Post by: slzy on November 19, 2006, 03:24:15 PM
Post by: Standing Wolf on November 19, 2006, 03:56:04 PM
Post by: Guest on November 19, 2006, 04:32:01 PM
Post by: meinbruder on November 19, 2006, 06:48:33 PM
Now that that question is on the table, what would constitute a win? A democracy springs forth from a thirteenth century feudal society? Thats not going to happen! Even if all the Iraqi people all get on one end of the rope and pull in the same direction there will still be an assortment of foreign fighters and fundamentalist zealots killing people at random. Dont forget, the rope is tied to a post called the Koran.
}:)>
Post by: MechAg94 on November 19, 2006, 07:04:28 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 19, 2006, 09:38:33 PM
Post by: 280plus on November 20, 2006, 12:46:43 AM
Post by: Ron on November 20, 2006, 02:53:07 AM
Looks like we are going to fail in transforming them into a civil society.
That is Iraq's loss not ours.
Post by: Werewolf on November 20, 2006, 06:19:10 AM
Quote
Now that that question is on the table, what would constitute a win?
Since this ISN'T the highroad...The best way to solve a problem is to eliminate the source of the problem. Unfortunately at times the problem can be so big that it becomes necessary to toss out the baby with the bath water.
Clean the place out. Nuclear or chemical (chemical preferred - the short term stuff so the infrastructure remains). Don't stop at Iraq - clear out Iran too. Let the buzzards feast for about 6 months or so.
In the intermission between destruction and waiting for the buzzards to do their job...
Let the rest of the unciivilized dictatorships in the world know they're next on the list if they decide to get froggy or complain too loudly. Tell the Euros to shut up and get back to watching their porn commercials on TV and keeping the sheople happy that make up their populations.
Once the buzzards have gotten fat, dumb and happy enough establish the area as a US protectorate. Setup something similar to the homestead laws the US had in the 1800's to encourage adventurous types from the US and Europe to move in and repopulate (if we let the Euros in it'll shut the greedy SOB's up) - however, no sheople allowed - homesteading ought to solve the sheople problem. Once the population levels reach some pre-determined point and the economies become mostly self supporting establish a US style constitutional republic and turn the area loose with guarantees of military protection and economic trade by and with the US.
In 25 or so years you'll have thriving, economically strong republics where there used to be barbaric dictatorships.
Of course this will never happen (no cajones and a congenital inability of politicians to see further into the future than the end of their peckers) and instead in 25 years we'll still be fighting the radical islamists. Oh well at least the times will remain intersting.
Post by: The Rabbi on November 20, 2006, 08:14:29 AM
If we pull out/strategically reposition/cut 'n' run then what will happen? It'll be a mess for a while and then we'll have to back in.
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on November 20, 2006, 08:46:16 AM
Post by: cordex on November 20, 2006, 10:20:30 AM
Whether we stay or go, that country and that part of the world always be a mess.
Very true.
Post by: Werewolf on November 20, 2006, 11:52:08 AM
Let's just go ahead and assume that we are - as a nation - not willing to resort to the Werewolf Plan for Systematic Genocide and Careless Mass Murder of Everyone in the Middle East. The whole "final solution" concept just kind of goes against the grain, you know?
Hey! It worked for the Romans...
Post by: LAK on November 21, 2006, 12:46:25 AM
-----------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: Eleven Mike on November 21, 2006, 02:49:14 AM
Look for our troop presence in Iraq to begin to diminish.
I don't see it. The administration seems to have been trying to reduce troop levels all year. Yet, it seems every time they try, they have to extend a unit's tour or ship over more troops that hadn't been scheduled.
Post by: Dannyboy on November 21, 2006, 04:47:04 AM
We already won the Iraq war.
Looks like we are going to fail in transforming them into a civil society.
That is Iraq's loss not ours.
Reminds me of the saying, "You can't polish a turd."
Looks like we are going to fail in transforming them into a civil society.
That is Iraq's loss not ours.
Post by: crt360 on November 21, 2006, 10:50:08 AM
Reminds me of the saying, "You can't polish a turd."
. . . or make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
Post by: Leatherneck on November 22, 2006, 02:30:31 AM
Quote
Hey! It worked for the Romans... grin
But where are the Romans today?Genocide on any achievable scale in the ME would absolutely commit the rest of Islam to the destruction of America. And today, they have the technology (nukes, airplanes, travel, the internet, etc>) to make that possible. I fear the only answer lies in the realms of education and politics, and we seem clueless as to how to pursue such a solution, as do the Iraqis.
I personally believe that the most viable solution for Iraq is to partition it and leave in place a permanent (or at least, long-term) 911 force in Kurdistan and Baghdad.
TC
Post by: Werewolf on November 22, 2006, 04:07:20 AM
Quote
Hey! It worked for the Romans... grin
But where are the Romans today?Answer: About 600 years or so.
Genocide really isn't the answer - yet - but it may very well come to that.
As you point out Leatherneck:
Quote
I fear the only answer lies in the realms of education and politics...
is currently the path best taken but I don't hold out much hope for success. Iraq was secular but now regardless of their constitution is essentially a Theocracy. Iran is a true theocracy. Theocracies indoctrinate their people from birth in the tenets of the ruling religion. Indoctrination is difficult if not impossible to overcome. Thus your suggestion to: Quote
partition it and leave in place a permanent (or at least, long-term) 911 force in Kurdistan and Baghdad.
is IMO what will eventually happen if the US stays in Iraq. If not the country will slip into civil war and the Iranians and/or the Syrians will step in and take over. In either event the power and wealth of states that are with out doubt enemies of the USA will increase. Next time around the war will not be so easy to win.I find it difficult to understand why we cannot acknowledge that we are involved in the first stages of a culture war where the east wants nothing more than to absorb the west and wipe out its way of life. People can say that it is only the radical Islamists that want that but when the rest of them stand by and do nothing to control their radical elements then they might as well be their willing allies.
We're not in a knock down drag out war yet but we will eventually be - its not a matter of if but when.
Post by: Ezekiel on November 22, 2006, 06:20:57 AM
QUAGMIRE
Where have I heard that before?
Whether we stay or go, that country and that part of the world always be a mess.
Post by: The Rabbi on November 22, 2006, 07:23:32 AM
Which, of course, directly underscores the senseless act of our invasion and makes American deaths there meaningless.
QUAGMIRE
Where have I heard that before?
QUAGMIRE
Where have I heard that before?
Where have you heard that before? You have heard that from the moment Americans set boots on Iraqi soil. The media have played that note from the very beginning. It wasn't true then and it isnt true now. Merely saying the word like a magical incantation doesn't make it so.
Post by: Ezekiel on November 22, 2006, 10:11:47 AM
Thanks for reminding me.
Merely saying the word [quagmire] like a magical incantation doesn't make it so.
Post by: Waitone on November 22, 2006, 05:44:58 PM
Other than that Kissinger's opinion is just as valuable as any other opinion.
Post by: Lobotomy Boy on November 22, 2006, 06:54:51 PM
Post by: Mannlicher on November 23, 2006, 03:52:53 AM
I mean, now many folks around actually have experience in selling out the Military, and orchestrating a cut and run withdrawal? He can show how to sit down with your enemy, and give away the farm. He can explain how you can take what your enemy says with a straight face, and then sign on the dotted line.
Post by: Lobotomy Boy on November 23, 2006, 05:07:41 AM
So barring genocide or some half-witted watered-down version of the same, if you have a better strategy than "cutting and running," I'm all ears because I see no good way out of this mess at this point.
