk about that anymore can we? Too many people I've talked to about it simply wave it off as "old news" as if it makes the point any less valid.

The reason that people might wave it off is that you are using it to argue that we should leave when the two issues have no relation.

That and making it through PLC-C 06.

For which I'm assuming you're about to supply us all with credible evidence?

For which I'm assuming you're about to supply us all with credible evidence?

My name is Oleg Kutnyak. If anybody with the right resources wants to check me out, feel free. And if you live in brooklyn and are thinking of joining the Marines, call the local OSO and there's a chance that you'll be talking to me.

The reason that people might wave it off is that you are using it to argue that we should leave when the two issues have no relation.

Actually I don't use it in direct relation to why we should pull out. There are plenty of valid reasons for that but since people like you trumpet the so-called progress in the country those of us in reality mention the the lack of infanstructure there which leads to why exactly that is. It really isn't hard to get to that point and to find out that, why its OUR fault since we are the ones who "liberated" Iraq so we bare responsibility for all that happens thereafter. Since we seem to have put such improvements on the backburner I have no problem mentioning this point.

My name is Oleg Kutnyak. If anybody with the right resources wants to check me out, feel free. And if you live in brooklyn and are thinking of joining the Marines, call the local OSO and there's a chance that you'll be talking to me.

Ah, a recruiter. No wonder you're trying to spin "die pointlessly for oil" into "making sacrifices for progress".

This is exactly what I am talking about. You consider sacrificing for progess a waste of lives.

yes yes i do.

PROGRESS isnt a military goal. its criminal to kill people for "progress".

yes yes i do.

PROGRESS isnt a military goal. its criminal to kill people for "progress".

I can see it now.

"Today our stock rose by 25% after we butchered two thousand white male adult Americans in our meat grinders. Our projections for tomorrow are a rise by 17% with the conversion of six hundred white female Americans into meat pies."

Ah, a recruiter. No wonder you're trying to spin "die pointlessly for oil" into "making sacrifices for progress".

No, not a recruiter. It's called PTAD.

yes yes i do.

PROGRESS isnt a military goal. its criminal to kill people for "progress".

Then the American Revolution was unjustifiable? The french revolution?

[QUOTE=Kremlorn;12952095]August 01, 2007
Do We Have Permission to Win in Iraq?
By David Warren

Mr Warren is as guilty of skewing the facts as Democrats. [I have no time for them, either, and many of his criticisms of Democrat politicians are valid. Who was it, who said that the difference between the Tweedle-Dum Democrats and the Tweedle-Dee Republicans is about the same as the difference between Time and Newsweek?]

However, his own perversion of the facts goes much further. In fact, it reminds me of the "stabbed-in-the-back" myth, which Ludendorf and Hindenburg peddled, in the dying days of the First World War. They couldn't accept that modern wars aren't won by military might alone. The entry of "Prussian Defeat" into their military minds resulted in the appearance of an error message. [The Rest of the World vs Germany fixtures were always going to end with "Deutschland 0" on the scoreboard- thanks to the Americans turning up in extra time]. The idea of Germany being defeated by Jews, left-wingers etc at home, while its glorious forces had been successful in the field, became one of the foundations, which underpinned the National Socialist German Workers Party [leader: A Hitler Esq].

Mr Warren conveniently missed two crucial points.

****Point One- You made the mess: now clean it up!****

It would be a good idea to stay in Iraq, to fight all the loonies and TRY to create stability but the reason why Iraq has to be saved has nothing to do with American pride. It is simply that the United States, a country which almost revels in its ignorance of the rest of the World, has completely ballsed everything up- YET AGAIN.

It was Americans- and not the American-armed, former CIA operative, Saddam Hussein- who destroyed Iraq. In the last years of the Ba'ath Regime, Iraq's "standard-of-living" statistics remained surprisingly good, despite the suffocating effect of sanctions. They had once been the best in the region- by some considerable distance.

The attitudes of the United States to Saddam, in the 1980s [when Rumsfeld was filmed shaking hands with bosom-buddy Saddam, over a chemical weapons deal], AND the recent volte-face in relation to "vile dictator", sorry I'll read that again, "trusted ally", Colonel Qadaffi of Libya, show what American policy in the Middle East is really about: black gold.

[Well, that and making sure that the Zionists in the US keep pouring their money into the campaign funds of American politicians. Repeat after me: Israel can do no wrong. Israel is perfect. The Israelis are God's chosen people and have been led to the promised land. In case anyone wants to take issue with that, a bloke in a dress went up a mountain in the desert about three and a half thousand years ago and claimed to have spoken to a old giant with a white beard, so that makes it all OK- honest. Pity they didn't have psychiatrists in the ancient World.]

Qadaffi agreed to let in BP-Connoco [Hmm, "CONnoco"- sounds like Blair and Bush should be directors. Give it a couple of years.] and all the others, so he suddenly became "our best mate" in North Africa. Who dares mention the Semtex he supplied to the American-funded Provisional IRA, now? [I was forgetting that his weapons and explosives weren't used to kill Americans and that American-funded terrorists are actually "freedom fighters". Tsk, tsk, silly me!]

Honestly, if Jed Clampett, a man who knew a thing or two about the importance of the oil business, were still on the go, he'd be in with a shout for the Republican ticket, in November 2008. "Y'all come back, now, y' hear?", as the First Lady would say. [That's unfair to the hicks of Tennessee: they're much too liberal to be likened to the current imbec.. sorry incumbent.]

The war has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, the overwhelming majority being Iraqi civilians, who are not involved in the conflict. It is now the duty of the United States to put things right again, if that is possible BUT for the benefit of the Iraqi people, rather than the wounded feelings of American "patriots".

****Point Two- Even if you believe Cheney's (or Blair's) lies about WMD, the invasion of Iraq must rank as one of the most ill-advised actions of the last two hundred years. [That's diplomatic speak for "Those guys should be certified.".]****

Cheney even went on TV to lie about having told lies about WMD! This was despite the news programme playing video tapes of his earlier interviews, in his presence and immediately before he was asked about the reasons for going to war in Iraq! As Hitler said, if you're going to tell a lie, make sure it's a really big one. Then, people will believe you.

What made them think their half-baked scheme would work?

"Right, Mr President, here's our plan. We ignore all the best advice from the military, the NSA, the CIA and our allies and we invade Iraq and topple Saddam. The Iraqi people, although deeply divided by race, religion and culture and poised to wipe each other out in a sectarian bloodbath that could make Bosnia look like a church picnic, will let bygones be bygones, welcome us with open [Surely "fully loaded"? -Ed] arms and give us their 180 remaining years of oil production, er, assuming that's what they have, although obviously oil is the LAST thing we're thinking about. It was just a rough guess."

"But won't the Iranians be able to greatly expand their influence?"

"No, sir, because Iran, with 176 years of oil production remaining (incidentally, although again, it's unimportant), is our second ram-raiding exercise, ahem, is the second vile dictatorship we're going to liberate."

"Jolly good. It seems a fine plan. You've really thought this through."

When it all went pear-shaped and people could clearly see that the Bush and Blair administrations [or should that be "administration", singular?] had been caught with their pants well and truly on fire, scapegoats were found. In the US, it was the "dumkopfs" at the CIA, who, according to the White House, couldn't tell a Scud missile from a strawberry malt. [Er, was that possibly because Bush had sacked or sidelined all the CIA people, who told the truth and gave the regime information it didn't want to hear?]

In Britain, the fall guys were the BBC, Andrew Gilligan and Dr David Kelly [a man who, in contrast to practically everyone else involved in the Iraq debacle, knew what he was talking about]. An ultra-establishment lap-dog [who was involved in the fraudulent Bloody Sunday Inquiry of 1972 in Northern Ireland] was wheeled out of St Anthony-Charles-Linton's Home for Lying Bas**rds to conduct a non-inquiry, which had such narrow terms of reference that B Liar might as well have written "Dear Lord Hutton, Thank you for agreeing to hold this inquiry, which will obviously find me innocent and prove that Dr Kelly was a sad loser, Yours With Nauseating Insincerity, T Blair".

There are now very many people in the World, who regard Britain and the United States as "rogue states", with utterly corrupt governments. [It remains to be seen how much Gordon Brown will change things.] Venezuela and Iran, countries which Washington sees as not only corrupt but dangerous, might be run by, on the one hand, a whacky socialist and, on the other, one of the most repressive religious regimes on Earth but at least there's some kind of principle, behind what they do. Where are Americans' principles?

The Saudi flag tells us, "There is no god but Allah." but if the laughably "Christian" USA were up front about its beliefs and intentions, the blood-spattered [Don't you mean "star-spangled"?] banner would be adorned with "Latest Jeep Cherokee models now in stock", "Gas prices holding steady" or "Sale now on at Wal-Mart", depending on who had paid the government the most. Despite all the brutal regimes the United States has set up or supported, Americans keep telling us that they believe in democracy. It would be a good idea to introduce it in their own country, first, before trying to spread it abroad, don't you think? [In 2008, maybe Venezuela could lend some modern voting machines to the State of Florida.]

Returning to my First-World-War analogy, I believe that the real loser of WW1 was Britain, which ended up paying for the whole thing; losing its position as the foremost naval power; losing its dominance of international shipping and shipbuilding; destroying the position of Sterling, as a universally accepted and trusted World-currency; losing its influence in Asia and Latin America; and so on.

The USA cleaned up, becoming "Top Nation" and the Pax Britannica was gradually replaced by the Bellum Americanum Perpetuum. It could all have been so different, if Britain had remained neutral (as it almost did). In my opinion, one early-Twentieth-Century European empire was pretty much the same as another. Some historians have even described WW1 as a "European Civil War", perhaps not a completely daft suggestion, given the number of countries with Germans on their thrones in 1914!

I see a parallel, with today. Here's the situation. The United States has become involved in a pointless war, which has no clear military (as opposed to economic) objective. It was launched to grab hold of a commodity, which the US no longer produces itself in sufficient quantities, because (a) no American is prepared to use less oil (or even halt the exponential rate of INCREASE) and (b) the oil industry (and various other interests, which are closely linked) controls the federal government.

[Read John Rifkind's superb book, published in 2001. It's called "The Hydrogen Economy". He is an isolationist Republican economist, who wants to abandon oil, so that the US can get the Hell out of the all the crackpot countries, which it has been interfering in, for the last fifty-five years (and which make everyone in the West miserable, one way or another). He predicted the war in Iraq, more than two years before it happened (and he was opposed to it). He also predicted that a Republican administration would try to overthrow the Iranian Government and invade Iran. The oil-fired Bush Junta clearly tried to do both but the disaster in Iraq ruined its chances. Only Rumsfeld and Cheney were deranged enough to want a war on about three or four fronts, at the same time.]

Britain intervened in the First World War, to stop Germany becoming too powerful on the Continent (and keep it away from the English Channel). The British Cabinet, the victims of moral blackmail by a Francophile foreign minister, used the pretence of preserving Belgian independence, to justify intervention. [In 1911, Britain and Germany had cooked up a secret deal to steal all Portugal's colonies and split the territories, between them. It fell through, at the last minute, because the Germans wouldn't agree to limit the size of their shiny, new navy. Anyway, so much for Britain respecting sovereignty and defending the rights of small nations.]

Today, it is the United States, which is on the wane, and China, which is waiting in the wings. In 1918, Britain owed the US several thousand fortunes and, in 2007, the United States is very heavily in debt to China. US corporations, with no concern for the welfare of ordinary Americans or the financial or strategic position of the country, have relocated most of their production to the People's Republic. China keeps its currency at an artificially low value, in order to continue the bombardment of Western markets with cheap goods. The United States (and Britain, for that matter) is exporting hardly anything, by comparison, to China. This farcical trade imbalance can't continue, indefinitely. One day, Bejing is going to call in its debts and I wouldn't like to be an American, when it does.

I have no doubt that the Chinese were delighted to see the Americans wreck relationships with their allies; become incredibly unpopular; waste hundreds of billions on destroying Iraq; spend hundreds of billions more trying to restore it; and do a fantastic job of recruiting tens of thousands more potential suicide bombers to the ranks of the Islamist nutters. Notice how the Islamoloonies all come from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia (both American allies with carte blanche in internal affairs) and Afghanistan, which Pakistan and the US filled with every Muslim terrorist on the Globe, in an effort to drive out the Russians. Whoops! Seems to have backfired.

It was a bit like funding the Viet Minh in the 1940s. It was not "disloyal left-wingers" at home, who made America a laughing stock in Vietnam, by the way, it was the idiots, who decided to get involved in it, in the first place. It didn't matter and the "Domino Theory" made about as much sense as the "Mineshaft Gap" in Dr Strangelove.

Since 2002, while America has set the controls to "self destruct", Bejing has been amassing unbelievable amounts of money and buying lots of companies overseas. It has a particular appetite for banks. China grows more powerful by the day, economically, financially and militarily. Look out for those "merger" negotiations, between Taipei and Bejing because, let's face it, the Americans aren't going to be able to stand up to the Chinese, for much longer.

[Um, didn't the Americans set the PRC on the road to World domination, by bringing Red China in from the cold in the Nixon era, because the US was completely paranoid about the Russians and would have got into bed with anyone, in order to outflank the "Evil Soviet Empire"?]

Finally, I'd like to add a note about Iran, which seems to be the "country the Americans love to hate". Although it will support Shi'ite groups in Lebanon or Iraq or Pashtuns in Afgahnistan, it hasn't created any Bin Ladens. Maybe it's time the West switched from supporting Sunni states, with Wahabist wassocks [I was going to use another word, there, but you know how easily upset people from the Bible Belt are.] hovering in the background, to Shia ones!