Post by: The Rabbi on November 23, 2006, 06:10:22 AM
And they were both described as "quagmires" by the enlightened of their time.
Post by: Lobotomy Boy on November 23, 2006, 07:19:59 AM
Post by: lupinus on November 23, 2006, 07:23:17 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on November 23, 2006, 08:22:38 AM
Rabbi, I respect your opinion, but simply pointing out similarities to other conflicts does not constitute a solution to this one. I'd appreciate hearing your suggestions for a strategy in Iraq along with the tactics you think would help us attain that strategy, because I'm at a complete loss for meaningful solutions.
-Interdicting terrorists at the borders of Iran and Syria.
-Working to strengthen the current elected government.
-Hunt down terrorist cells, including the remnants of Saddam's Mukhbarat.
-Promoting building the economy so people are too busy to become involved in terrorism and have too much stake in seeing the country fall apart.
If that sounds a lot like what we're doing now, it is. You didnt ask for a quick solution or an easy or cheap one There aren't any. Nor are there any palatable alternatives.
Post by: Werewolf on November 23, 2006, 02:17:39 PM
Our Grandfathers knew what needed to be done in WWII to preserve their way of life - the complete and utter annhilation of Germany and Japan. They accomplished just that. They burned cities to the ground for no other purpose than to cause terror among the people, they bombed factories into dust, they destroyed their infrastructures and destroyed their economies resulting in the deaths of millions from starvation and disease, they even vaporized two cities with nuclear fire and after the final surrender of our mortal enemies hung the leadership by their necks until they were dead, Dead, DEAD!
The result: Our grandfathers won their war. Those men and women didn't enjoy what they had to do but they did it because it was necessary. Their sacrifices, their courage and their will to do what needed to be done won us our freedom for 60 more years. It is too bad the world they fought so hard to preserve will be lost by the emasculated, PC wimps that are in charge now.
One other thing needs to be mentioned: After the victory, to assure there would be no repeat of the evil that lived in Germany and Japan, they rebuilt both those nations in our image. I think they were successful for both Germany and Japan are currently among our strongest and most faithful allies (though the ally part is weakening as time goes on).
That said it must be noted that both the militaries and the peoples of Germany and Japan were thoroughly and completely defeated. that is what made the rebuilding of those nations into loyal allies with strong economies possible.
Iraq's military was beaten but it's people weren't and until the people are as thoroughly beaten as the military, the problems in Iraq will continue.
But the west isn't going to win in Iraq and neither will it win the culture war with radical Islamists because the west no longer has the will or the cajones to do what is necessary to win. Peace, love and tolerance aren't options when your enemy wants nothing less than your head off your shoulders or your knees willingly planted on their prayer rugs.
The nature of man hasn't changed in all his history. We are a violent, warlike species. Sometimes two sides or even one of two sides hate each other to an extent that the only resolution that is possible is the complete and utter defeat of one side or the other. All the flowery PC words in the world aren't going to change that and history going back to the dawn of man proves it. The only thing jacking your jaw along the lines of, "Can't we give peace a chance" will get you is a bill for a prayer rug or your head removed from your shoulders.
The radical islamists have the will to do what is necessary to achieve their goals. The West doesn't. More's the pity - their victory will set civilization back a thousand years.
Advise your children and/or grandchildren to invest in companies that make prayer rugs, besides getting calloused knees they'll also get rich.
ASIDE: To those who don't think the current generation is a bunch of pansy ass, cry baby wimps - think about this. In WWII a quarter of a million Americans paid the ultimate price to preserve their way of life for their children. That works out to about 185 lost lives per day, or 5543 men in a typical month during the war. Today the media and the people cry out in agony over the loss of 2500 in 3 years. Their loss is tragic but it pales in comparison to the losses suffered by our grandparent's generation. It makes me wonder if the people of America deserve the freedoms they still have.
Post by: gunsmith on November 23, 2006, 05:14:02 PM
Germany and Japan are now our friends.
My family has a letter from my uncle who was killed by enemy gunfire
in France after survivng storming the beach at Normandy.
In this letter to my mom who was a little kid at the time he said
"I can't wait to shoot some Krauts"
Can you imagaine the controversy if a letter made it to the MSM saying a modern
soldier wanted to kill "Hadji"?
Werewolf your latest post is much better then your call for genocide.
imo we should never go to war without declaring war and before we commit
ground troops we bomb them into submission.
Nowadays we put our soldiers on trial if they happen to kill the enemy...where is that barf simile when you need one?
I do not want to go to war against Iran, all the Iranians I have met
are wonderful people.
if we do go to war I want to win.
Post by: Lobotomy Boy on November 23, 2006, 07:23:32 PM
Quote
Our Grandfathers knew what needed to be done in WWII to preserve their way of life - the complete and utter annhilation of Germany and Japan.
So if we do as you advise and completely and utterly annhilate Iraq, what, exactly, do we win? Iraq is well on its way to complete and utter annhilation, and what have we accomplished by taking it there? What is your overall goal? What do you hope to achieve by completely and utterly annhilating Iraq? Please explain to me how this WWII analogy is not completely and utterly insane?
Quote
-Interdicting terrorists at the borders of Iran and Syria.
The Pentagon and the Whitehouse have known for a long time that the fighters coming from Syria and Iran are only a small part of the problem. The real problem right now are the Sunni and *expletive deleted*it militias.Quote
-Working to strengthen the current elected government.
The problem with that is that the al-Maliki government is just a front for the *expletive deleted*it militias and strengthening that government only strengthens the *expletive deleted*it militias and increases the violence rather than decreases it.Quote
-Hunt down terrorist cells, including the remnants of Saddam's Mukhbarat.
That's a tall order, somewhere on the scale of curing cancer, but a worthy goal none-the-less.Quote
-Promoting building the economy so people are too busy to become involved in terrorism and have too much stake in seeing the country fall apart.
You'll never even begin to rebuild the economy until you can ensure security, and at the moment there seems to be no light at the end of that tunnel.To do what you suggest and to deal with the elephant in the room you didn't mention--the sectarian fighting--would require a massive effort on our part. It would require the type of manpower our military could only provide right now if there was a draft. It would require the re-motivation of our military leadership. It would require such a huge portion of our national treasure that there would be nothing left. It would effectively bankrupt our economy much like the Afghan war did to the economy of the Soviet Union. Morally we owe it to the people of Iraq to do this, to sacrifice our wealth and the lives of our young people in order to rectify the situation we have created, but I can't see how it would be possible to motivate the American people to do these things at this late date.
Post by: slzy on November 23, 2006, 07:38:28 PM
Post by: gunsmith on November 23, 2006, 10:58:03 PM
Quote
So if we do as you advise and completely and utterly annhilate Iraq, what, exactly, do we win? Iraq is well on its way to complete and utter annhilation, and what have we accomplished by taking it there? What is your overall goal? What do you hope to achieve by completely and utterly annhilating Iraq? Please explain to me how this WWII analogy is not completely and utterly insane?
1st they should have declared a war, and then pursued a win not a politically
correct mess we currently have.
We actually won ww2 (we being the Allies) by killing/bombing and all the nasy things that wars have.
We didn't incarcerate our soldiers for letting their guard dog bark at a prisoner.
recently a bunch of soldiers were arrested on the word of the enemy that we shot unarmed civvies.
the soldiers saw a child that had put her ears to her head seconds before an IED went off
indicating she had prior knowledge they went into the house she went into to interrogate her and any adults that may have set the bomb.