The trouble with the Iranians is that they won't bow down and worship Washington and they hate Israel. That's why Iran has been turned into a pariah. [I refer you to the comments I made about Colonel Qadaffi.] Last year, Tehran secretly offered Bush a deal, under which it would have withdrawn support for Hizbollah and ended all nuclear programmes. In return, the US had to promise to stop supporting terrorism, within Iran, or any other attempts to undermine the Iranian Government. [Basically the same as the deal Kennedy did, with the Russians, over Cuba.] Bush was too stupid or too childish to go for it.

No one can condone the Iranian nuclear programme but look who's complaining about it the most: the United States of WMDs! Is Iran not only preparing to defend itself against a warlike state in the Middle East, which constantly threatens its neighbours; is a client of a much more powerful country with a global presence; has already bombed Tehran; and has illegally possessed chemical, biological and nuclear weapons for around forty years?

Here's a clue: its starts with "I" and ends with "srael".

Does any of this really matter? America is increasingly looking like a spent force. The future belongs to China (and, to a lesser degree, Russia, India and Brazil).

No, not a recruiter. It's called PTAD.

ohforgodssake why dont you just say what you are claiming to be?

this isnt a military forum. many of our posters arent in the US. its a bit rude to assume that anyone here has any idea of what all your numbers and initials mean.

Then the American Revolution was unjustifiable? The french revolution?

you are comparing the american revolution to the clusterfuck* that is iraq?

we didnt divorce ourselves from great britian for "progress".

the french didnt revolt for "progress"

next quesiton?



*clusterfuck is a registered trademark of the daily show

No, not a recruiter. It's called PTAD.

Is that anything like ADSW? I've been doing that for the last few weeks.

ohforgodssake why dont you just say what you are claiming to be?

this isnt a military forum. many of our posters arent in the US. its a bit rude to assume that anyone here has any idea of what all your numbers and initials mean.

There is a wait time between you go through OCS or PLC (Officer Boot Camp) and when you go to TBS (Marine Offcer Finishing School). During that time you don't have to do anything. However, you can choose to do PTAD as a job inbetween that time. PTAD is where you work for an OSO (a Marine Officer recruiter). Basically all I do is make phone calls all day.

you are comparing the american revolution to the clusterfuck* that is iraq?
OIF is their version of our revolution
we didnt divorce ourselves from great britian for "progress".

the french didnt revolt for "progress"
Ummm, yes we did and yes they did. I consider becoming free progress.

Is that anything like ADSW? I've been doing that for the last few weeks.

Very similar. Except it's only for Marine Officers waiting for TBS and is AD.

OIF is their version of our revolution


you have once again used an ancronym that is not obvious.

no, this war is NOT their version of our revolution. a revolution would require that the iraqi people REBELLED. they did not. they were invaded and are now experiencing an occupation.



Ummm, yes we did and yes they did. I consider becoming free progress.

now there is the difference.

we may have fought for freedom and that freedom may have led to progress but we did not, as you claimed, fight for PROGRESS.

Ah, a recruiter. No wonder you're trying to spin "die pointlessly for oil" into "making sacrifices for progress".

Perhaps this is the origin of the saying "Tell it to the Marines".

They are likely to be the only ones gullible enough to believe that US foreign policy is coherent or sensible.

There is a wait time between you go through OCS or PLC (Officer Boot Camp) and when you go to TBS (Marine Offcer Finishing School). During that time you don't have to do anything. However, you can choose to do PTAD as a job inbetween that time. PTAD is where you work for an OSO (a Marine Officer recruiter). Basically all I do is make phone calls all day.

so you are in fact working as a recruiter temporarily slinging bullshit about progress to impressionably patriotic youths.

if you cant justify service on a better platform than "we are the creators of human progress" you need to move on to another job very soon.

you have once again used an ancronym that is not obvious.
If you don't have the vocabulary necessary to debate the topic, then don't debate it.
no, this war is NOT their version of our revolution. a revolution would require that the iraqi people REBELLED. they did not. they were invaded and are now experiencing an occupation.
They largely did rebel in the early 90's. They just failed that time around. We just helped them finish the job.



now there is the difference.

we may have fought for freedom and that freedom may have led to progress but we did not, as you claimed, fight for PROGRESS.
We fought for freedom. Freedom is progress. We fought for progress. And don't think that I don't notice that you ran out of points so you are now resorting to semantics.

OIF is their version of our revolution

Really? I don't remember French Marines going round shooting up American civilians at random while denying it ever happening. Or blowing up things like wells and torching farms and sitting on their asses.


Ummm, yes we did and yes they did. I consider becoming free progress.

Then start by freeing America by its political and corporate aristocracy you sad naive fool.

Either way, you're on my list now. Welcome to Ignore.

so you are in fact working as a recruiter temporarily slinging [B]bullshit[B/] about progress to impressionably patriotic youths.
Says the person who knows nothing about Iraq. If you want to believe what Harry Reid says then that is fine. Though it's not true.
if you cant justify service on a better platform than "we are the creators of human progress" you need to move on to another job very soon.
What organization rescued the VAST majority of people during Katrina? The U.S. military

What organization stopped the genocide in Bosnia? The U.S. military

What organization provided the majority of the aid after the Pakistan Earthquakes? The U.S. military

What organization provided the vast majority of the aid after the Tsunami disaster? The U.S. military

you have once again used an ancronym that is not obvious.

no, this war is NOT their version of our revolution. a revolution would require that the iraqi people REBELLED. they did not. they were invaded and are now experiencing an occupation.

I believe that OIF is Operation Iraqi Freedom. It is of course about nothing of the sort but I suppose that escapes some people. It is interesting though how one can call this an Iraqi revolution when they didn't even rebel. But then when you are the ones with the biggest guns you can claim just about anything I suppose.

Says the person who knows nothing about Iraq. If you want to believe what Harry Reid says then that is fine. Though it's not true.

So we should believe you instead?

Really? I don't remember French Marines going round shooting up American civilians at random while denying it ever happening. Or blowing up things like wells and torching farms and sitting on their asses.
However you do remember the equivalent happening in Iraq just a few times and have extrapolated that in your head somehow to think that it happens often. And the British weren't exactly hiding among the U.S. populace.


Then start by freeing America by its political and corporate aristocracy you sad naive fool.
Aristocracy? The majority of our representatives in government are not rich.

Either way, you're on my list now. Welcome to Ignore.
Thank god. I was worried I was going to have to talk to you more often.

If you don't have the vocabulary necessary to debate the topic, then don't debate it.

They largely did rebel in the early 90's. They just failed that time around. We just helped them finish the job.



sorry, this is still not a military or US forum.

nope, invading 12 years later really ISNT aiding the revolution. there was no revolution

and i know you have just been through some serious mind control training but really, if ANYTHING about this situation is analagous to a revolution is the insurgents who are rebelling against the US occupation and the puppet government that we have installed.

now im not saying that i "support" the insurgents. im just saying that they are the only ones in this situation that can possibly be likened to the colonial army.




We fought for freedom. Freedom is progress. We fought for progress. And don't think that I don't notice that you ran out of points so you are now resorting to semantics.

SEMANTICS?

you are fighting for a word that means nothing. progress doesnt mean freedom. progress only means change that is put in a positive light. it is not a military goal and the sickening thing is that YOU KNOW THAT yet you recruit naive youths on that basis.

1) You still haven't even addressed it except for saying you don't understand
Yes, I did. Try reading the whole post.

2) Fuck commas
Another of your fantasies?


If the most powerful and wealthy country in the world isn't "in order" then i guess nobody else is.

Correct.

I believe that OIF is Operation Iraqi Freedom. It is of course about nothing of the sort but I suppose that escapes some people. It is interesting though how one can call this an Iraqi revolution when they didn't even rebel. But then when you are the ones with the biggest guns you can claim just about anything I suppose.
The definition of revolution: an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed. I'm pretty sure that that happened in Iraq. Hence, Iraqi revolution.


So we should believe you instead?
And nearly every person who has fought in Iraq.

I believe that OIF is Operation Iraqi Freedom. It is of course about nothing of the sort but I suppose that escapes some people. It is interesting though how one can call this an Iraqi revolution when they didn't even rebel. But then when you are the ones with the biggest guns you can claim just about anything I suppose.


ohhhh ok. sure. after all that abcs of marine officer school i was thrown off the track.

Very similar. Except it's only for Marine Officers waiting for TBS and is AD.

I suppose they have to do something with you while you're waiting. I have no idea what they do with Army officers waiting between ROTC/West Point/OCS and OBC. I'm considering going to State OCS at some point, I meet all the requirements. I was AD for 4 years, 3 years ago but decided it wasn't what I wanted to do with my life.

What organization rescued the VAST majority of people during Katrina? The U.S. military

What organization stopped the genocide in Bosnia? The U.S. military

What organization provided the majority of the aid after the Pakistan Earthquakes? The U.S. military

What organization provided the vast majority of the aid after the Tsunami disaster? The U.S. military

and those are ALL good things to point to when recruiting.

human progress through war is not.

sorry, this is still not a military or US forum.
So then why are you debating a military topic?

nope, invading 12 years later really ISNT aiding the revolution. there was no revolution
The goal of the revolution was the overthrow Saddam. We overthrew Saddam. Please explain to me how that is not aiding them.

and i know you have just been through some serious mind control training but really, if ANYTHING about this situation is analagous to a revolution is the insurgents who are rebelling against the US occupation and the puppet government that we have installed.
Or Iraqis rebelling against Al-Qaeda and fighting for their new government?

now im not saying that i "support" the insurgents. im just saying that they are the only ones in this situation that can possibly be likened to the colonial army.
All i meant by my reference was the ideological similarities but if you really want to take it to that level here it goes. The Iraqi government is the colonial government. The insurgents are the loyalists. The foreign extremists are the UK and the U.S. is France.


you are fighting for a word that means nothing. progress doesnt mean freedom. progress only means change that is put in a positive light. it is not a military goal and the sickening thing is that YOU KNOW THAT yet you recruit naive youths on that basis.
1) What makes you think I tell any recruits that? Not that i even recruit, i just call people who requested information and make appointments.

2) You're right, progress doesn't necessarily mean freedom. However, freedom is progress. And freeing a country is a valid military goal.

and those are ALL good things to point to when recruiting.

human progress through war is not.

Even though Democracy and our country wouldn't even exist without human progress through war?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/17/sprj.irq.main/index.html

Feel dumb yet?
No, I don't feel dumb. I feel corrected about a fact that I had forgotten, but now that you have so graciously reminded me of it, I see that it was just another turd in Bush's bullshit banquet. Slowly, slowly, the memory of that speech is coming back to me (not quite, but bits and pieces), and yes, I remember it was on the very brink of the first shots being fired, and as I seem to recall, nobody believed that either (a) Saddam would flee or (b) that his fleeing would stop the attack -- which is probably why he wouldn't flee anyway.

So, yes, you have corrected me that in fact, the ultimatum was issued. I take back my assertion that you were lying. However, I replace it with a suggestion that you are full of crap. There is nothing in the CNN article that suggests that, if Saddam left Iraq, the invasion would be called off. No, in fact, it states that he had 48 hours to leave before it might start. Nothing at all about cancelling it.

Then who's.

Edit: Sorry if this post is there 5 times, it wouldn't post it so kept reposting it.

"Then whose?"

Here's a radical thought -- it's the Iraqi's nation, therefore it's theirs to improve or not, as they see fit.

No, I don't feel dumb. I feel corrected about a fact that I had forgotten, but now that you have so graciously reminded me of it, I see that it was just another turd in Bush's bullshit banquet. Slowly, slowly, the memory of that speech is coming back to me (not quite, but bits and pieces), and yes, I remember it was on the very brink of the first shots being fired, and as I seem to recall, nobody believed that either (a) Saddam would flee or (b) that his fleeing would stop the attack -- which is probably why he wouldn't flee anyway.

So, yes, you have corrected me that in fact, the ultimatum was issued. I take back my assertion that you were lying. However, I replace it with a suggestion that you are full of crap. There is nothing in the CNN article that suggests that, if Saddam left Iraq, the invasion would be called off. No, in fact, it states that he had 48 hours to leave before it might start. Nothing at all about cancelling it.

Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing.
Directly from Bush's speech.



Here's a radical thought -- it's the Iraqi's nation, therefore it's theirs to improve or not, as they see fit.
And when that's not possible?

It makes perfect sense, other posters were able to reply sensibly. She, however, was not.
Your inability to understand my post is a reflection on you, not it. Sound familiar. I did reply to you. You apparently chose to stop reading after the first 2 sentences.

Though the middle east was temporarily destabilized with the invasion, it will ultimately lead to more stability.
And what do you base this prediction on?

And she was trying to say that we were not in order domestically. Which is false.
"Not in order domestically"? Another string of words without sense or apparent relevance. I am talking about foreign policy, not domestic policy, so what does "domestically" mean in this context? Also, I had been assuming that by "in order" you meant that the US had proper authority to do what it was doing. But in this context, that also would make no sense, so what do you mean by it, exactly?

The definition of revolution: an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed. I'm pretty sure that that happened in Iraq. Hence, Iraqi revolution.

Hence, no Iraqi revolution.


And nearly every person who has fought in Iraq.

So... why nearly every? Which ones shouldn't we believe, and why shouldn't we believe them over you?

EDIT: Incidentally, any evidence that nearly every person who has fought in Iraq agrees with you?

The definition of revolution: an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed. I'm pretty sure that that happened in Iraq. Hence, Iraqi revolution.



And nearly every person who has fought in Iraq.

I believe the people have to overthrow their own government. That didn't happen. We invaded and kicked the Bathists out. Where exactly was the revolution?

I don't believe everyone who has come back from Iraq agrees with you. If you think they do you are spending too much time around your own propaganda.

we are not in order domestically. when congress has to ponder the wisdom of impeaching the attorney general of the country, we are having some problems with law and order.
Oh, is THAT what he meant, referring to my "let Bush put his own house in order" remark? Oh. Well, yes, of course, considering the galloping rabid corruption and incompetence of the Bush admin and the domestic problems it has caused, then yes, I suppose I was saying that we are not "in order domestically." But I will not challenge Kremlorn to prove otherwise because that would be going off topic.

And what do you base this prediction on?
Look at every other country that we've ever invaded.



"Not in order domestically"? Another string of words without sense or apparent relevance. I am talking about foreign policy, not domestic policy, so what does "domestically" mean in this context? Also, I had been assuming that by "in order" you meant that the US had proper authority to do what it was doing. But in this context, that also would make no sense, so what do you mean by it, exactly?
However we were not talking about foreign policy. You can't come in the middle of a debate and start talking about something else without notifying us. She initially used the words "in order" to say that we should not be messing with Iraq until we are "in order." Understand?

I believe the people have to overthrow their own government. That didn't happen. We invaded and kicked the Bathists out. Where exactly was the revolution?
They tried to 10 years earlier with little success. Not to mention their obvious elation once we initially overthrew saddam.
I don't believe everyone who has come back from Iraq agrees with you. If you think they do you are spending too much time around your own propaganda.

37% of military service personnel believe that we shouldn't have invaded.
10% say that we are not at all likely to succeed in Iraq

<snip>

We fought for freedom. Freedom is progress. We fought for progress. And don't think that I don't notice that you ran out of points so you are now resorting to semantics.
Or in other words:

"We fought for freedom. Freedom is lemon drops. We fought for lemon drops. And don't think I didn't notice that you ran out of points so you are now resorting to tossing about military jargon in an attempt to make yourself seem more knowledgable than you really are."

A) You saying A is B doesn't make it so.

B) You generally should try to avoid accusing people of doing what you yourself do.

They tried to 10 years earlier with little success. Not to mention their obvious elation once we initially overthrew saddam.

And 10 years ago (it was actually '94, wasn't it?) was when we should have done it, if at all. I'm afraid we were a day late and a dollar short.


37% of military service personnel believe that we shouldn't have invaded.
10% say that we are not at all likely to succeed in Iraq

Do you have a source? Those numbers are a bit lower than what I've heard from my buddies, but I've had precious little contact with most of them since I left AD. Anyway, I'm definitely part of that 37%, and unsure but highly skeptical about the second part, depending on the definition of "succeed".

37% of military service personnel believe that we shouldn't have invaded.
10% say that we are not at all likely to succeed in Iraq



Those are hardly numbers that you can give out and still claim that military personnel support the war. Seems to be a sizable minority there.


And trying and failing in a revolution still doesn't make the current situation a successful revolution as the Iraqis played no part in the overthrow. That was all the United States.

snip

So you think that becoming free is not progress? How exactly did you come to that conclusion?

Those are hardly numbers that you can give out and still claim that military personnel support the war. Seems to be a sizable minority there.
Yes, they are a minority. Thank you for solidifying my point.

And trying and failing in a revolution still doesn't make the current situation a successful revolution as the Iraqis played no part in the overthrow. That was all the United States.

Their support of their government now is evidence enough that they wanted revolution.

Directly from Bush's speech.
More bullshit. Read the whole of your own source. Bush's own statements contained internal inconsistencies. In one instance, he says what you quoted, in another he says that military action is necessary because of threats that have nothing to do with Saddam leaving, in other instances, he refuses to say whether he will or will not attack. So you are just choosing one of his many conflicting statements and declaring it to be the truth and basing suppositions about the whole of Bush's strategy based on that. Yet you fail to show me why I shouldn't instead have believed any of his other conflicting remarks, rather than this one.



And when that's not possible?
Then it won't happen. So what?

Remember, the Iraqis never contacted the US and said "We can't fix our country, so would you be dears and do it for us?"

It's one thing when a population is crying out for help, but that was not what was happening in Iraq. Whether you like it or not.

And 10 years ago (it was actually '94, wasn't it?) was when we should have done it, if at all. I'm afraid we were a day late and a dollar short.
How do you figure? It still happened didn't it? How are we too late?



Do you have a source? Those numbers are a bit lower than what I've heard from my buddies, but I've had precious little contact with most of them since I left AD. Anyway, I'm definitely part of that 37%, and unsure but highly skeptical about the second part, depending on the definition of "succeed".
marinecorpstimes.com

More bullshit. Read the whole of your own source. Bush's own statements contained internal inconsistencies. In one instance, he says what you quoted, in another he says that military action is necessary because of threats that have nothing to do with Saddam leaving, in other instances, he refuses to say whether he will or will not attack. So you are just choosing one of his many conflicting statements and declaring it to be the truth and basing suppositions about the whole of Bush's strategy based on that. Yet you fail to show me why I shouldn't instead have believed any of his other conflicting remarks, rather than this one.
He was giving his reasons for issuing the ultimatum.



Then it won't happen. So what?

Remember, the Iraqis never contacted the US and said "We can't fix our country, so would you be dears and do it for us?"

It's one thing when a population is crying out for help, but that was not what was happening in Iraq. Whether you like it or not.
Multiple rebellions and cheering when Saddam was gone are evidence enough for me.

Um, wait.

Bush invades Iraq in March 2003. He declares major combat operations over a few months later.

The post-invasion occupation becomes a total mess, a disaster that is always, according to the Bush Administration, close to being fixed.

This disaster lasts for well over three years, with hundreds of billions of dollars spent, and thousands of American lives lost (not to mention the cost to Iraqis)... and then, finally, the Democratic Congress, voted in on a wave of opposition to Bush's policies in Iraq and elsewhere, does something about it.

And then you whine about how the Democrats won't let us win.

Um, they did. Bush had his chance. He butchered it. It looks like he's still butchering it... and the "success is just around the corner" rhetoric has been repeated so many times as to no longer be trustworthy.

So then why are you debating a military topic?

honestly? because you make it so easy.


The goal of the revolution was the overthrow Saddam. We overthrew Saddam. Please explain to me how that is not aiding them.

do you belive this bullshit?

there was no ongoing revolution. when the iraqis rebelled in the early 90s WE LET THEM DIE. we did nothing to aid them and they were crushed by saddam hussein. in '03 there was no revolution to aid.


Or Iraqis rebelling against Al-Qaeda and fighting for their new government?


they are valiant but not rebels.


All i meant by my reference was the ideological similarities but if you really want to take it to that level here it goes. The Iraqi government is the colonial government. The insurgents are the loyalists. The foreign extremists are the UK and the U.S. is France.


no. the US rebels started and fought their own war. the iraqis and their current govt did not.

the loyalists were fighting to keep the british government. the iraqi insurgents are not

the UK was the government that was being overthrown so the foreign extremeist cant be them

and the french didnt invade and overthrow the government so the US cant be france.


1) What makes you think I tell any recruits that? Not that i even recruit, i just call people who requested information and make appointments.

2) You're right, progress doesn't necessarily mean freedom. However, freedom is progress. And freeing a country is a valid military goal.

freedom can be a goal. its not a good military goal. but its a kind of goal.

helping to free a country that is fighting for freedom can be a noble cause. too bad that isnt what we have ever done in iraq.

Yes, they are a minority. Thank you for solidifying my point.



Their support of their government now is evidence enough that they wanted revolution.

Ignoring 37% is hardly something we can do. I can't at any rate. when nearly 4 out of every 10 soldiers feels that way it is a rather sizable minority don't you think? Trying to argue that "military personnel support the war" would be innacurate to say the least.

Whether they wanted revolution or not doesn't change the fact that the "liberation" was NOT a revolution but an overthrow by an outside power.

Multiple rebellions and cheering when Saddam was gone are evidence enough for me.

"We don't like Saddam" and "We want you to invade and occupy our country to remove Saddam" are very distinct sentiments.

Look at every other country that we've ever invaded.
Like Vietnam and Korea?



However we were not talking about foreign policy. You can't come in the middle of a debate and start talking about something else without notifying us. She initially used the words "in order" to say that we should not be messing with Iraq until we are "in order." Understand?
It's funny how you ask if I understand.

A) The "she" you're referring to is me, and I know what I said.

B) We are talking about Iraq. I don't know what they taught you in military stooge school, but Iraq is not part of the United States, therefore our policy on it is foreign policy, not domestic policy. If you wish to pursue an argument about Bush's domestic policies, then you would be the one talking about something else.

C) The only reason I said that Bush should put his own house in order before presuming to "fix" other people's is because I was talking about the fact that his first duty is to the US, not to Iraq. So insistence on nation-building in Iraq is, in my opinion, a dereliction of his duty to the US.

D) I did not say we should not be messing with Iraq until we are in order. My position all along has been that we should never have messed with Iraq at all because conditions inside Iraq were none of our goddamned business and nobody was asking us to get involved with it.

Yes, they are a minority. Thank you for solidifying my point.

...But that wasn't your point. You said 'nearly every'. Two thirds is nowhere near 'nearly every'.

Their support of their government now is evidence enough that they wanted revolution.

So... all those Iraqis resisting the occupying forces somehow don't count?

As for them becoming free, that still remains to be seen.

So you think that becoming free is not progress? How exactly did you come to that conclusion?
Did you snip the entirety of my post in order to hide the fact that you are trying to twist my argument into something it isn't? Quote what you are referring to, if you are an honest person.

Honestly... how long should we have given Bush free reign?

Five years? Ten years? Twenty?

Me, I'm outraged that it took us as long as it did. But then, I'm just a crazy defeatist leftist like that.

.
As for them becoming free, that still remains to be seen.

yeah. should the iraqi people decide that they want an american-hating theocracy similar to iran will we still support their "freedom"?

How do you figure? It still happened didn't it? How are we too late?

They wanted it in '94. I met a man in Ramadi who got kneecapped for his involvement in the revolt of '94. In 2003 rather than being a revolutionary he was a bitter, angry man who ended up selling info on us (he was "the guy" outside the gate who got stuff for us) to the Ba'ath party. Freedom can't simply be given, it has to be taken. Unfortunately, far too many Iraqis didn't want it in 2003 the way they did in 1994. Some do and did, yes, but seemingly not enough. Had we gone in while the revolt was occurring there would have been obvious civilian leaders to take charge and smooth the transition from Saddam to someone more agreeable. The circumstances in 2003 didn't allow for that sort of thing. Given the extremely poor handling of those crucial first few months (I know how poor it was, I was in Ramadi with the 3dACR during OIF1) we've had to fight an uphill battle to create institutions that would have already existed had we gone in in '94.

Anyway, our inaction in '94 created a great deal of bitterness against us among the Iraqi people (and rightly so, in my opinion) and our hamfisted handling of the opening days didn't gain us much credibility. If we'd done the heavy fighting for the rebellion in '94 we wouldn't have had the vast majority of the problems we have now.

Can we win? I think that depends on the definition of "winning". If that definition is stabilizing Iraq and creating a US friendly regime, I think so, especially with Gen Petraus at the helm. However, said regime probably won't be the most democratic type. However, if that definition is creating a pluralistic democracy that respects human rights as we define them, I'm a lot more skeptical. Any change like that is going to have to come from the Iraqis, and even if the people (who are very decent people, in my experience) want it there doesn't seem to be any organized movement for such a thing, nor does there seem to be any such thing on the horizon. It's sad, because as I said the Iraqi people (like all people) deserve far better than is happening to them.

Dems’ 'Real Big Problem'
By Byron York
August 03, 2007
The Iraq debate that we’ve been watching this year has been about two bets.

After false starts and misplaced hopes in 2004, and 2005, and 2006, George W. Bush is betting his surge strategy will facilitate the political progress that could bring a semblance of stability to Iraq.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) are betting the surge will fail.

It’s as simple as that. If Bush wins his bet, Iraq will be a better place, the Middle East will be a better place, and America will be a safer place.

But Reid and Pelosi lose if Bush wins. Given the position they have staked out for themselves, the best possible outcome is for Gen. David Petraeus to give a downbeat report on the surge when he comes before Congress in September.
That would give tremendous momentum to those who want the quickest possible U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

It’s the dilemma of being in the opposition in wartime. By betting so much of their political capital on the issue, Reid and Pelosi have become invested in U.S. failure. A U.S. success would throw a wrench in their plans.

That sounds harsh. But just read what Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) told The Washington Post.

This week the paper reported that many Democrats “have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad.” But now, the Post continued, “there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive.”

And that, Clyburn told the paper, would be “a real big problem for us.”

Clyburn’s comments are the flip side of what Reid said in April when he declared, “We’re going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war. Sen. [Charles] Schumer has shown me numbers that are compelling and astounding.”

Schumer (D-N.Y.) also said, “Look at the poll numbers of Republican senators, and the war in Iraq is a lead weight attached to their ankle.” As a result, Schumer predicted, some Republicans face “extinction” while Democrats pick up more seats.

American success in Iraq could mess all of that up.