Those guys are now in jail because the enemy reported them.
No way would things like this be an issue during ww2.
people who bombed you were killed and you got a medal not a stupid court martial.
Post by: The Rabbi on November 24, 2006, 01:51:49 AM
Quote
Our Grandfathers knew what needed to be done in WWII to preserve their way of life - the complete and utter annhilation of Germany and Japan.
So if we do as you advise and completely and utterly annhilate Iraq, what, exactly, do we win? Iraq is well on its way to complete and utter annhilation, and what have we accomplished by taking it there? What is your overall goal? What do you hope to achieve by completely and utterly annhilating Iraq? Please explain to me how this WWII analogy is not completely and utterly insane?
Quote
-Interdicting terrorists at the borders of Iran and Syria.
The Pentagon and the Whitehouse have known for a long time that the fighters coming from Syria and Iran are only a small part of the problem. The real problem right now are the Sunni and *expletive deleted*it militias.Quote
-Working to strengthen the current elected government.
The problem with that is that the al-Maliki government is just a front for the *expletive deleted*it militias and strengthening that government only strengthens the *expletive deleted*it militias and increases the violence rather than decreases it.Quote
-Hunt down terrorist cells, including the remnants of Saddam's Mukhbarat.
That's a tall order, somewhere on the scale of curing cancer, but a worthy goal none-the-less.Quote
-Promoting building the economy so people are too busy to become involved in terrorism and have too much stake in seeing the country fall apart.
You'll never even begin to rebuild the economy until you can ensure security, and at the moment there seems to be no light at the end of that tunnel.To do what you suggest and to deal with the elephant in the room you didn't mention--the sectarian fighting--would require a massive effort on our part. It would require the type of manpower our military could only provide right now if there was a draft. It would require the re-motivation of our military leadership. It would require such a huge portion of our national treasure that there would be nothing left. It would effectively bankrupt our economy much like the Afghan war did to the economy of the Soviet Union. Morally we owe it to the people of Iraq to do this, to sacrifice our wealth and the lives of our young people in order to rectify the situation we have created, but I can't see how it would be possible to motivate the American people to do these things at this late date.
Sectarian fighting is a symptom of the problem, namely agitation by outsiders. You asked what we should we do and I told you. Dismissing it or comparing it to curing cancer is not arguing the point. Nor have I seen any better ideas.
Post by: Werewolf on November 24, 2006, 05:10:09 AM
Quote
Our Grandfathers knew what needed to be done in WWII to preserve their way of life - the complete and utter annhilation of Germany and Japan.
So if we do as you advise and completely and utterly annhilate Iraq, what, exactly, do we win? Iraq is well on its way to complete and utter annhilation, and what have we accomplished by taking it there? What is your overall goal? What do you hope to achieve by completely and utterly annhilating Iraq? Please explain to me how this WWII analogy is not completely and utterly insane?
We gain the ability to rebuild Iraq in our own image. It's a lot easier to start from scratch than to reshape. Ultimately we gain a stable democracy. The problem now is that only the Iraqi military was defeated and that was the easy part. The Iraqi people and the radical islamists in particular haven't been defeated and until they are the job of taking them down to ground ZERO in preparation for the true task of rebuilding Iraq isn't done. The war isn't over and will not be until the people are beaten. The west doesn't have the will to do that and in my opinion will not until it is on the brink of annhilation itself and by then it will be too late.
Post by: gunsmith on November 24, 2006, 02:29:59 PM
youth almost converted and studied Sufism for awhile.
I feel werewolf is on the right track here, politically correct madness
will allow the islamist wahabbi/al quaida/ bearded nutjobs to win.
When we start to fight back it may be to late.
the libbys love to think they are the onesprotecting womens rights/gay rights etc.
The US military is killing bigots and the rad/libs continue to smoulder because GW won the election
Post by: Leatherneck on November 25, 2006, 04:08:29 AM
Quote
I find it difficult to understand why we cannot acknowledge that we are involved in the first stages of a culture war where the east wants nothing more than to absorb the west and wipe out its way of life. People can say that it is only the radical Islamists that want that but when the rest of them stand by and do nothing to control their radical elements then they might as well be their willing allies.
We're not in a knock down drag out war yet but we will eventually be - its not a matter of if but when.
Amen, Werewolf. We simply lack the national will to do what's needed. The current screechers of the socialist Left intend to keep it that way too. Perhaps this will change when we take a nuke in the belly.We're not in a knock down drag out war yet but we will eventually be - its not a matter of if but when.
TC
Post by: Lobotomy Boy on November 25, 2006, 07:31:44 AM
Post by: Werewolf on November 25, 2006, 09:14:42 AM
The idea of subduing Muslims in a Muslim country is akin to disabling the enemy's submarines by boiling the ocean.
So you're saying we've lost then?
Post by: Lobotomy Boy on November 25, 2006, 11:37:34 AM
I am saying that your proposed solution is ludicrous and completely divorced from any reality or ideology.
Post by: gunsmith on November 25, 2006, 01:47:06 PM
Quote
I am saying that your proposed solution is ludicrous and completely divorced from any reality or ideology.
Well, thats nice.
You're completely wrong of course.
I agree with you about the Glock .45 though.
Post by: The Rabbi on November 25, 2006, 02:01:29 PM
Post by: gunsmith on November 26, 2006, 02:57:50 AM
No.
Was it a politically correct mess like Nam and the sanddbox?
No.
If we are going to fight a war then we have to kill people and break things.
Post by: The Rabbi on November 26, 2006, 04:18:08 AM
Was the allied victory over Japan and Germany genocide?
No.
Was it a politically correct mess like Nam and the sanddbox?
No.
If we are going to fight a war then we have to kill people and break things.
No.
Was it a politically correct mess like Nam and the sanddbox?
No.
If we are going to fight a war then we have to kill people and break things.
In WW2 were we fighting an enemy in uniform, with a recognizable command and control structure? Yes.
Did we measure success by the amount of territory conquered? Yes.
I'm all for killing people and breaking stuff. But that is only where that will lead to victory. Indiscriminately killing people and indiscriminately breaking stuff will not. This is not WW2. This is the Philippines or Malaysia, and it needs to be fought like that.
Post by: gunsmith on November 26, 2006, 01:19:44 PM
Post by: Werewolf on November 26, 2006, 01:38:55 PM
What I say matters no more than what you say. The reality on the ground in Iraq is what's going to determine the outcome, and that reality doesn't seem terribly connected to our ideology or morality here in the U.S.
I am saying that your proposed solution is ludicrous and completely divorced from any reality or ideology.
I am saying that your proposed solution is ludicrous and completely divorced from any reality or ideology.
So lobotomy what is your solution. So far all you've done is critisize and not on a level other than emotional so far.
So come on - lay out your plan for success in Iraq. To start with you might define success in Iraq and then let us know how you would achieve it.
Post by: Lobotomy Boy on November 26, 2006, 06:23:35 PM
But that may not even be possible. If we are not going to do what it takes to restore security to Iraq, if we are just going to keep muddling along looking for a political solution, then not one more American life should be lost over there. If we are just looking for a politically expedient exit strategy, then we should bite the bullet and get out right now.