It’s a terrible position for Democrats to be in, one they could have avoided if they had given the surge time to succeed or fail. But they put all their chips on failure before it even began.

That’s why we have seen such frenzied criticism of what is probably the most debated op-ed of the year, this week’s article in The New York Times entitled “A War We Just Might Win,” by Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack.

The authors, both with the Brookings Institution, were early proponents of the war and later critics of Bush’s handling of it. Now, they write, “We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms,” and they see the possibility of “a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.”

They might be wrong; in the fifth year of this war, anyone who is not deeply skeptical about reports of progress just isn’t being realistic. And even if the surge is working, war supporters can be rightly furious at Bush for not doing it years ago.

But at least they aren’t betting on — haven’t staked their hopes on — American failure.

Who would want to do that?

whoever turned you on to this site needs to be :sniper:

Then the American Revolution was unjustifiable? The french revolution?

The American people started the revolution. The French people started the revolution. The American president started Bushnam.

There is a flew in your reasoning.

Mattorn;12952304']We've won in Iraq. No country that size can withstand the power of the American military. Iraq fell to American might. Of course, Iraq is much different from terrorism. Terrorism is a way of doing things, for lack of a better description, like shooting sub-machine guns from the hip. It's ridiculous to think that's we're going to defeat terrorism in Iraq when the enemy isn't even known. Frankly, the US is wasting time, money, and soldiers on a fruitless cause.

Same with Islam. Muslims are all over the place, of all sorts of nationalities. Religions of all types have been persecuted over the centuries, and have thrived as a result. Don't count on getting rid of Islam, violent as it is.

not all Muslims condone violence you douche :upyours:

Basically all I do is make phone calls all day.

Basically all Judas did was kiss.

And when that's not possible?

The Iraqi people had weapons. According to the NRA a population with weapons can pull off a revolution if necessary. If they would have started the same guerrilla war they are fighting right now, Saddam wouldn't have had a chance.

Remember all Saddam killed were criminals, traitors, their family and friends. Everyone else could walk the streets in safety. (Not freedom as defined by the West, but peace and safety)

More people are killed per year under the US than were killed per year under Saddam. Maybe they feel they were better off when their children could go to school (one of the most educated populations in the area) or play in the streets.

The Iraqi people had weapons. According to the NRA a population with weapons can pull off a revolution if necessary. If they would have started the same guerrilla war they are fighting right now, Saddam wouldn't have had a chance.

Remember all Saddam killed were criminals, traitors, their family and friends. Everyone else could walk the streets in safety. (Not freedom as defined by the West, but peace and safety)

More people are killed per year under the US than were killed per year under Saddam. Maybe they feel they were better off when their children could go to school (one of the most educated populations in the area) or play in the streets.

1. The NRA is retarted.

2. The Kurds?

3. The last time I checked, the USA has a much larger population than that of Iraq. :rolleyes:

1. The NRA is retarted.

2. The Kurds?

3. The last time I checked, the USA has a much larger population than that of Iraq. :rolleyes:
I think he meant that more Iraqis have been killed per year in Iraq under US control than under Saddam. I don't know if that's actually true, because I -- and no one else here -- knows what the annual death toll was under Saddam, but I do not think Good Lifes was comparing Iraq domestic statistics to US domestic statistics.

1. The NRA is retarted.

2. The Kurds?

3. The last time I checked, the USA has a much larger population than that of Iraq. :rolleyes:

The fact remains that the population had enough weapons for a guerrilla war as they do today. If they wanted a change the means were available.

The Kurds were committing treason. Under tribal law the entire tribe is responsible for the acts of their members. If they weren't committing treason Saddam would have left them alone.

Let me restate:

More Iraqi citizens have died per year under the US than died per year under Saddam. Under Saddam the children could go to school and play in the streets. A person could walk the streets at anytime, day or night. They may not have had "freedom" as is thought of under Western Culture, but they had as much freedom as most in their culture, and they did have safety and peace. To them that meant as much as voting.

Sans Amour's opinion:

This may be a sensitive issue, but here I go. I don't believe anyone will win in war. Even compromise isn't much of an option, is it? However, to leave now means we'd be risking another 9/11 or something more catastrophic. The question is how do we leave the country without fucking up much worse? I may be blasphemous with what else I am about to say, but the attack was on the wrong country and we never should have pursued Saddam. It was Osama, not Saddam, despite his message of approval on his half. Therefore, Afghanistan should have been the target as soon as word leaked he hid in a cave there. Not Iraq.

Sans Amour's opinion:

This may be a sensitive issue, but here I go. I don't believe anyone will win in war. Even compromise isn't much of an option, is it? However, to leave now means we'd be risking another 9/11 or something more catastrophic. The question is how do we leave the country without fucking up much worse? I may be blasphemous with what else I am about to say, but the attack was on the wrong country and we never should have pursued Saddam. It was Osama, not Saddam, despite his message of approval on his half. Therefore, Afghanistan should have been the target as soon as word leaked he hid in a cave there. Not Iraq.

leaving or staying in iraq is irrelevant to whether or not we have another devastating attack within the US. the people who planned, paid for, and carried out 9/11 arent involved with iraq now. either our government can detect and foil future plans or they cant.

did you miss the part where we went to war in afghanistan in order to get osama bin laden and remain there now while we prop up a new government and continue to search for him?

Yes, the only way to eradicate terrorism is to use the 'Mongol method' and lay waste to anything that could possibly be of advantage to them. This includes just about every Muslim male over the age of 12, every building, every bomb making material, every single, last resource, every city, every thing that they believe in, that is the only way to destroy a belief system, destroy everything critical to it. And that’s called the Mongol method for a reason, the Mongols were one of the few peoples though out history who could do it and get away with it.

The problem of using the Mongol Method in Iraq today aside from the outcry of genocide and other crimes, is that doing so would give Osama Bin Ladin a lifelong orgasm as it finally convinces every single Muslim in the world- even moderates living in secular countries such as the United States- that the West is truly out to destroy Islam.

Look at the damage small insurgent and terrorists can do on their own. Then inject close to a billion people and their money into those efforts.

And much like zombie plagues, Bushevism is hard to get under control.

Here's a comment to the OP:

Trying to "win" and eradicate the insurgency and terrorism in Iraq by adding more troops and keeping up combat actions is the same as trying to control an infection by pushing that shit-covered rusty nail deeper into the puncture wound.

And much like zombie plagues, Bushevism is hard to get under control.

Here's a comment to the OP:

Trying to "win" and eradicate the insurgency and terrorism in Iraq by adding more troops and keeping up combat actions is the same as trying to control an infection by pushing that shit-covered rusty nail deeper into the puncture wound.
You win the thread!! :D

There are significant problems/failures with that Op-Ed piece. Some have already been covered, but these two really haven't.

A remarkable piece was published on the op-ed of the New York Times, on Monday. Remarkable not for its content (it told us what we should already know), but for who wrote it: Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, two non-friends of the Bush administration. Having just returned from Iraq, they said they were struck by a turnaround in morale, that could only be attributed to the recent arrival of Gen. David Petraeus, and the general offensive he was charged to oversee. "The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander; ... they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference." The authors also cited statistical indications that the tide is turning.

The O'Hanlon and Pollack piece (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/29/opinion/edpollack.php) is problematic.

For one thing, they themselves say "At bottom, the situation in Iraq remains grave."

In particular, we still face huge hurdles on the political front. Iraqi politicians of all stripes continue to dawdle and maneuver for position against one another when major steps toward reconciliation - or at least accommodation - are needed. This cannot continue indefinitely. Otherwise, once America begins to downsize its forces, important communities may not feel committed to the status quo, and Iraqi security forces may splinter along ethnic and religious lines.

How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can the U.S. wear down its forces in Iraq? These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.

Secondly, they have already started backing away from it.

I talked to Pollack yesterday. In answer to some of the questions I raised: he spoke with very few Iraqis and could independently confirm very little of what he heard from American officials. In eight days he travelled to half a dozen cities—that’s not much time in each. The evidence that four or five Iraqi Army divisions, with most of their bad commanders weeded out, are now capable of holding, for example, Mosul and Tal Afar, came from American military sources. Pollack found that U.S. officers sounded much more realistic than on his previous trip, in late 2005. He gauged their reliability in answers they gave to questions that he asked “offline,” after a briefing—there was a minimum of happy talk, but also a minimum of dire gloom. The improvements in security, he said, are “relative,” which is a heavy qualification, given the extreme violence of 2006 and early 2007. And it’s far from clear that progress anywhere is sustainable. Everywhere he went, the line Pollack heard was that the central government in Baghdad is broken and the only solutions that can work are local ones.

It was a step back from the almost definitive tone of “A War We Just Might Win” (a bad headline, and not the authors’). That tone was misplaced, and it is already being used by an Administration that has always thought tactically and will grasp any shred of support, regardless of the facts, to win the short-term argument.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/georgepacker/2007/08/ohanlon-and-pol.html

In an interview on Wednesday, O'Hanlon said the article was intended to point out that the security situation was currently far better than it was in 2006. What the American military cannot solve, he said, are problems caused by the inability of Iraqis to forge political solutions. "Ultimately, politics trumps all else," O'Hanlon said. "If the political stalemate goes on, even if the military progress continued, I don't see how I could write another Op-Ed saying the same thing."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/02/america/02assess.php?page=2

There are background problems still not adequately confronted. The Iraqi political order is nearly dysfunctional, and there is little that can currently be done, politically or practically, about the sponsors of Islamist subversion in Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.

But given the hard geopolitical fact, that cutting and running from Iraq will be a catastrophe for the West, on a scale even bigger than cutting and running from Vietnam, let's just keep fighting until we win.

The question is this: if we can't solve the political situation, we can't sustain current troop levels, staying is wearing down the military, and we can't even define winning, why stay at all?

No, i think the entire war was about him. We gave him an ultimatum to leave the country. If he had left, we would not have invaded. That should tell you a lot. However, that is not the point. The point is that to say that a sacrifice to make improvements is not worth it is cowardly.

Publically thats what was said, but already by April/May 2002 the decision had been made to go to war. Giving Saddam an ultimatum which he could not accept was merely to aid in selling it to the public, much like the whole WMD and Al Qaeda bollocksology.


And the infrastructure will return. It's called patience.
.

But awarding 95% of the contracts to US companies is called "disaster". As well as "widespread fraud", amongst other things. The Bremmer administration accentuated an already difficult situation with its dissolution of Iraqs state bodies. The resulting chaos is thus largely of US creation.


What organization provided the vast majority of the aid after the Tsunami disaster? The U.S. military.

Nope.

win what? and who is "we"?

=^^=
.../\...

Guess what peoples, I DON'T want the US to win in Iraq, in fact I sincerely hope you lose, in fact whenever I turn on the tv and see a Humvee getting blown up by an IED, I LAUGH.:eek:

And much like zombie plagues, Bushevism is hard to get under control.

Here's a comment to the OP:

Trying to "win" and eradicate the insurgency and terrorism in Iraq by adding more troops and keeping up combat actions is the same as trying to control an infection by pushing that shit-covered rusty nail deeper into the puncture wound.

Quite so. Nicely put.

There are significant problems/failures with that Op-Ed piece. Some have already been covered, but these two really haven't.



The O'Hanlon and Pollack piece (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/29/opinion/edpollack.php) is problematic.

For one thing, they themselves say "At bottom, the situation in Iraq remains grave."



Secondly, they have already started backing away from it.


http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/georgepacker/2007/08/ohanlon-and-pol.html


http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/02/america/02assess.php?page=2

Well done! :)

The question is this: if we can't solve the political situation, we can't sustain current troop levels, staying is wearing down the military, and we can't even define winning, why stay at all?
I can't think of a single reason. Let's leave.

Trying to "win" and eradicate the insurgency and terrorism in Iraq by adding more troops and keeping up combat actions is the same as trying to control an infection by pushing that shit-covered rusty nail deeper into the puncture wound.

No, adding more forces and increasing combat actions is the same as adding the necessary amount of antibiotics when we have not been using enough in the past. We haven't had enough forces in the right places to conduct significant combat operations or conduct the three block war. Now we do and that is a very significant change and we are already seeing the progress. Not that you want to see that progress.

Yes, the only way to eradicate terrorism is to use the 'Mongol method' and lay waste to anything that could possibly be of advantage to them. This includes just about every Muslim male over the age of 12, every building, every bomb making material, every single, last resource, every city, every thing that they believe in, that is the only way to destroy a belief system, destroy everything critical to it. And that’s called the Mongol method for a reason, the Mongols were one of the few peoples though out history who could do it and get away with it.

you are a sick Pschyopath OK go and get therapy

leaving or staying in iraq is irrelevant to whether or not we have another devastating attack within the US. the people who planned, paid for, and carried out 9/11 arent involved with iraq now. either our government can detect and foil future plans or they cant.

did you miss the part where we went to war in afghanistan in order to get osama bin laden and remain there now while we prop up a new government and continue to search for him?

I disagree about the irrelevance though. Have you ever fished before? This question does become relevant with where I'm going. You can cast the rod cleanly- nothing but the hook, line, and the sinker hitting the water. However, whether or not you get a bite, whenever you bring that back in, sometimes seaweed or algae winds back with the line and hook.

Here's how this analogy becomes relevant. Extremists cannot be stopped. Take out the troops as suddenly as a fisher winds that rod to check on the bait, those extremists will figure a way to do something huge. I am against the war, but the troops would wind up back there or in worse shape because unlike the algae in my comparison, these extremists will be armed. There's no gurantee either would go to pass, but I feel the possibility of recoil should not be ruled out completely.