We may not have to debate this much longer. If al-Sadr pulls his support from Maliki after Maliki meets with Bush this week and the full force of the Mahdi army is unleashed on the Maliki government and U.S. troops, the war will be cranked up to a new level. We could see the spectacle of U.S. troops and personnel being evacuated from rooftops in helicopters before the end of the year.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 26, 2006, 07:41:45 PM
We can either invest every bit of our national resources into restoring stability to Iraq, which would require a draft and so much money that every other government program would basically have to shut down. It would also lead to the loss of tens of thousands of American lives,
Got any evidence or logic to back up these preposterous assertions?We may not have to debate this much longer. If al-Sadr pulls his support from Maliki after Maliki meets with Bush this week and the full force of the Mahdi army is unleashed on the Maliki government and U.S. troops, the war will be cranked up to a new level. We could see the spectacle of U.S. troops and personnel being evacuated from rooftops in helicopters before the end of the year.
This is flat out nuts. The Mahdi army cannot defeat US forces. Sadr will no doubt cause all sorts of trouble, but there's no way he'll drive US forces out of Iraq. He'll be able to kill a few American servicemen (taking huge losses in the process), and he'll be able to kill a bunch of civilians if he wants. But he flat out won't be able to defeat the US military and force an evacuation. If we evacuate Iraq, it will be by our own choosing, not because some local militia drove us out. If America loses in Iraq, it will be because we gave up. It will be the electorate's fault, not the military's.
Post by: Zoogster on November 26, 2006, 08:32:13 PM
Civil wars allow a society to force people to take sides in beliefs and lead to people killing eachother until the other agrees to abide by its beliefs in order to stop the slaughter. You end up with a much more unified and successful legitimized government afterwards as much of the open dissent is dead. It is ugly and nobody wants to repeat it a second time. America has had its own civil war and it even had one of the most ideal situations in its creation to avoid such a thing. As long as enough of the non fighting population sympathizes with opposing factions nothign will change.
Saddam was a rutheless dictator(which the west put into power to counter Iran which was seen as a bigger threat) that didn't deal with any radicalism and rulled with an ironfist. His methods were harsh and I would not have wanted to live under him, but he brought order and even prosperity to a mainly uneducated population. His government of secret police and fear, which targeted not only offenders but thier familes made people used to being governed externaly. These people are therefore not accustomed to self control from within, but self control from fear of punishment, quite different things. Now that the fear of punishment is gone (american prisons don't even begin to compare to what they consider real punishment as imposed by Saddam) there self control is gone. They must regain that self control on thier own, and quite frankly it is not likely it will remain a non puppet democracy.
Iran and Iraq had a huge war that cost both sides hundreds of thousands of lives, to imagine Iran will not do all it can to gain a firm foothold inside it's neighbor after that relatively recent history is just wishful thinking. Iran personaly benefits from keeping Iraq instable until armed forces from the west are withdrawn and it can influance the new government as it sees best for its own interests.
Both of these countries have histories entertwined that go back thousands of years and even a Persian culture and identity that is older than even the Koran the now rules the region.
Post by: The Rabbi on November 26, 2006, 11:17:13 PM
The only thing that will the US withdraw is pressure at home from Dems and other defeatists. Once we see the war as a "quagmire" and unwinnable then we won't win. It is all a matter of perspective. The N.Vietnamese understood this well and consciously manipulated the press here until it appeared to be a "quagmire" and unwinnable. In fact they were losing badly on every front except the American home front. This is really no different.
Post by: gunsmith on November 26, 2006, 11:40:46 PM
"Zoog" dude had some salient points but zoog dude save this to bookmarks/fave
http://www.spellcheck.net/
Post by: LAK on November 27, 2006, 02:12:14 AM
Quote
Saddam was a rutheless dictator(which the west put into power to counter Iran which was seen as a bigger threat) that didn't deal with any radicalism and rulled with an ironfist. His methods were harsh and I would not have wanted to live under him, but he brought order and even prosperity to a mainly uneducated population. His government of secret police and fear, which targeted not only offenders but thier familes made people used to being governed externaly. These people are therefore not accustomed to self control from within, but self control from fear of punishment, quite different things. Now that the fear of punishment is gone (american prisons don't even begin to compare to what they consider real punishment as imposed by Saddam) there self control is gone. They must regain that self control on thier own, and quite frankly it is not likely it will remain a non puppet democracy.
Saddam's methods were likely no harsher than those exercized in places like China, Pakistan, Turkey, Uzbekestan, Tajikistan, Indonesia and elsewhere for maintaining absolute security of government.And I'd like to know where this "mainly uneducated" label has originated and appeared from when referring to the general population of Iraq under Hussein. Iraq had among the highest per capita level of education in the Mid East, quite civilized and undergoing rapid industrial developement starting in the 1970s.
----------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: Lobotomy Boy on November 27, 2006, 02:55:04 AM
Quote
The Mahdi army cannot defeat US forces.
They don't have to defeat U.S. forces. They only have to bring down the Maliki government, which is on the verge of disintigrating on its own. Once they've done that, they've defeated our policy of "Iraq-azizing" the Iraqi war (which is a Kissinger-driven take on the Kissinger concept of "Vietnamizing" the Vietnamese war, and stands an even lower chance of working as did that ill-fated policy).
As for backing up my assertations, you and I have been arguing these points for years, and near as I can tell, I've been 100 percent right and you've been 100 percent wrong, so I see no reason not to wait and let time prove you wrong once again. I see no reason why your track record should improve now, Nostradamus.
Post by: Lobotomy Boy on November 27, 2006, 03:31:40 AM
Quote
The Next Step? Think Vietnam.
There is much moaning in Washington about the return of the 'realists.' But what we need is a Kissingerian effort to extricate America.
COVER STORY
By Fareed Zakaria
Newsweek
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15897617/site/newsweek/)
Dec. 4, 2006 issue - If you want to understand the futility of America's current situation in Iraq, last week provided a vivid microcosm. On Thursday, just hours before a series of car bombs killed more than 200 people in the Shia stronghold of Sadr City, Sunni militants attacked the Ministry of Health, which is run by one of Moqtada al-Sadr's followers. Within a couple of hours, American units arrived at the scene and chased off the attackers. The next day, Sadr's men began reprisals against Sunnis, firing RPGs at several mosques. When U.S. forces tried to stop the carnage and restore order, goons from Sadr's Mahdi Army began firing on American helicopters. In other words, one day the U.S. Army was defending Sadr's militia and, the next day, was attacked by it. We're in the middle of a civil war and are being shot at by both sides.
There can be no more doubt that Iraq is in a civil war, in which leaders of both its main communities, Sunnis and Shiites, are fomenting violence. The assault on Sadr's Ministry of Health was likely retaliation for a recent mass kidnapping at the Ministry of Education, which still retains some Sunnis. The Ministry of the Interior houses the deadliest killers from the Badr Brigades, the other large *expletive deleted*it militia. Badr's Bayan Jabr built the death squads when he ran the ministry; he's now Iraq's Finance minister, in charge of its resources. This is the Iraqi government we are protecting, funding and attempting to strengthen. To speak, as the White House deputy press secretary did last week, of "terrorists ... targeting innocents in a brazen effort to topple a democratically elected government" totally misses the reality of Iraq today. Who are the terrorists and who are the innocents? Among the most pro-American voices to emerge from the new Iraq have been two young Baghdadis, Omar and Mohammed Fadhlil, whose three-year-old blog, Iraq the Model, has promoted a relentlessly upbeat and hopeful message. Last week they threw in the towel. "I believe that America would like to see Iraq emerge as a model for the region," Mohammed wrote. "But that cannot be done without having a cooperative Iraqi partner on the ground who shares similar views for Iraq and the Middle East. And that's the pointthat partner does not exist, at least not in the government."