As far as missing Afghanistan, not completely. Some militants died more gruesome deaths than those in Iraq. However, Iraq is the target most talked about and has more troops, if I remember correctly. My point is I don't believe they should have been sent there. It should have been the other way around if Iraq was to be a target. Who knows? Maybe if we found Bin Laden first, we'd have been in better shape. Saddam would be alive, but he wasn't the main threat as much as a target as a vendetta.

The Princess Bride?

(Hands over cookie)

and you know what's worse, sr montoya?

the iraqis never tried to kill his father and everyone in the administration knew it.

Yeah.

No, adding more forces and increasing combat actions is the same as adding the necessary amount of antibiotics when we have not been using enough in the past. We haven't had enough forces in the right places to conduct significant combat operations or conduct the three block war. Now we do and that is a very significant change and we are already seeing the progress. Not that you want to see that progress.
You clearly don't know how antibiotics work, either.

Use the wrong ones, or use them the wrong way, or use too much of them, and you just end up making the bacteria stronger and more deadly.

Use the wrong approach to an enemy, use your forces/resources the wrong way, or keep doing more of the wrong thing, and you just end up giving your enemy all the strength they need to harm you.

Perhaps you cannot see this because you are trained not to, but that does not change the facts. Bush's policies in Iraq are strengthening our enemies and putting the US at greater risk, not less risk.

you are a sick Pschyopath OK go and get therapy

It's not psychopathic. The Mongols were not psychopaths.

Prior to the sack of Baghdad, the Caliph was given the opportunity to surrender.

He refused. During the sack, no non-Muslims were harmed by the Mongols - only those who had resisted in the name of Allah.

In previous sieges, the Mongols offered the same terms to other opponents. For those who surrendered, the Mongols required a 10% tax on all valuables, took selected items from libraries, and took 10% of the horses for their own. They paid in gold and silver for the food.

Resistance meant death.

It was very effective. Many locations fell to the Mongols without a fight, and people found that the Mongols were fair and just in their dealings - as long as you didn't resist.

Perhaps you cannot see this because you are trained not to, but that does not change the facts.

Ever get the feeling he'd be right at home in the trenches of WWI?

"Come on boys! They've got enough machine guns to mow us all down, and we've nothing but rifles and our bodies, but if we keep charging them, we'll win right?"

Ever get the feeling he'd be right at home in the trenches of WWI?

"Come on boys! They've got enough machine guns to mow us all down, and we've nothing but rifles and our bodies, but if we keep charging them, we'll win right?"

Are you making the argument that the surge has shown zero success?

If so, provide links to proof.

Are you making the argument that the surge has shown zero success?

If so, provide links to proof.

Are you making the argument that human wave tactics in WWI had shown zero success?

If so, provide links to proof.

Spending 3000 lives for five feet of land might be considered a success to some.

And no, my argument is his utter inflexibility of thought. The same kind of inflexibility that gets people killed in war because they were too stupid to adapt.

I disagree about the irrelevance though. Have you ever fished before? This question does become relevant with where I'm going. You can cast the rod cleanly- nothing but the hook, line, and the sinker hitting the water. However, whether or not you get a bite, whenever you bring that back in, sometimes seaweed or algae winds back with the line and hook.

Here's how this analogy becomes relevant. Extremists cannot be stopped. Take out the troops as suddenly as a fisher winds that rod to check on the bait, those extremists will figure a way to do something huge. I am against the war, but the troops would wind up back there or in worse shape because unlike the algae in my comparison, these extremists will be armed. There's no gurantee either would go to pass, but I feel the possibility of recoil should not be ruled out completely.

As far as missing Afghanistan, not completely. Some militants died more gruesome deaths than those in Iraq. However, Iraq is the target most talked about and has more troops, if I remember correctly. My point is I don't believe they should have been sent there. It should have been the other way around if Iraq was to be a target. Who knows? Maybe if we found Bin Laden first, we'd have been in better shape. Saddam would be alive, but he wasn't the main threat as much as a target as a vendetta.

soooo you are suggesting that if we leave iraq now we will be dragged back in no matter what and when we are things will be much worse since we havent been there to at least keep some things in check?

Are you making the argument that human wave tactics in WWI had shown zero success?

If so, provide links to proof.

Spending 3000 lives for five feet of land might be considered a success to some.

I'm not talking about WW I.

We all know human wave assaults are failures.

So it is clear that you are making the comparison to the surge.

Therefore, logically, we can conclude that you are saying the surge is as much of a failure as a WW I human wave assault.

Prove it. It's your assertion.

I'm not talking about WW I.

We all know human wave assaults are failures.

So it is clear that you are making the comparison to the surge.

Therefore, logically, we can conclude that you are saying the surge is as much of a failure as a WW I human wave assault.

Prove it. It's your assertion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dien_Bien_Phu

I'm not talking about WW I.

We all know human wave assaults are failures.


Worked for the Vietnamese at Dien Bien Phu. Chinese had a good bit of initial success with it in Korea..Zulus won at Isandlwana with it........

Worked for the Vietnamese at Dien Bien Phu. Chinese had a good bit of initial success with it in Korea..Zulus won at Isandlwana with it........

Worked at Dien Bien Phu because the opponents were French. In fact, the commander of the French artillery had said that it would be impossible for the VietMinh to bring heavy artillery to bear - which they most certainly did. He ended up committing suicide by hand grenade before any ground attack began.

The "success" of Chinese human wave attacks was limited. If the defenders had any air support using napalm, and the defenders had flame weapons (fougasse mines) and quad-50 guns, the attacks never succeeded. The modern Claymore mine was invented shortly thereafter to make such attacks fundamentally impossible.

Oh, and we have the machinegun now - Isandlwana would have turned out differently if the defenders had had a couple of working Maxims.

I'm not talking about WW I.

We all know human wave assaults are failures.

So it is clear that you are making the comparison to the surge.

Therefore, logically, we can conclude that you are saying the surge is as much of a failure as a WW I human wave assault.

Prove it. It's your assertion.

I've pointed out my argument. I've made my assertions. You're ignoring them. Further discussion is unnecessary due to your fatally inflexible thought process.

What this whole thing comes down to is the difference between "taking" a piece of land and "holding" a piece of land.

There is no doubt in my mind that the US military could take any piece of land in the world. I believe the US could take Red Square or Tienanmen Square. That isn't the problem. The problem is holding a piece of land after you take it.

In Nam and Bushnam we could/can take any piece of land we desire. But without the support of the vast majority land can't be held. Even if you have 5% ready to fight you can't hold the land. The only way to hold in that case is the solution England used to build and empire and the US used against the natives--Kill everybody until whoever is left is totally beaten into submission. That worked until the mid 20th century. With mass communication it doesn't work because the average citizen can see it. (The exception is African regions where the media really doesn't care.) That's why GB finally had to give up it's empire.

The solution is one the US has used often:

Find another Saddam. Arm him to the teeth. Close our eyes and allow him to regain control.

It would be no worse than US support for dozens of other dictators around the world.

I've pointed out my argument. I've made my assertions. You're ignoring them. Further discussion is unnecessary due to your fatally inflexible though process.

You haven't done anything of the sort.

You're implying by parallel example that the surge is a failure on a par with human wave assaults.

You're not defending it, so you lose.

What this whole thing comes down to is the difference between "taking" a piece of land and "holding" a piece of land.

There is no doubt in my mind that the US military could take any piece of land in the world. I believe the US could take Red Square or Tienanmen Square. That isn't the problem. The problem is holding a piece of land after you take it.

In Nam and Bushnam we could/can take any piece of land we desire. But without the support of the vast majority land can't be held. Even if you have 5% ready to fight you can't hold the land. The only way to hold in that case is the solution England used to build and empire and the US used against the natives--Kill everybody until whoever is left is totally beaten into submission. That worked until the mid 20th century. With mass communication it doesn't work because the average citizen can see it. (The exception is African regions where the media really doesn't care.) That's why GB finally had to give up it's empire.

The solution is one the US has used often:

Find another Saddam. Arm him to the teeth. Close our eyes and allow him to regain control.

It would be no worse than US support for dozens of other dictators around the world.

You uh... do realize where Saddam got his funding and supplies to fight the Iranians between 1980 to 1988 right?

We already won in Iraq. The mission was take out Sadaam and look for WMD's, we did both.

Now, let's come home.

You're implying by parallel example that the surge is a failure on a par with human wave assaults.


Liar.

Well done! :)

Thanky. :)

I can't think of a single reason. Let's leave.

Orderly withdrawal, not hasty, that's all I have to add.

Liar.

That's not a lie. It's there in black and white.

Or are you saying we're not allowed to use simple logic?

That's not a lie. It's there in black and white.

Or are you saying we're not allowed to use simple logic?


And no, my argument is his utter inflexibility of thought. The same kind of inflexibility that gets people killed in war because they were too stupid to adapt.


Post #159

I'll say it again.

Liar.

You uh... do realize where Saddam got his funding and supplies to fight the Iranians between 1980 to 1988 right?

I sure do. Have you seen this site?



http://www.bushflash.com/swf/thanks.swf

We already won in Iraq. The mission was take out Sadaam and look for WMD's, we did both.

Now, let's come home.

you are forgetting our OTHER mission in iraq. the one dick cheney (satan) talks about all the time.

the one where we are using iraq and its people and our military as terrorist magnets. having THEM be killed so that the terrorists wont come over here and kill US civilians.

not only is it evil to plan to have other innocent people killed but its targeting the wrong terrorists. the guys who are planting ieds on the roads of iraq and blowing themselves up in the busy marketplaces are not the ones who will plan to destroy some new big target inside the US.

Post #159

I'll say it again.

Liar.

It's not a lie, and it's not inflexible.

You said that the effort in Iraq was comparable to the WW I human wave assault.

The direct implication, since we agree that in your context the human wave assault is a failed military tactic, that the effort in Iraq - which is the surge - is a failure.

Piling more troops into the situation.

It's your comparison. You made it.

Now you want to back out of it, because you can't defend it. So you resort to calling me a liar, and calling me inflexible.

Several Nuclear Strikes on key population centers and also holy sites should prove effective in proving that we are the great satan. It would also prove effectice upon our resolve.

"Let it all bleed, burn, scream havoc and unleash the Dogs of War!!!!"

Make it shine, sand, lots of heat, pretty glass!!!!!

Several Nuclear Strikes on key population centers and also holy sites should prove effective in proving that we are the great satan. It would also prove effectice upon our resolve.

"Let it all bleed, burn, scream havoc and unleash the Dogs of War!!!!"

Make it shine, sand, lots of heat, pretty glass!!!!!

:sniper::mp5::sniper::mp5::upyours::gundge::sniper::mp5:

Several Nuclear Strikes on key population centers and also holy sites should prove effective in proving that we are the great satan. It would also prove effectice upon our resolve.

"Let it all bleed, burn, scream havoc and unleash the Dogs of War!!!!"

Make it shine, sand, lots of heat, pretty glass!!!!!

Several Nuclear Strikes on key population centers and also holy sites should prove effective in proving that we are the great satan. It would also prove effectice upon our resolve.

"Let it all bleed, burn, scream havoc and unleash the Dogs of War!!!!"

Make it shine, sand, lots of heat, pretty glass!!!!!

:sniper::mp5::sniper::mp5::upyours::gundge::sniper::mp5:


when i read the first one i thought "this guy is nutz" but then when i read the second one, the smilies convinced me that you were right.

Use the wrong ones, or use them the wrong way, or use too much of them, and you just end up making the bacteria stronger and more deadly.
The only thing that the antibiotic does if it is wrong is kill some of your own natural bacteria and possibly create greater resistance to it. It doesn't directly make the sickness more deadly, not that this has any relevance to anything at all. But i'm beginning to notice that that doesn't really matter at all here.

Use the wrong approach to an enemy, use your forces/resources the wrong way, or keep doing more of the wrong thing, and you just end up giving your enemy all the strength they need to harm you.
However, that is not the case.

That was a nice read of the current Iraq situation.

Really, thanks for posting it.

Too bad you'll be scoffed and rideculed since this goes against reality.bold edited by me for CLARITY

original post says "liberal bias"
original post available with the green arrow.

You said that the effort in Iraq was comparable to the WW I human wave assault.

A bald faced lie. I said he would have been suited that period and lack of flexible thinking.

Everything else you've constructed has been a fabrication to turn aside the main point.

You are nothing but a liar.

A bald faced lie. I said he would have been suited that period and lack of flexible thinking.

Everything else you've constructed has been a fabrication to turn aside the main point.

You are nothing but a liar.

Nope. You talked about the WW I style human wave charges being futile.

If you aren't relating that to the surge, then you're completely off topic - this isn't a WW I thread.

So since you ARE relating the two (and if you say you're not, you're lying), you have to back up your assertion that the surge is as useless and futile as a WW I human wave assault.

Accusing me of lying doesn't change the fact that you made the comparison, and the fact that you can't back it up with anything.

Nope. You talked about the WW I style human wave charges being futile.



Ever get the feeling he'd be right at home in the trenches of WWI?

"Come on boys! They've got enough machine guns to mow us all down, and we've nothing but rifles and our bodies, but if we keep charging them, we'll win right?"


Either you are too stupid to see the failure of inflexible thinking or you are deliberately obtuse. Try again. Or better yet. Don't. This discussion is over. I have nothing to say to self delusionists.

Ever get the feeling he'd be right at home in the trenches of WWI?

"Come on boys! They've got enough machine guns to mow us all down, and we've nothing but rifles and our bodies, but if we keep charging them, we'll win right?"

There you go. There's where you make the comparison.

Please turn in your debate card, because you can't admit that you made the comparison, and your only answer so far is to say that I'm lying about it.

I sure do. Have you seen this site?



http://www.bushflash.com/swf/thanks.swf

That was awesome, if you will.

God bless Ronald Reagan, right? :rolleyes:

Ever get the feeling he'd be right at home in the trenches of WWI?

"Come on boys! They've got enough machine guns to mow us all down, and we've nothing but rifles and our bodies, but if we keep charging them, we'll win right?"

NAS' post is attacking his mind-set, not making a comparison between Iraq and human wave surges. If he were, it would read:

Ever get the feeling that Iraq is the same as the trenches in WWI?

"Come on boys! They've got enough machine guns to mow us all down, and we've nothing but rifles and our bodies, but if we keep charging them, we'll win right?"

Quit strawman building, DK. Close the factory for just one evening, will you?

Guess what peoples, I DON'T want the US to win in Iraq, in fact I sincerely hope you lose, in fact whenever I turn on the tv and see a Humvee getting blown up by an IED, I LAUGH.:eek:

And it's idiots like you that help get the American Left and Muslims painted in such a positive light.

Nice to see such wisdom expounded to the masses. Yes, let's keep fighting until we win. Even if it takes us another few centuries and reduces Iraq to an empty wasteland. We can't afford to let those evil terrorist communists win.

Just leave Iraq alone. The United States has done enough damage for one century.

Is there suppost to be an argument hidden in this rhetoric?

*meaningless jabber that has no relation to actual points made, regardless of how many times pointed out otherwise*

RO's net life in a nutshell.

RO's net life in a nutshell.

More like Bushevism in a nutshell. Look at the OP and notice the similarities.

More like Bushevism in a nutshell. Look at the OP and notice the similarities.

There you go with the Bushevism.

Not a Bushevik. Try again.

Worked at Dien Bien Phu because the opponents were French. .

Brilliant bit of military analysis there.



The "success" of Chinese human wave attacks was limited..

I already said that. And they had what they had. Whats the point of adding speculation to an already established historical fact presented as refutation to an earlier point...Hmmmm...Diversion from the fact you were wrong a-fucking gain, perchance?


Oh, and we have the machinegun now - Isandlwana would have turned out differently if the defenders had had a couple of working Maxims.

"If "the Zulus had space gun death rays they could have beaten the Romans, who would have arrived in their steam powered cruisers that they might have had, had they had them....But they didn't......

Originally Posted by Muravyets
Perhaps you cannot see this because you are trained not to, but that does not change the facts.

And the reply below
Ever get the feeling he'd be right at home in the trenches of WWI?

"Come on boys! They've got enough machine guns to mow us all down, and we've nothing but rifles and our bodies, but if we keep charging them, we'll win right?"


Hes clearly speaking about stupid obstinancy in the face of the obvious, not "the surge" you keep trying to imply.

Ever get the feeling he'd be right at home in the trenches of WWI?

"Come on boys! They've got enough machine guns to mow us all down, and we've nothing but rifles and our bodies, but if we keep charging them, we'll win right?"

Do you ever get the felling that you'd be right at home wherever you could believe your own ideology regardless of all of the evidence?

You don't even consider that winning is possible even with all of the new progress. That is pretty much the definition of obstinate.

bold edited by me for CLARITY

original post says "liberal bias"
original post available with the green arrow.

When you start forgetting that your views are only your perspective you begin down the same path every bull headed idiot has ever gone down.

Definition of Winning in Iraq:
1) Effectively end the Sunni Insurgency
2) Expel Al-Qaeda from Iraq
3) Create a viable form of democracy in Iraq
4) Keep militia power in Baghdad under control
5) Have IA and IP take over their own security
6) Get economy to healthy level

7) Tootle away on your magical pipe in order to summon a magical genie who will grant you three magical wishes, to help you spread peace and democracy throughout the world.

7) Tootle away on your magical pipe in order to summon a magical genie who will grant you three magical wishes, to help you spread peace and democracy throughout the world.

If you can make it happen i'm game.

Absolutely splendid display of mass media regurgitation here!! Wow, God bless the free press right? I love the empty quotes of statistics and the, "my friend told me..." that is used in so many posts. The blatant super-ego's self-satisfaction through arguing over spelling errors and assertions of opinions as the ultimate truth.. The use of curses and personal attacks for emphasis instead of cold facts.. It is truly amazing! Kudos to Kremlorn for standing up for your beliefs against so much adversity. Shame on those that ridiculed him for his/her personal choice of voluntary service to this great country and accuse him of being "brainwashed" for having a different set of values and beliefs.

Not to say that I agree with one side or the other. On the contrary I find legitimacy in both sides of this little exchange. I understand Kremlorn's point of view in that it feels unfair to be - metaphorically - a World Heavyweight Champion (USA) thrown in the ring with arms tied to fight a teenager in a drug induced frenzy (extremists). Not a fair match, not unwinnable, but not an easy victory either. I also understand the views of seemingly every other poster here in that we had no business there in the first place and should not have remained there past the realization that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction to be found.

Sadly, we are only able to shape the world from where we are now, not where we were then. The topic presented for this thread is "Do we WANT to win in Iraq?" Throughout this entire series of exchanges I have only read a few kernels of input to this topic. The majority of it is all words and rantings from what seems like ill-educated or poorly self-disciplined bandwagon democrats who all have the same solution; "Let's just leave!"

"Let's just leave!" There's a grand idea.. How exactly would one propose we accomplish this task? Just pack up and go home? Leave the middle east at the mercy of the cancer that is an Islamic insurgency? Have the peaceful religion of Islam demonized to the point that it is all but regarded as a crime to practice? I suggest that before spouting off recycled rhetoric one should research the topic to some extent other than reading a few far-biased websites. Try a book or two, I hear they still make those.

Turkey is scared witless, Saudi Arabia is finally seing its dogs turn against her, Lebanon is already at war with insurgents, with this pattern of progression another Balkan conflict is likely. The problem doesn't stop in Iraq but God knows it started there when we gave the insurgency a nursery/training ground in 2003. We did not make the mess but we sure as hell made it a whole lot bigger a whole lot faster than it would have been if left alone for a while longer while we figured out a proper solution rather than go in guns blazing.

I doubt there is an American or free person here that does not want to see some kind of victory in Iraq. I find it hard to believe that not one person involved in this thread that would relish in the utter defeat and retreat of coalition (read as: US) forces in Iraq. The world will find itself in a terrible position if this were to occur, not only the US. I am not referring to solely a military victory; this alone would be empty. I refer to a TRUE victory, one in which the Iraqi people support their government (democratic or not) and the country is able to police itself effectively. To me, these are the two greatest signs of victory.

That was awesome, if you will.

God bless Ronald Reagan, right? :rolleyes:

Yea, then Reagan sold arms to the enemy (Iran). What would be a better definition of TREASON? And Ollie North makes a million a speech to "super patriots" for doing the actual footwork. How ironic is that?

What does "winning" even look like? Shouldn't that have been considered before going to war?


I'm not at all saying that Hussein deserved to stay in power. However, the main justification for the war was that he possessed WMD and was going to use them against us (an unlikely scenario, given that Hussein was a bastard but wasn't crazy/suicidal enough to attack the US with WMD).

So where are they? One would think we'd have found them by now... unless of course... they didn't exist...


Yeah, Hussein was bad. But so is Mugabe. So is the government of Sudan, so is Kim Jong Il, and a dozen other dictators. Hussein was a vile excuse for a human being, but in terms of relevance to world affairs he was a small-time crook.

soooo you are suggesting that if we leave iraq now we will be dragged back in no matter what and when we are things will be much worse since we havent been there to at least keep some things in check?

Sadly, that is about the sum of it. There's already an existing theory with some people around where I live that the events in Europe, including the captured shoe bomber in France, train bombing in Spain and the car bombing in England were test runs to find out what they could do. If they are, could you imagine how catastrophic it'd be if Amtrak, if it is a coast to coast system or a car bombing to PHL or JFK could be?

That is why we need to do a strategic exit. We are dealing with extremists, which puts negotiation off the table because of the narrow- minded ambitions to take down the U.S. If it doesn't improve there, it very possibly could come here again.

Sadly, that is about the sum of it. There's already an existing theory with some people around where I live that the events in Europe, including the captured shoe bomber in France, train bombing in Spain and the car bombing in England were test runs to find out what they could do. If they are, could you imagine how catastrophic it'd be if Amtrak, if it is a coast to coast system or a car bombing to PHL or JFK could be?

That is why we need to do a strategic exit. We are dealing with extremists, which puts negotiation off the table because of the narrow- minded ambitions to take down the U.S. If it doesn't improve there, it very possibly could come here again.

Thats the key phrase there, with the emphasis on the word exit. But there seems to be absolutely no strategy or work towards this actually happening.

My own assessment that having made the mess in the first place, even on spurious grounds, the US cannot just pull up sticks and leave. I am anti-war, but I don't think the majority of anti-war people want to see that. What we want is a strategic exit, leaving a strong democratic and safe Iraq. But the actions of the current US administration and military are not bearing this line of thought out.

Sadly, that is about the sum of it. There's already an existing theory with some people around where I live that the events in Europe, including the captured shoe bomber in France, train bombing in Spain and the car bombing in England were test runs to find out what they could do. If they are, could you imagine how catastrophic it'd be if Amtrak, if it is a coast to coast system or a car bombing to PHL or JFK could be?

That is why we need to do a strategic exit. We are dealing with extremists, which puts negotiation off the table because of the narrow- minded ambitions to take down the U.S. If it doesn't improve there, it very possibly could come here again.

you may well be right. (not about the dry run or the attack on amtrak thing. if they wanted to do something that small, they could do it any time. but about the leaving and having to go back part)

its not like bush has done anything right yet so its optimistic to think that he could make an orderly withdrawal from iraq that wouldnt end up with us having to go back in for a number of potential reasons.

thats the problem with having a fuck-up in charge. he cant be counted on to do anything right.

Absolutely splendid display of mass media regurgitation here!! Wow, God bless the free press right? I love the empty quotes of statistics and the, "my friend told me..." that is used in so many posts. The blatant super-ego's self-satisfaction through arguing over spelling errors and assertions of opinions as the ultimate truth.. The use of curses and personal attacks for emphasis instead of cold facts.. It is truly amazing! Kudos to Kremlorn for standing up for your beliefs against so much adversity. Shame on those that ridiculed him for his/her personal choice of voluntary service to this great country and accuse him of being "brainwashed" for having a different set of values and beliefs.

Not to say that I agree with one side or the other. On the contrary I find legitimacy in both sides of this little exchange. I understand Kremlorn's point of view in that it feels unfair to be - metaphorically - a World Heavyweight Champion (USA) thrown in the ring with arms tied to fight a teenager in a drug induced frenzy (extremists). Not a fair match, not unwinnable, but not an easy victory either. I also understand the views of seemingly every other poster here in that we had no business there in the first place and should not have remained there past the realization that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction to be found.

Sadly, we are only able to shape the world from where we are now, not where we were then. The topic presented for this thread is "Do we WANT to win in Iraq?" Throughout this entire series of exchanges I have only read a few kernels of input to this topic. The majority of it is all words and rantings from what seems like ill-educated or poorly self-disciplined bandwagon democrats who all have the same solution; "Let's just leave!"

"Let's just leave!" There's a grand idea.. How exactly would one propose we accomplish this task? Just pack up and go home? Leave the middle east at the mercy of the cancer that is an Islamic insurgency? Have the peaceful religion of Islam demonized to the point that it is all but regarded as a crime to practice? I suggest that before spouting off recycled rhetoric one should research the topic to some extent other than reading a few far-biased websites. Try a book or two, I hear they still make those.

Turkey is scared witless, Saudi Arabia is finally seing its dogs turn against her, Lebanon is already at war with insurgents, with this pattern of progression another Balkan conflict is likely. The problem doesn't stop in Iraq but God knows it started there when we gave the insurgency a nursery/training ground in 2003. We did not make the mess but we sure as hell made it a whole lot bigger a whole lot faster than it would have been if left alone for a while longer while we figured out a proper solution rather than go in guns blazing.

I doubt there is an American or free person here that does not want to see some kind of victory in Iraq. I find it hard to believe that not one person involved in this thread that would relish in the utter defeat and retreat of coalition (read as: US) forces in Iraq. The world will find itself in a terrible position if this were to occur, not only the US. I am not referring to solely a military victory; this alone would be empty. I refer to a TRUE victory, one in which the Iraqi people support their government (democratic or not) and the country is able to police itself effectively. To me, these are the two greatest signs of victory.
I like you....you speak out of both sides of your mouth!! :p

You would make an excellent candidate for the Republicants!!

It is too late for a TRUE victory in Iraq.

Millions of Iraqis support attacks against US forces. The hearts and minds battle was lost a long time ago!!

A substantial portion of Iraqis support attacks on US led-forces, but not attacks on Iraqi government security forces or Iraqi civilians. Ethnic groups vary sharply on these questions.

Overall, 47% say they approve of “attacks on US-led forces” (23% strongly). There are huge differences between ethnic groups. An extraordinary 88% of Sunnis approve, with 77% approving strongly. Forty-one percent of Shia approve as well, but just 9% strongly. Even 16% of Kurds approve (8% strongly).