The American Army has more than enough troops to confront the Mahdi Army. The problem is political, not military. U.S. forces have been repeatedly blocked from going after Mahdi leaders. This month they were forced by the Iraqi government to abandon raids into Sadr City in search of a kidnapped American soldier. They were not even allowed to stop traffic in the neighborhood. Will more troops change that?
To the contrary, both sides now see American troops as the problem. The *expletive deleted*it ruling coalition and the Sunni insurgency both believe that if only the United States were to get out of the way, they could defeat their enemies outright. That's why, in the most recent poll of Iraqis, taken in September, 91 percent of Sunnis and 74 percent of Shiites said they wanted American forces to leave within a year.
While these are not conditions that suggest a political deal is likely, there is nothing to be lost in trying. When President Bush meets with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in Jordan this week, he should make clear that Iraq's leaders need to come to an agreement that meets both sides' key demands on such issues as autonomy, oil revenues and amnesty. But he needs to deliver an ultimatum: either the government begins implementing such a deal by January or American troops will begin a drawdown, leaving the core tasks of security to Iraqi forces.
There is much moaning in Washington about the return of the "realists," like James Baker, who are allegedly pushing to surrender America's ideals as the price of bringing stability to the situation in Iraq. In fact, even stability in Iraq is unattainable. What we will soon need is a supreme act of realism, dictated not by the ascendancy of a school of thought in Washington but by events on the ground in Iraq. We will need a Kissingerian effort to extricate the United States from the catastrophe that Iraq has become.
Iraq is not Vietnam. But America's predicament in Iraq is becoming increasingly similar to the one it faced in Southeast Asia more than 30 years ago. Henry Kissinger's negotiations to end the Vietnam War have been criticized from both the left and right. One side thought he moved too slowly to get us out, the other that he gave up too much. But looking at our circumstances in Iraq should give us some appreciation for the difficulty of his task. With a losing hand and deteriorating conditions on the ground, Kissinger maneuvered to extricate the United States from a situation in which it could not achieve its objectives, while at the same time limiting the damage, shoring up regional allies and maintaining some measure of American credibility. A version of such a strategy is the only one that has any chance of success in Iraq today.
There is much moaning in Washington about the return of the 'realists.' But what we need is a Kissingerian effort to extricate America.
COVER STORY
By Fareed Zakaria
Newsweek
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15897617/site/newsweek/)
Dec. 4, 2006 issue - If you want to understand the futility of America's current situation in Iraq, last week provided a vivid microcosm. On Thursday, just hours before a series of car bombs killed more than 200 people in the Shia stronghold of Sadr City, Sunni militants attacked the Ministry of Health, which is run by one of Moqtada al-Sadr's followers. Within a couple of hours, American units arrived at the scene and chased off the attackers. The next day, Sadr's men began reprisals against Sunnis, firing RPGs at several mosques. When U.S. forces tried to stop the carnage and restore order, goons from Sadr's Mahdi Army began firing on American helicopters. In other words, one day the U.S. Army was defending Sadr's militia and, the next day, was attacked by it. We're in the middle of a civil war and are being shot at by both sides.
There can be no more doubt that Iraq is in a civil war, in which leaders of both its main communities, Sunnis and Shiites, are fomenting violence. The assault on Sadr's Ministry of Health was likely retaliation for a recent mass kidnapping at the Ministry of Education, which still retains some Sunnis. The Ministry of the Interior houses the deadliest killers from the Badr Brigades, the other large *expletive deleted*it militia. Badr's Bayan Jabr built the death squads when he ran the ministry; he's now Iraq's Finance minister, in charge of its resources. This is the Iraqi government we are protecting, funding and attempting to strengthen. To speak, as the White House deputy press secretary did last week, of "terrorists ... targeting innocents in a brazen effort to topple a democratically elected government" totally misses the reality of Iraq today. Who are the terrorists and who are the innocents? Among the most pro-American voices to emerge from the new Iraq have been two young Baghdadis, Omar and Mohammed Fadhlil, whose three-year-old blog, Iraq the Model, has promoted a relentlessly upbeat and hopeful message. Last week they threw in the towel. "I believe that America would like to see Iraq emerge as a model for the region," Mohammed wrote. "But that cannot be done without having a cooperative Iraqi partner on the ground who shares similar views for Iraq and the Middle East. And that's the pointthat partner does not exist, at least not in the government."
The American Army has more than enough troops to confront the Mahdi Army. The problem is political, not military. U.S. forces have been repeatedly blocked from going after Mahdi leaders. This month they were forced by the Iraqi government to abandon raids into Sadr City in search of a kidnapped American soldier. They were not even allowed to stop traffic in the neighborhood. Will more troops change that?
To the contrary, both sides now see American troops as the problem. The *expletive deleted*it ruling coalition and the Sunni insurgency both believe that if only the United States were to get out of the way, they could defeat their enemies outright. That's why, in the most recent poll of Iraqis, taken in September, 91 percent of Sunnis and 74 percent of Shiites said they wanted American forces to leave within a year.
While these are not conditions that suggest a political deal is likely, there is nothing to be lost in trying. When President Bush meets with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in Jordan this week, he should make clear that Iraq's leaders need to come to an agreement that meets both sides' key demands on such issues as autonomy, oil revenues and amnesty. But he needs to deliver an ultimatum: either the government begins implementing such a deal by January or American troops will begin a drawdown, leaving the core tasks of security to Iraqi forces.
There is much moaning in Washington about the return of the "realists," like James Baker, who are allegedly pushing to surrender America's ideals as the price of bringing stability to the situation in Iraq. In fact, even stability in Iraq is unattainable. What we will soon need is a supreme act of realism, dictated not by the ascendancy of a school of thought in Washington but by events on the ground in Iraq. We will need a Kissingerian effort to extricate the United States from the catastrophe that Iraq has become.
Iraq is not Vietnam. But America's predicament in Iraq is becoming increasingly similar to the one it faced in Southeast Asia more than 30 years ago. Henry Kissinger's negotiations to end the Vietnam War have been criticized from both the left and right. One side thought he moved too slowly to get us out, the other that he gave up too much. But looking at our circumstances in Iraq should give us some appreciation for the difficulty of his task. With a losing hand and deteriorating conditions on the ground, Kissinger maneuvered to extricate the United States from a situation in which it could not achieve its objectives, while at the same time limiting the damage, shoring up regional allies and maintaining some measure of American credibility. A version of such a strategy is the only one that has any chance of success in Iraq today.
Post by: The Rabbi on November 27, 2006, 04:02:42 AM
Post by: Ezekiel on November 27, 2006, 05:44:38 AM
Quote from: Rabbi
You would think we would have learned something in 40 years but I guess not.
Well, at least we're asking the same questions.
Unfortunately, I (years ago) asked such of the moronic crafters of our Iraq "plan," before this idiocy started.
Others waited and posed the question elsewhere: to an alarmed public.
This was a bad idea, executed poorly. It doesn't have to be a quagmire, however: history should come up with its own moniker.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 27, 2006, 07:26:21 AM
Quote
The Mahdi army cannot defeat US forces.
They don't have to defeat U.S. forces. They only have to bring down the Maliki government, which is on the verge of disintigrating on its own. Once they've done that, they've defeated our policy of "Iraq-azizing" the Iraqi war (which is a Kissinger-driven take on the Kissinger concept of "Vietnamizing" the Vietnamese war, and stands an even lower chance of working as did that ill-fated policy).
As for backing up my assertations, you and I have been arguing these points for years, and near as I can tell, I've been 100 percent right and you've been 100 percent wrong, so I see no reason not to wait and let time prove you wrong once again. I see no reason why your track record should improve now, Nostradamus.
This is a bit far-fetched, don't you think? You aren't even right this time, much less 100% over the past few years. I won't claim to be 100% right over the years, but I've been right a good deal more often than you knee-jerk defeatists have been. We've heard over and over again, week after week ever since this war began, how if we don't evacuate RFN we're certain to be defeated. Obviously those predictions have been wrong each and every time they've been made. We haven't evacuated yet, and we haven't been defeated because of it. There isn't credible reason to believe that defeat is imminent.
The point of all these doom and gloom predictions isn't to predict the future, it's to create the future. If the doom and gloomers can fabricate the popular belief that we're sure to lose, then they can convince us to evacuate, thus creating a loss that wouldn't otherwise have occurred. They aren't predicting that we'll be defeated, they're trying to make it happen. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy that is expressly designed to cause our defeat in Iraq.
It's the same thing that happened towards the end of the Vietnam war - the left convinces the country to stop trying to win, therefore we stop trying to win, therefore we lose. Then the left claims that they were right all along, that we never could have won. It was bullshit back when Kissinger was involved the first time, and it's bullshit now. If we lose, it will be because we chose to, not because the Mahdi's or whomever beat us.
EDIT: I mean no offense by the phrase "knee-jerk defeatists". It strikes me that some people reflexively assume that the US is being defeated regardless of what is actually happening. I didn't mean that phrase as an insult, but rather as a descriptive term that describes what I see from these people. Maybe I was wrong to include you Darwin/Lobo Boy in that category. Sorry.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 27, 2006, 07:35:15 AM
Unfortunately, I (years ago) asked such of the moronic crafters of our Iraq "plan," before this idiocy started.
Are you again referring to the drunken, low-ranking officers from Ft. Sill?
Post by: Ezekiel on November 27, 2006, 08:33:12 AM
Embrace the horror.
And I've never been to Ft. Sill. In fact, I think most Indians to have been there did not do so willingly.
Iraq was, and is, doomed to end badly. I'm just surprised that anyone has an issue with such.
Our presence in Iraq is like me crossing the city to involve myself in an internal domestic dispute because a tyrannical husband is beating his wife, owns guns (that he couldn't reach me with if he desired to), and is lowering my property value. When I get there to help, the wife takes a swing at me. Moral? "I leave." Actually, "I should have never crossed the street." Bad idea from the beginning.
This isn't difficult...
Unfortunately, I (years ago) asked such of the moronic crafters of our Iraq "plan," before this idiocy started.
Are you again referring to the drunken, low-ranking officers from Ft. Sill?Post by: Darwin on November 27, 2006, 08:42:10 AM
Quote
I won't claim to be 100% right over the years, but I've been right a good deal more often than you knee-jerk defeatists have been.
I've been looking forward to spelunking on the list to find all the examples of you being wrong for some time, and will get around to it soon, but for now I offer the pathetic ad hominum attack above as evidence that somewhere in deep down inside your reptilian brain stem you know that I am correct.
Edited to add: BTW, "Darwin" is a pseudonym--my Christian name is Lobotomy Boy.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 27, 2006, 10:39:09 AM
How does it feel to be proven wrong, Mr. 100 Per Cent? It's shortly after the election, and there hasn't even been a teensy tiny withdrawal, much less that giant "bail out" you insisted would take place.
Pardon my curiosity, but why do you feel the need to post under multiple names?
Post by: The Rabbi on November 27, 2006, 10:48:53 AM
Quote
salon.com
Search: Salon The Web Powered by Yahoo!
Click Here
Site Sponsored By
Monday, Nov 27, 2006
* A&E
* Books
* Comics
* Community
* Life
* News & Politics
* Opinion
* Sports
* Tech & Business
* Letters
Log in
Bush's big lies, continued
In claiming that Iraq is now the central front in the war on terror, Bush is heralding a self-fulfilling prophecy: He claimed Iraq was a hotbed of terrorism, and he turned it into one.
By Robert Scheer
Page 1
September 10, 2003 | How can the president tell us with a straight face that we taxpayers have a patriotic duty to cough up $87 billion more to enable him to sink us deeper into the Iraq quagmire of his making? That's a lot of money on top of the $79 billion already appropriated by Congress in April -- enough to bail out California and every other state experiencing a budget crisis because of economic problems this president has only exacerbated. Shouldn't those who warned against Bush's folly at least qualify for another one of his signature tax rebates?
Once again, Bush is using the Big Lie technique, continuing to slyly conflate those responsible for the 9/11 attacks with Saddam Hussein and Iraq, despite there being no evidence of such a relationship. It is an insult to those who died on that day of infamy to exploit them to defend a failed policy of preemptive war designed by a bunch of think tank neoconservatives as part of a cockamamie plan to remake the Middle East.
Perhaps the most galling aspect of Bush's consistently defensive speech, however, was his naked attempt to turn what has become a security disaster for U.S. troops, United Nations workers and the Iraqi people into a positive situation. He makes it seem almost a good thing that terrorism is on the rise in Iraq, because we've got our enemies where we want them. In claiming that "Iraq is now the central front" in the "war on terror," Bush is heralding a self-fulfilling prophecy: He claimed Iraq was a hotbed of terrorism, and he turned it into one.
And by the way, what happened to the cheering crowds and the gushing oil that the administration predicted would make this a low-cost Mideast liberation venture?
Meanwhile, as Bush boasts of how many irrelevant ammunition dumps we have seized in Iraq, the region is spiraling out of control. Afghanistan is once again falling into anarchy, with the Taliban on the rebound. The Israeli-Palestinian situation is worse after the fall of Saddam, not better as the administration promised. And the mysterious kingdom of Saudi Arabia remains a very suspicious kind of "friend." Let's remember, 15 of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers, as well as Osama bin Laden himself, were Saudis.
If there is a linchpin nation for Islamic fundamentalist terror, it remains Saudi Arabia, a fact consistently obscured by the president. Someday we may gain access to the censored portion of the 9/11 congressional report dealing with U.S.-Saudi connections. Meanwhile, we can read in the current Vanity Fair about the White House-orchestrated post-9/11 evacuation of 150 Saudis -- including relatives of Osama bin Laden -- from the United States when most flights were still grounded.
It is apparently too much to ask that the president acknowledge his errors, so costly in American and Iraqi lives, and show some humility for this mess he has created with his "my way or the highway" approach. He could also apologize to "Old Europe," which warned him that the invasion of Iraq was a distraction from the war on terror.
But never mind -- while he won't ever admit it, Bush's speech was in many ways an admission of failure. "I recognize that not all of our friends agreed with our decision" to invade and occupy Iraq, Bush magnanimously allowed. "Yet we cannot let past differences interfere with present duties." Translation: We once thought it was Europe and the United Nations' duty to shut up and get out of our way. Now we think it is their duty to hurry up and throw us a rope.
It won't work, though, because those other nations are not led by fools eager to pay for our president's war mongering. What is needed instead is a reappraisal of U.S. policy and a good-faith move to share the leadership role with countries like France, Germany, China, Russia and Japan. If the president, like his predecessors Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, refuses to cut his losses and admit the error of an unwise military adventure, he will be judged and rejected as they were for the waste of American resources and the lives of our young people.