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/images/jan06/Iraq_Jan06_grph5.GIF

Last year (2006) 87% of Iraqis support their government endorsing a US withdrawal timeline. US Congress agrees but Bush says no with a veto.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/images/jan06/Iraq_Jan06_grph4.GIF

Get the picture?

I like you....you speak out of both sides of your mouth!! :p

You would make an excellent candidate for the Republicants!!

It is too late for a TRUE victory in Iraq.

Millions of Iraqis support attacks against US forces. The hearts and minds battle was lost a long time ago!!

A substantial portion of Iraqis support attacks on US led-forces, but not attacks on Iraqi government security forces or Iraqi civilians. Ethnic groups vary sharply on these questions.



http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/images/jan06/Iraq_Jan06_grph5.GIF

Last year (2006) 87% of Iraqis support their government endorsing a US withdrawal timeline. US Congress agrees but Bush says no with a veto.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/images/jan06/Iraq_Jan06_grph4.GIF

Get the picture?

When you get right down to it, the U.S. doesn't give a fuck about the opinions of the Iraqis. We will do what we think is right for the world as whatever that may be is of course the correct act given every thoght the U.S. comes up with is automatically best for the planet. We ARE the United States so whatever we do is pure as the driven snow after all... Questioning us just means you are defeatist, cowardly or perhaps sympathetic to the Islamofascists or something.

When you get right down to it, the U.S. doesn't give a fuck about the opinions of the Iraqis. We will do what we think is right for the world as whatever that may be is of course the correct act given every thoght the U.S. comes up with is automatically best for the planet. We ARE the United States so whatever we do is pure as the driven snow after all...

And by the time we realize that The Star Spangled Banner has been replaced as the National Anthem in favor of America, FUCK YEAH!! it's too late.

When you get right down to it, the U.S. doesn't give a fuck about the opinions of the Iraqis. We will do what we think is right for the world as whatever that may be is of course the correct act given every thoght the U.S. comes up with is automatically best for the planet. We ARE the United States so whatever we do is pure as the driven snow after all...
I hear ya....but the FAG/MTAE/RA clones are clogging up the bandwidth trying to rationalize an irrational situation. Like a dog chasing its' tail and peeing all over that pure, driven snow.....

I like you....you speak out of both sides of your mouth!! :p

You would make an excellent candidate for the Republicants!!

It is too late for a TRUE victory in Iraq.

Millions of Iraqis support attacks against US forces. The hearts and minds battle was lost a long time ago!!

A substantial portion of Iraqis support attacks on US led-forces, but not attacks on Iraqi government security forces or Iraqi civilians. Ethnic groups vary sharply on these questions.



http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/images/jan06/Iraq_Jan06_grph5.GIF

Last year (2006) 87% of Iraqis support their government endorsing a US withdrawal timeline. US Congress agrees but Bush says no with a veto.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/images/jan06/Iraq_Jan06_grph4.GIF

Get the picture?

That poll is more than a year and a half old. Much has happened since then. Try again.

but for who wrote it: Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, two non-friends of the Bush administration.

I stopped reading at that point.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/30/media-ohanlon-pollack/

Do you ever get the felling that you'd be right at home wherever you could believe your own ideology regardless of all of the evidence?


Say's the cretin, and all marketers are cretins regardless of what they're selling, who's job is to sit on a chair well away from the combat front and evidence and sell war.

You haven't provided any evidence that your's is working though. Only talking points. The kind that has the same credibility as statements like "Space Jews control the world."

Say's the cretin, and all marketers are cretins regardless of what they're selling, who's job is to sit on a chair well away from the combat front and evidence and sell war.
I'm not selling war, I'm selling the Marine Corps. And I'm just waiting until i can go to TBS and then flight school.
You haven't provided any evidence that your's is working though. Only talking points. The kind that has the same credibility as statements like "Space Jews control the world."
-Sunnis turning against Al-Qaeda
-Sunni militias and insurgents working with us
-Diminishing power of shiia militias
-IA and IP incompetence is now the exception rather than the rule
-30% fewer civilian deaths
-Last month was lowest U.S. casualites this year
-Al Anbar all but pacified
-Reduced violence in Baghdad
to name a few

That poll is more than a year and a half old. Much has happened since then. Try again.
Yes indeed, much HAS happened:

Year Four: Simply the worst (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr15.php)

Summary
On every available indicator the year just ended (March 2006 – March 2007) has been by far the worst year for violence against civilians in Iraq since the invasion:

- almost half (44%) of all violent civilian deaths after the initial invasion phase occurred in the just-ended fourth year of the conflict

- mortar attacks that kill civilians have quadrupled in the last year (from 73 to 289)

- massive bomb blasts that kill more than 50 people have nearly doubled in the last year (from 9 to 17)

- fatal suicide bombs, car bombs, and roadside bombing attacks have doubled in the last year (from 712 to 1476)

- one in 160 of Baghdad’s 6.5 million population has been violently killed since the beginning of the war, representing 64% of deaths recorded so far

These are the stark headlines derived from Iraq Body Count’s ongoing compilation and analysis of media reports of civilian casualties in the Iraq conflict, which has documented 65,000 violent deaths to date.

http://icasualties.org/oif/RadControls/Chart/Image.aspx?UseSession=true&ChartID=1885386c-f708-3f0c-b6f3-1eb6b22b83f3_chart_RadChart1&imageFormat=Png&random=0.919369234200273

Do try to keep up!! :p

Yes indeed, much HAS happened:

Year Four: Simply the worst (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr15.php)



http://icasualties.org/oif/RadControls/Chart/Image.aspx?UseSession=true&ChartID=1885386c-f708-3f0c-b6f3-1eb6b22b83f3_chart_RadChart1&imageFormat=Png&random=0.919369234200273

Do try to keep up!! :p

You're still a half a year behind.

-Sunnis turning against Al-Qaeda
-Sunni militias and insurgents working with us
-Diminishing power of shiia militias
-IA and IP incompetence is now the exception rather than the rule
-30% fewer civilian deaths
-Last month was lowest U.S. casualites this year
-Al Anbar all but pacified
-Reduced violence in Baghdad
to name a few
Where is the data/links to support your claims?

Where is the data/links to support your claims?

I can't believe that I have to do the basic research for you. You'd think that someone with such an arrogant attitude that you would have at least stayed up to date on your information.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2934833320070629
long link (http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/07262007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/winning_in_iraq_opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm)
another link (http://politics.netscape.com/story/2007/07/01/iraqi-civilian-deaths-sharply-lower-in-june/comments/1)
last link (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/14/iraq.main/index.html)

I'm not selling war, I'm selling the Marine Corps. And I'm just waiting until i can go to TBS and then flight school.


And where exactly is the Marine Corps eh? You're selling war. I've seen your type. Paint happy rosy images to get people to sign up, and then shuffle them off to the nearest combat theater.


-Sunnis turning against Al-Qaeda
-Sunni militias and insurgents working with us
-Diminishing power of shiia militias
-IA and IP incompetence is now the exception rather than the rule
-30% fewer civilian deaths
-Last month was lowest U.S. casualites this year
-Al Anbar all but pacified
-Reduced violence in Baghdad
to name a few

None of which you have proved. And some of, which proved, prove nothing in terms of "progress"

And where exactly is the Marine Corps eh? You're selling war. I've seen your type. Paint happy rosy images to get people to sign up, and then shuffle them off to the nearest combat theater.
Spoken like an ignorant liberal. 10% of our military personnel are in combat MOSs. 50% have never been overseas. Only 20% have gone overseas more than once. You have a 99.6% chance of surviving if you are sent overseas. No, you just subscribe to an overly gloomy image.



None of which you have proved. And some of, which proved, prove nothing in terms of "progress"
Maybe if you had spent a little bit more time reading my last post instead of rambling on.

I can't believe that I have to do the basic research for you. You'd think that someone with such an arrogant attitude that you would have at least stayed up to date on your information.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2934833320070629

And yet those military people are saying they are being cautious to this new help. I'm sure there must be all kinds of problems like wondering if they can even be trusted after all. Controlling them in any meaningful way must also be troublesome.

long link (http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/07262007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/winning_in_iraq_opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm)

That is an opinion piece that is merely following YOUR opinion. Hardly proof.

another link (http://politics.netscape.com/story/2007/07/01/iraqi-civilian-deaths-sharply-lower-in-june/comments/1)
last link (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/14/iraq.main/index.html)

We have seen these downturns in violence before. It has always been temporary. Lets wait a bit longer before trumpeting our victory, alright?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070810/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/bush_war_adviser

Going reeeeeally well...

Oh, and by the way: This time it's BUSH'S ADVISER talking about a draft.

Spoken like an ignorant liberal. 10% of our military personnel are in combat MOSs. 50% have never been overseas. Only 20% have gone overseas more than once. You have a 99.6% chance of surviving if you are sent overseas. No, you just subscribe to an overly gloomy image.


Spoken like an army recruiter. Any lie goes, as long as you can't get sued for it. You think I don't know about the extended tours, the unit recalls, the national guard activations? Your percentages are pure rubbish.


Maybe if you had spent a little bit more time reading my last post instead of rambling on.

I read it. It was a load of whitewash. Utracia pointed out why. Skeptical commanders, temporary lulls and the best part, opinion pieces.

I have an opinion piece that says that you've got the total intellect of a turnip. Since it's an opinion piece it must be true huh?

but for who wrote it: Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, two non-friends of the Bush administration.

I stopped reading at that point.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/30/media-ohanlon-pollack/

The best part about that is that, as I posted earlier, their peice was not nearly asd rosy as is being portrayed. Those touting it seem to be ignoring the last two paragraphs. For ease of reference, here they are again, with the key points in red.

At bottom, the situation in Iraq remains grave. In particular, we still face huge hurdles on the political front. Iraqi politicians of all stripes continue to dawdle and maneuver for position against one another when major steps toward reconciliation - or at least accommodation - are needed. This cannot continue indefinitely. Otherwise, once America begins to downsize its forces, important communities may not feel committed to the status quo, and Iraqi security forces may splinter along ethnic and religious lines.

How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can the U.S. wear down its forces in Iraq? These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/29/opinion/edpollack.php?page=2

And still better yet, as I also posted above (a post which seems to have been lost in the noise to most here), they've backed off from it.

-Sunnis turning against Al-Qaeda
-Sunni militias and insurgents working with us
-Diminishing power of shiia militias
-IA and IP incompetence is now the exception rather than the rule
-30% fewer civilian deaths
-Last month was lowest U.S. casualites this year
-Al Anbar all but pacified
-Reduced violence in Baghdad
to name a few

The author of the opinion peice that the opinion peice you posted as the OP was primarily based on had this to say:
What the American military cannot solve, he said, are problems caused by the inability of Iraqis to forge political solutions. "Ultimately, politics trumps all else," O'Hanlon said. "If the political stalemate goes on, even if the military progress continued, I don't see how I could write another Op-Ed saying the same thing."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/02/america/02assess.php?page=2

What we need is an exit strategy from this illegitimate tar baby of a war.

And in answer to your title question, not anymore.

The people of the US, l myself included, wanted to win the war in the Spring and Summer of 2003. Since that time. it has become clear that the original plan was FUBARed by Bush, Rummy, Franks, et al, and that there was no seriously realistic effort made to "win the peace". Conditions have been allowed to deteriorate unacceptably to the point where the majority of the people of the US no longer see a viable option of winning.

We will never lose in Iraq as long as we never leave Iraq.

Says it all, really.

I can't believe that I have to do the basic research for you. You'd think that someone with such an arrogant attitude that you would have at least stayed up to date on your information.
Wow.....you have been posting here a whole two days and you are calling me arrogant. Amazing. You are starting to remind me of my old debating buddies BarryGoldwater/USalpenstock. :p

No my son, it is the arrogance of people such as yourself and your Dear misguided Leader that has led to the deaths of 100's of thousands of innocent Iraqis and over 3,700 US troops in a war that should never have been waged.

Now let's see what you brought to the discussion table in the way of proof:

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2934833320070629
Would this have any relation to the "last throes of the insurgency (http://www.overspun.com/video/DailyShow.WarOfTheWords.wmv)"? More propaganda BS my friend.

long link (http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/07262007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/winning_in_iraq_opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm)
Oh goody......an OP-ED from a pro Iraq War flunky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Peters#Opinion_on_the_Iraq_war):

Peters was a strong supporter of the 2003 invasion and ongoing war in Iraq.

And from the same Wiki article, what did he write in USA Today this November past about the Iraq War?

Iraq is failing. No honest observer can conclude otherwise. Even six months ago, there was hope. Now the chances for a democratic, unified Iraq are dwindling fast ... Iraq could have turned out differently. It didn't. And we must be honest about it. We owe that much to our troops. They don't face the mere forfeiture of a few congressional seats but the loss of their lives. Our military is now being employed for political purposes. It's unworthy of our nation.[3]

In this piece he also speculates that "only a military coup — which might come in the next few years — could hold the artificial country together" and that

[i]t appears that the cynics were right: Arab societies can't support democracy as we know it.
Hmmmm. Your source is certainly impeccable!! :p

another link (http://politics.netscape.com/story/2007/07/01/iraqi-civilian-deaths-sharply-lower-in-june/comments/1)
What does this unauthored blurb from Netscape reveal?