Search: Salon The Web Powered by Yahoo!
Click Here
Site Sponsored By
Monday, Nov 27, 2006
* A&E
* Books
* Comics
* Community
* Life
* News & Politics
* Opinion
* Sports
* Tech & Business
* Letters
Log in
Bush's big lies, continued
In claiming that Iraq is now the central front in the war on terror, Bush is heralding a self-fulfilling prophecy: He claimed Iraq was a hotbed of terrorism, and he turned it into one.
By Robert Scheer
Page 1
September 10, 2003 | How can the president tell us with a straight face that we taxpayers have a patriotic duty to cough up $87 billion more to enable him to sink us deeper into the Iraq quagmire of his making? That's a lot of money on top of the $79 billion already appropriated by Congress in April -- enough to bail out California and every other state experiencing a budget crisis because of economic problems this president has only exacerbated. Shouldn't those who warned against Bush's folly at least qualify for another one of his signature tax rebates?
Once again, Bush is using the Big Lie technique, continuing to slyly conflate those responsible for the 9/11 attacks with Saddam Hussein and Iraq, despite there being no evidence of such a relationship. It is an insult to those who died on that day of infamy to exploit them to defend a failed policy of preemptive war designed by a bunch of think tank neoconservatives as part of a cockamamie plan to remake the Middle East.
Perhaps the most galling aspect of Bush's consistently defensive speech, however, was his naked attempt to turn what has become a security disaster for U.S. troops, United Nations workers and the Iraqi people into a positive situation. He makes it seem almost a good thing that terrorism is on the rise in Iraq, because we've got our enemies where we want them. In claiming that "Iraq is now the central front" in the "war on terror," Bush is heralding a self-fulfilling prophecy: He claimed Iraq was a hotbed of terrorism, and he turned it into one.
And by the way, what happened to the cheering crowds and the gushing oil that the administration predicted would make this a low-cost Mideast liberation venture?
Meanwhile, as Bush boasts of how many irrelevant ammunition dumps we have seized in Iraq, the region is spiraling out of control. Afghanistan is once again falling into anarchy, with the Taliban on the rebound. The Israeli-Palestinian situation is worse after the fall of Saddam, not better as the administration promised. And the mysterious kingdom of Saudi Arabia remains a very suspicious kind of "friend." Let's remember, 15 of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers, as well as Osama bin Laden himself, were Saudis.
If there is a linchpin nation for Islamic fundamentalist terror, it remains Saudi Arabia, a fact consistently obscured by the president. Someday we may gain access to the censored portion of the 9/11 congressional report dealing with U.S.-Saudi connections. Meanwhile, we can read in the current Vanity Fair about the White House-orchestrated post-9/11 evacuation of 150 Saudis -- including relatives of Osama bin Laden -- from the United States when most flights were still grounded.
It is apparently too much to ask that the president acknowledge his errors, so costly in American and Iraqi lives, and show some humility for this mess he has created with his "my way or the highway" approach. He could also apologize to "Old Europe," which warned him that the invasion of Iraq was a distraction from the war on terror.
But never mind -- while he won't ever admit it, Bush's speech was in many ways an admission of failure. "I recognize that not all of our friends agreed with our decision" to invade and occupy Iraq, Bush magnanimously allowed. "Yet we cannot let past differences interfere with present duties." Translation: We once thought it was Europe and the United Nations' duty to shut up and get out of our way. Now we think it is their duty to hurry up and throw us a rope.
It won't work, though, because those other nations are not led by fools eager to pay for our president's war mongering. What is needed instead is a reappraisal of U.S. policy and a good-faith move to share the leadership role with countries like France, Germany, China, Russia and Japan. If the president, like his predecessors Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, refuses to cut his losses and admit the error of an unwise military adventure, he will be judged and rejected as they were for the waste of American resources and the lives of our young people.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 27, 2006, 11:13:30 AM
Darwin, your charge of ad hominem is silly. Ad hominem is a logical flaw precisely because it distracts from real arguments. However, accusing people of ad hominem merely on the basis of a few mild insults is a distraction in itself. Nothing personal, I just see a lot of this, "You hurt my feelings, so ha! You committed ad hominem, so I can ignore your thirteen paragraphs of sound, logical argument."
Post by: Ezekiel on November 27, 2006, 11:15:34 AM
Quote from: HTG
Pardon my curiosity, but why do you feel the need to post under multiple names?
Merely a note, Oh Headless One, we may disagree (or agree!) on many things, but I promise to use my "real" moniker. [edit: oh wait, I see, talking about someone else! Little matter, I promise to suffer a singular name of post. Cheers.]
Quote from: Rabbi
Keep repeating something often enough and people will believe it.
Thanks for the research.
I keep calling this action a quagmire because, well, it is an inefficient quagmire of a bottomless money/lives pit. I'd be happy to refer to it as something else if the the specific word "quagmire" offends.
Would you, and/or others, accept a "perpetual FUBAR?" Or, is that too WWII?
Post by: Eleven Mike on November 27, 2006, 11:22:16 AM
Quote
I'd be happy to refer to it as something else if the the specific word "quagmire" offends. Would you, and/or others, accept a "perpetual FUBAR?" Or, is that too WWII?
I'd be happy with, "another small war like Vietnam that we could win if we decided to, and if people would stop declaring it unwinnable or an 'illegal war.'"
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 27, 2006, 12:34:05 PM
...pathetic ad hominum attack...
...However, accusing people of ad hominem merely on the basis of a few mild insults is a distraction in itself...
I didn't mean to be insulting when I used the phrase "knee-jerk defeatists", and if it came off as an insult then I apologize to Darwin/Lobotomy Boy. I have no desire to insult him, merely to prove him wrong. Sorry!
Post by: Ezekiel on November 27, 2006, 02:58:12 PM
I'd be happy with, "another small war like Vietnam that we could win if we decided to, and if people would stop declaring it unwinnable or an 'illegal war.'"
As would I, were your description anything close to reality.
At least you didn't suggest the moniker "righteous," because I might have vomited.
Post by: Lobotomy Boy on November 27, 2006, 03:03:00 PM
Quote
So, you're the guy who claimed that we'd bail out of Iraq shortly after the midterm elections, eh?
How does it feel to be proven wrong, Mr. 100 Per Cent? It's shortly after the election, and there hasn't even been a teensy tiny withdrawal, much less that giant "bail out" you insisted would take place.
Pardon my curiosity, but why do you feel the need to post under multiple names?
How does it feel to be proven wrong, Mr. 100 Per Cent? It's shortly after the election, and there hasn't even been a teensy tiny withdrawal, much less that giant "bail out" you insisted would take place.
Pardon my curiosity, but why do you feel the need to post under multiple names?
Correct--multiple names because of multiple computers and accounts.
As for being proven wrong, let's see what the situation is after we've had a few weeks to digest the results of the Baker-Hamilton Commission's report.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 27, 2006, 04:18:07 PM
I said that we will be bailing out of Iraq by year's end, a process that will begin shortly after the mid-term election. The election will only change the terminology used to describe the process, but the process will remain the same regardless of the terminology. Yes it will be gloomy. It will be an ugly disaster. But I believe it is coming.
regardless, arguing it ad nauseum would be a waste of time. We only have to wait a month or so to see if I am right or wrong.
Back on 18 Oct, you said we'd only have to wait until shortly after the midterm election, another month or so, to see if you were right or if you were wrong. Well, the midterms are history and it's been a month (more than a month actually, nearly 6 weeks). According to your own words, we should have already seen the beginnings of this bail out. regardless, arguing it ad nauseum would be a waste of time. We only have to wait a month or so to see if I am right or wrong.
We haven't, not even close. I'll withhold final judgment until January, but we've seen that you're wrong so far.
If I were you I would ease off on any boasts of 100% accuracy in your prediction-making, Nostradamus (
).Post by: Lobotomy Boy on November 27, 2006, 06:53:42 PM
Nothing is going to happen until the Baker-Hamilton report is released. Once that comes out, it will give politicians cover to begin drawing down troops. If the Maliki government falls, the drawdown will be precipitous because without a functioning government, our plan to have Iraqi troops replace American troops will be null and void because without a functioning government there are no Iraqi troops--there are only militias. If we are trying to get the militias to stand up, we don't have to try to hard because they already are standing up. But which militias do we support? They're all trying to kill us. At this point any argument for staying in Iraq won't carry any water with the American people and we'll have to bring our troops home.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 27, 2006, 08:54:36 PM
If Maliki's government fails, it won't be the end of the world. Democratic governments routinely fail when the system is such that the head honcho needs to maintain a coalition in order to remain in power. If Maliki loses his coalition, it will be a personal loss for him and, to a lesser extent his supporters. But it will not herald the end of the Iraqi democracy. It's the democratic process at work.
Consider that the Israeli government under this man or that man fails on an alarmingly frequent basis, often several times a year.
Post by: Lobotomy Boy on November 28, 2006, 04:11:30 AM
Comparing the Maliki government to Israel's government is absurd. If a ruling party fails, there is still a functioning parliment to pick up the pieces. There is nothing even close to a functioning parliment in Iraq. If there was, the security situation is so bad that the members would be executed on their way to work.
You are right that the failure of the Maliki government will not hearld the end of democracy in Iraq because there has never yet been democracy in Iraq. There have been elections, of course, but Maliki wasn't elected. He was appointed by a coalition of Iraqis that consisted primarily of *expletive deleted*it clerics. You can't lose what you never had to start with. By your measure the Maliki government was a failure from the get go.
But Maliki falling will indicate a complete failure of the administration's rhetoric, which is that we will stand down as the Iraqis stand up. This is the exact same rhetoric we used to extricate ourselves from Vietnam. That policy was an utter failure, but I believe it will look like a shining success compared to what we are about to suffer in Iraq. If there is no functioning Iraqi government to control Iraqi forces, the forces then become part of the militia engaged in civil war. The American people will not tolerate us sacrificing our troops in the middle of a civil war in which all sides are our enemies. The people spoke loudly a few weeks ago, and if anything support for the war effort has diminished in the intervening weeks. If the Maliki government falls, that puts us back to where we were when Bremer was still running the show, except that the security situation has deteriorated dramatically since then. The American people will not support starting the whole process over from scratch, especially since there is now a low-grade civil war raging in the country.
Post by: Eleven Mike on November 28, 2006, 04:33:01 AM
I'd be happy with, "another small war like Vietnam that we could win if we decided to, and if people would stop declaring it unwinnable or an 'illegal war.'"
As would I, were your description anything close to reality.
At least you didn't suggest the moniker "righteous," because I might have vomited.
I'm sorry, is there something morally or legally wrong with our decision to invade Iraq? I'll amend my statement just for you:
Another small, righteous war like Vietnam that we could win if we decided to, and if people would stop declaring it unwinnable or an "illegal war."
Post by: Ezekiel on November 28, 2006, 05:50:07 AM
Quote
Another small, righteous war like Vietnam that we could win if we decided to, and if people would stop declaring it unwinnable or an "illegal war."
Took the bait, huh?
Man, that (above) looks so bad -- inferring a ridiculousness of mind that cannot be truly imagined -- that reporting such as mere constipated thought would be generous.
There's no point in replying to such a statement, the rhetorical brainwashing appears complete.
Just absolutely stupifying. Beyond reason...
Post by: Eleven Mike on November 28, 2006, 06:46:07 AM
Is there something morally or legally wrong with our decision to invade Iraq?
At least we have an example of actual ad hominem for all to now digest. Rather than discussing the issues involved, Ezekiel chose to sling charges against an interlocuter. Charges that cannot be substantiated. I could claim he's been brainwashed into believing any number of things. That Iraq was a pre-emptive war, that pre-emptive war is something new, evil and dangerous, that Bush was only allowed one reason for the war, and to claim more than one reason is dishonest, that there is some actual, international legal system that says one country can't legally invade another unless some set of conditions are met, that Iraq cannot be won, etc.
Post by: Ezekiel on November 28, 2006, 07:05:32 AM
Quote
Ezekiel chose to sling charges against an interlocuter.
Odd retort.
No charges, slung or no: your ideas are just as "valid" as any others.
They are merely asinine, in my opinion, and the opinion -- at last count -- of most Americans. (Where was that latest straw poll...)
Nothing personal involved.
Post by: Eleven Mike on November 28, 2006, 07:30:14 AM
Post by: Paddy on December 01, 2006, 06:05:44 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on December 01, 2006, 07:00:18 AM
We have not "lost" in Iraq. We're not even losing, except in the media. The US military is very skilled at killing and destroying on a mass scale with overwhelming firepower. This skill defeated Saddam in record time. But the same skill is about useless in a small-scale guerilla war, which is where we are right now. Such wars have been fought for 200 years and have a boring predictability about them. If the U.S. prevails and continues, we will win. This was the case in the Philippines and other places. If the U.S. decides we are in a quagmire then we lose, as we did in Viet Nam and Mexico. But the choice is ours, not the enemy's.
Post by: Werewolf on December 01, 2006, 08:28:23 AM
Quote from: Rabbi
If the U.S. decides we are in a quagmire then we lose, as we did in Viet Nam and Mexico.
I understand the Vietnam reference but not the Mexico reference. Could you explain that please.
Post by: The Rabbi on December 01, 2006, 08:38:46 AM
A great read on all these wars is Max Boot, Savage Wars of Peace. These small wars have been a staple of American history. Reading his accounts both of the wars themselves and of the reactions to them at home is an eye opener. All the things said about Iraq were said similarly about almost all of them.
Post by: Darwin on December 01, 2006, 11:36:21 AM
But that would require both changing our tactics and overall strategy and finding the national resolve for the long ten-year slog.
There are several reasons why this is unlikely. The primary reason is that our leaders seem unable to change tactics or develop a sensible strategy. They seem unable to even identify the true nature of the conflict. When we were faced with an insurgency, the Administration denied its own eyes and refused to admit we were facing an insurgency. When we were faced with a low-grade civil war, they refused to acknowledge that fact. They had just barely admitted that we were facing an insurgency by that time. Now that we are on the verge of realizing we are facing a low-grade civil war, that civil war is threatening to erupt into a regional war, with the Saudis and Iran getting into the fight. If the administration continues with this disasterous pattern, by the time they realize that we are in a regional war, world war may have erupted.
There are other problems besides the delusional nature of our leadership. As mentioned above, we are at a point where the insurgency has become a civil war. This is a very different animal. Civil wars burn much brighter and faster than insurgencies and tend to be much bloodier. These characteristics will make the second part of the equation--rousing national support for an extended military occupation--much more difficult, if not impossible. Remember, the Soviet Union was unable to generate enough national support to maintain its troop presence in Afghanistan, and the USSR was a totalitarian state. Imagine how much more difficult the task of rousing support would have been in a democratic republic like ours.