Iraqi civilian deaths dropped to 1,241 last month, according to figures issued on Sunday, the lowest since a US-led crackdown was launched in February in Baghdad and other violent regions of the country. However, car and roadside bombings allegedly carried out by Sunni insurgents continue to rock Baghdad and neighbouring provinces.
Hmmm good news/bad news huh? Let's see, the death toll of civilians was down to ONLY 1,241 for the month of June huh? This past week, there has ONLY been 453 deaths (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/recent/). Hmmm at that rate, the death toll for August will be 1812?

Your links are really helping your argument there sonny boy?? :p

And the last link:

last link (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/14/iraq.main/index.html)
That is from March of this year (outdated by your standards), and yet it actually is self defeating in that the death rate sky rocketed after March.

Your propaganda fails my friend. You obviously wouldn't say shit if you had a mouthful of it.

Spoken like an ignorant liberal. 10% of our military personnel are in combat MOSs. 50% have never been overseas. Only 20% have gone overseas more than once. You have a 99.6% chance of surviving if you are sent overseas. No, you just subscribe to an overly gloomy image.


Gosh, did my Godson draw the short straw or what? He's leaving this month for his third tour. His commitment was up in June but they told him he was going for another 15 month tour anyway. The first time he came within inches of getting killed three times. Several of his buddies died. Since then he flat refuses to talk about combat.

The problem with an MOS in a guerrilla war is no one is safe. My Godson is a computer specialist. Last tour he worked at a hospital and was still under fire.

And it's idiots like you that help get the American Left and Muslims painted in such a positive light.

lol, i laugh when that happens too

lol, i laugh when that happens too

So your objective is to give weight to paranoid neo-fascists and have them start up full scale death camps for Muslims and 'dissidents'?

-Sunnis turning against Al-Qaeda
-Sunni militias and insurgents working with us
-Diminishing power of shiia militias
-IA and IP incompetence is now the exception rather than the rule
-30% fewer civilian deaths
-Last month was lowest U.S. casualites this year
-Al Anbar all but pacified
-Reduced violence in Baghdad to name a few
Still waiting for your proof.

BTW, in regards to "Last month was lowest U.S. casualites this year", consider this:

July 2007 = 79 US fatalities

July 2006 = 43 US fatalities

July 2005 = 54 US fatalities

July 2004 = 54 US fatalities

July 2003 = 48 US fatalities

In other words, the worst July since the beginning of the Iraq War (http://icasualties.org/oif/default.aspx). The US coalition is averaging 3.36 fatalities per day this year (40% higher than last year), which is the worst average excluding the initial 43 days of the war.

Ever get the feeling he'd be right at home in the trenches of WWI?

"Come on boys! They've got enough machine guns to mow us all down, and we've nothing but rifles and our bodies, but if we keep charging them, we'll win right?"

The guys in the trenches didn't say shit like that. It was the murderous, incompetent motherfuckers back at command headquarters, who never saw actual combat in their lives, who spouted such bullshit and treated human beings like pieces on a game board, like what happened to them didn't matter at all.

Wow, some things never change, eh?

Are you making the argument that the surge has shown zero success?

If so, provide links to proof.
People who demand proof of a negative are, in my experience, people who have no argument of their own to make, or no way to defend an argument they have made. Which is it for you this time? I would assume the former, since we are not discussing an argument of yours. If you wish to make one, please do.

Worked at Dien Bien Phu because the opponents were French. In fact, the commander of the French artillery had said that it would be impossible for the VietMinh to bring heavy artillery to bear - which they most certainly did. He ended up committing suicide by hand grenade before any ground attack began.

The "success" of Chinese human wave attacks was limited. If the defenders had any air support using napalm, and the defenders had flame weapons (fougasse mines) and quad-50 guns, the attacks never succeeded. The modern Claymore mine was invented shortly thereafter to make such attacks fundamentally impossible.

Oh, and we have the machinegun now - Isandlwana would have turned out differently if the defenders had had a couple of working Maxims.
Wow, that's some grade A bull. I wish I'd seen it when it was fresh. Must have been something. Two enormous IFs that have nothing to do with what actually happened, bolstered (introduced) by one unprovoked ethnic slur.

Bears a superficial resemblance to Bush's war "plans."

You haven't done anything of the sort.

You're implying by parallel example that the surge is a failure on a par with human wave assaults.

You're not defending it, so you lose.
No, RO, you were attempting to set up a another strawman. What's the matter? Were you getting bored with the topic at this point? Any reasonable person could clearly see what NAS meant by his WW1 comment. It had nothing to do with the surge.

Thanky. :)



Orderly withdrawal, not hasty, that's all I have to add.
Oh, yes, by all means, orderly. No need for a mad dash to the exits. It will probably take up to a year to accomplish, in real terms, so there's no time like the present to get it started, imo. Hopefully, the process of doing it will help us figure out ways to leave at least some tools for stability behind us for the Iraqis to use, if they like.

EDIT: Actually, since it's a military operation, let's say 2 years.

you are forgetting our OTHER mission in iraq. the one dick cheney (satan) talks about all the time.

the one where we are using iraq and its people and our military as terrorist magnets. having THEM be killed so that the terrorists wont come over here and kill US civilians.

not only is it evil to plan to have other innocent people killed but its targeting the wrong terrorists. the guys who are planting ieds on the roads of iraq and blowing themselves up in the busy marketplaces are not the ones who will plan to destroy some new big target inside the US.
Even laying aside the wrong terrorists angle, which is true, it is also the stupidest evil plan I've ever heard. The well known facts about how terrorists work and how terrorism is accomplished should be enough to show anyone willing to look and listen that there is nothing to stop terrorists from attacking in both places.

When I listen to Cheney talk, I can't help thinking that he sounds like the kid Ralphie from "A Christmas Story" complaining about how people don't understand about creeping marauders and how there's nothing but him and his trusty BB gun standing between his "tiny, huddled family and insensate evil." Ralphie + Darth Vader = Dick Cheney, I guess.

The only thing that the antibiotic does if it is wrong is kill some of your own natural bacteria and possibly create greater resistance to it. It doesn't directly make the sickness more deadly,
Not actually true, but medicine is off topic, I suppose.

not that this has any relevance to anything at all. But i'm beginning to notice that that doesn't really matter at all here.
And you apparently don't know how analogies work, either.

However, that is not the case.
You made claims of fact about the situation in Iraq earlier in this thread. You have failed to show proof of them, although you were asked for such more than once. Why should we believe you when so many media sources tell us the opposite of what you claim and show us pictures, studies, and statements by officials actually at the scene to back them up?

Even laying aside the wrong terrorists angle, which is true, it is also the stupidest evil plan I've ever heard. The well known facts about how terrorists work and how terrorism is accomplished should be enough to show anyone willing to look and listen that there is nothing to stop terrorists from attacking in both places.

When I listen to Cheney talk, I can't help thinking that he sounds like the kid Ralphie from "A Christmas Story" complaining about how people don't understand about creeping marauders and how there's nothing but him and his trusty BB gun standing between his "tiny, huddled family and insensate evil." Ralphie + Darth Vader = Dick Cheney, I guess.

lol

the ralphie part cheers me up. whenever i see cheney i think satan. now i can think ralphie instead.

Nope. You talked about the WW I style human wave charges being futile.

If you aren't relating that to the surge, then you're completely off topic - this isn't a WW I thread.

So since you ARE relating the two (and if you say you're not, you're lying), you have to back up your assertion that the surge is as useless and futile as a WW I human wave assault.

Accusing me of lying doesn't change the fact that you made the comparison, and the fact that you can't back it up with anything.
No, actually, he was right. You were lying.

If not, then you were engaging in total lack of reading comprehension, but given your history of strawman arguments, I don't think that was the case.

You made claims of fact about the situation in Iraq earlier in this thread. You have failed to show proof of them, although you were asked for such more than once. Why should we believe you when so many media sources tell us the opposite of what you claim and show us pictures, studies, and statements by officials actually at the scene to back them up?
I do believe that Kemlorn has abandoned this thread due to his inability to provide credible proof to back up his claims??

Thats the key phrase there, with the emphasis on the word exit. But there seems to be absolutely no strategy or work towards this actually happening.

My own assessment that having made the mess in the first place, even on spurious grounds, the US cannot just pull up sticks and leave. I am anti-war, but I don't think the majority of anti-war people want to see that. What we want is a strategic exit, leaving a strong democratic and safe Iraq. But the actions of the current US administration and military are not bearing this line of thought out.

Well, let's be frank here, people. There's no money to be made in an exit.

That poll is more than a year and a half old. Much has happened since then. Try again.
Post some new polls, please.

I'm not selling war, I'm selling the Marine Corps.
Selling is selling.

And I'm just waiting until i can go to TBS and then flight school.
Oh, so you don't even give half a shit about the lives you are setting up for destruction. Nice.

-Sunnis turning against Al-Qaeda
-Sunni militias and insurgents working with us
-Diminishing power of shiia militias
-IA and IP incompetence is now the exception rather than the rule
-30% fewer civilian deaths
-Last month was lowest U.S. casualites this year
-Al Anbar all but pacified
-Reduced violence in Baghdad
to name a few
DELETED. Someone beat me to it.

EDIT: Actually several people beat me to it and rather well, too. :)

Thats the key phrase there, with the emphasis on the word exit. But there seems to be absolutely no strategy or work towards this actually happening.

My own assessment that having made the mess in the first place, even on spurious grounds, the US cannot just pull up sticks and leave. I am anti-war, but I don't think the majority of anti-war people want to see that. What we want is a strategic exit, leaving a strong democratic and safe Iraq. But the actions of the current US administration and military are not bearing this line of thought out.

It is complicated. Like Ashmoria said, Bush did fuck up pretty bad after all. But as the saying goes, Hindsight is 20/20. If a few steps were taken when this started, including sending the troops the right place and forget his vendetta against Hussein, maybe his Mission Accomplished banner wouldn't have been a lie. But since it is the here and now that should be considered, and because Bush is practically a lame duck, he's going to leave it for the next president. It will be on their shoulders if they plot something larger. Only a year and six or seven months to go, after all (I've been counting down).

Please note: I am against the war, but I feel the troops deserve as much support as possible. As much as I'd love to see the war end, I realize the backlash could end up very devastating if it isn't resolved.

Post some new polls, please.
That poll (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/250.php?nid=&id=&pnt=250&lb=brme)was:

Published September 27, 2006 and garnered the following:

Most Iraqis Want U.S. Troops Out Within a Year

Say U.S. Presence Provoking More Conflict Than it is Preventing

Approval of Attacks on U.S.-led Forces Rises to 6 in 10
That means that 71% of Iraqis would have liked the US troops out of Iraq by September 2007. Instead, the US added 30,000 troops, which is causing even higher casualties. Go figure.

And no one has even touched on the fact that there are approximately 4 Million displaced Iraqis.

lol

the ralphie part cheers me up. whenever i see cheney i think satan. now i can think ralphie instead.

Well, my mom, who is not very religious, calls Cheney "The Antichrist." Somehow, now I always want to watch "A Christmas Story" and "The Omen" together. ;)

I do believe that Kemlorn has abandoned this thread due to his inability to provide credible proof to back up his claims??
Has it been that long? Maybe he just went out for a sandwich while he tries to think up new lame put-downs to use in place of facts.

That poll (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/250.php?nid=&id=&pnt=250&lb=brme)was:

Published September 27, 2006 and garnered the following:


That means that 71% of Iraqis would have liked the US troops out of Iraq by September 2007. Instead, the US added 30,000 troops, which is causing even higher casualties. Go figure.

And no one has even touched on the fact that there are approximately 4 Million displaced Iraqis.
You don't have to tell me. Unlike some around here, I pay attention to what's going on around me. I was just suggesting that, if his complaint was that the other poll was old, then he should find some new ones. I didn't think it needed to be said that all the new polls would show him to be wrong as well.

Has it been that long? Maybe he just went out for a sandwich while he tries to think up new lame put-downs to use in place of facts.
He was on at 3:38 p.m. today but hasn't posted anything since last night.

He is definitely out on a limb. :D

He was on at 3:38 p.m. today but hasn't posted anything since last night.

He is definitely out on a limb. :D

Poor fellow. He'll get used to it. ;)

The reason the rest of the world does nothing is because they can't. Europe has become a paradise only because most European countries have dropped millitary funding and personnel so rapidly. America acts as a defender of Europe while most of the countries just develop. However, they are truly dependent on America if a war breaks out in their current state. America defends Europe because defending Europe physically defends America economically. I believe all of the silly controversy is all a bit of woosy, dreaming for FALSE socialist states in Europe is a way most people don't see what's really going on.

--

Also, Europe fucked up the Middle East. If America fucks it up again, it looks like both continents will be equal. Namely France and Great Britain. No one cared about it then because they had won the war. America has already won the conventional war. Right now they're just acting like super-SWAT teams. Most people have turned against Bush simply because they're not getting results, like one poster said. I was against the war for a while, but just because the insurgency is rough and we've accomplished the rewards already, Americans want to get out of it. I can see why Bush vetos all the bills. Pulling out in 2008/9 will just cause the extremist groups to hold on for one more year and then they'll be home free. You have to take more variables into the equation. And that's probably while sometimes things boil up. They just have to stay active for one more year. If the new candidates didn't preach that, perhaps they(mujihadists) would believe the insurgency is getting nowhere.

Do We Have Permission to Win in Iraq?

Per OP:

Dunno about you, but i'm still waiting for my tickertape parade and leis and all the other things that Bush was promising out his bulging airsuit package as he 'chuted down onto the flight deck, with that magnificent banner just behind him, only mildly outshined by his brilliantly shiny teeth and, as i'd mentioned, bulging package.