PDA

View Full Version : Congress should put a halt to Iraq fiasco....


Logical
08-17-2005, 06:50 PM
until the President lays out a specific timetable to show an end to this fiasco.

Since war was never declared, Congress can simply cut off funds.

Bush and the administration are failing in this effort and it is time to force their hands or to force a stop to the effort.

Signed
One disgruntled Conservative

oldandslow
08-17-2005, 07:17 PM
Congress should never have funded the Iraqi fiasco to begin with.

Either do the constitutional thing and declare war or don't play.

The framers really did know what they doing. They never meant for the commander in chief to have the power to actually go to war - they did give him/her the power to execute it after it had been declared.

It's too bad we have elected morally and constitutionally bankrupt cowards on both sides.

Logical
08-17-2005, 07:57 PM
Congress should never have funded the Iraqi fiasco to begin with.

Either do the constitutional thing and declare war or don't play.

The framers really did know what they doing. They never meant for the commander in chief to have the power to actually go to war - they did give him/her the power to execute it after it had been declared.

It's too bad we have elected morally and constitutionally bankrupt cowards on both sides.Korea, Vietnam and now Iraq should have taught us this in spades.

Henry
08-17-2005, 08:00 PM
Congress should never have funded the Iraqi fiasco to begin with.

Either do the constitutional thing and declare war or don't play.

The framers really did know what they doing. They never meant for the commander in chief to have the power to actually go to war - they did give him/her the power to execute it after it had been declared.

It's too bad we have elected morally and constitutionally bankrupt cowards on both sides.

Well said.

penchief
08-17-2005, 08:11 PM
Congress should never have funded the Iraqi fiasco to begin with.

Either do the constitutional thing and declare war or don't play.

The framers really did know what they doing. They never meant for the commander in chief to have the power to actually go to war - they did give him/her the power to execute it after it had been declared.

It's too bad we have elected morally and constitutionally bankrupt cowards on both sides.

I agree with both you and Logical. I was one of the few people that lambasted democrats in the senate and in congress at the time for not questioning the justifications and logic behind this war. I have always believed that democrats caved to the pressures and the emotion of the moment instead of challenging the questionable information presented to them.

Henry
08-17-2005, 08:13 PM
I agree with both you and Logical. I was one of the few people that lambasted democrats in the senate and in congress at the time for not questioning the justifications and logic behind this war. I have always believed that democrats caved to the pressures and the emotion of the moment instead of challenging the questionable information presented to them.

This is because the dems have all the spine of the common garden slug.

Pitt Gorilla
08-17-2005, 08:57 PM
Maybe congress is full of f*cking morons?!?

Henry
08-17-2005, 09:00 PM
Maybe congress is full of f*cking morons?!?

Give that man a cigar!

Logical
08-17-2005, 09:42 PM
Maybe congress is full of f*cking morons?!?I honestly believe they could not be able to attain election and be morons, but I believe they also have to be so flexible (read spineless) that they turn into Weasels with no strength of charachter left for the most part.

Sad that our political process IMO creates this situation.

Raiderhader
08-17-2005, 09:48 PM
A time table is simply put, a bad idea. I can't believe you would fall for this bit, Jim. There is nothing sensible about it.

You give a time table and the enemy will only bide their time and strike once we've left. If you stay until the job is complete, then the job is complete.

Completely irrationale.

Logical
08-17-2005, 09:54 PM
A time table is simply put, a bad idea. I can't believe you would fall for this bit, Jim. There is nothing sensible about it.

You give a time table and the enemy will only bide their time and strike once we've left. If you stay until the job is complete, then the job is complete.

Completely irrationale.What is irrationale is to believe the job can ever be done and that this country will ever turn into anything other than a theocracy or ruled by a dictatorship. That is why the timetable not only makes sense it is a must. We need to quit wasting lives on a country that will never be a Democracy or Republic. We can only hope we exit as quickly as possible leaving on terms that will leave us with allies in the Islamic Theocracy that ends up ruling the country.

Henry
08-17-2005, 09:57 PM
A time table is simply put, a bad idea. I can't believe you would fall for this bit, Jim. There is nothing sensible about it.

You give a time table and the enemy will only bide their time and strike once we've left. If you stay until the job is complete, then the job is complete.

Completely irrationale.

Or until you evacuate the embassy via helicopter.

One or the other.

Logical
08-17-2005, 10:05 PM
Or until you evacuate the embassy via helicopter.

One or the other.ROFL I am not sure he will catch this reference, but well done.

Raiderhader
08-17-2005, 10:06 PM
What is irrationale is to believe the job can ever be done and that this country will ever turn into anything other than a theocracy or ruled by a dictatorship. That is why the timetable not only makes sense it is a must. We need to quit wasting lives on a country that will never be a Democracy or Republic. We can only hope we exit as quickly as possible leaving on terms that will leave us with allies in the Islamic Theocracy that ends up ruling the country.


Oh yea of little faith.

We started a job, we have to finish it. We made the vow we would, we half to keep our word. To walk out on the Iraqi people a second time after a promise of help, would kill our credibility completely.

What becomes of the nation after we have given them a solid foundation is up to them, but we must do as we said we would and give them that firm footing. They deserve the opportunity to make it work, just as we did.

Logical
08-17-2005, 10:18 PM
Oh yea of little faith.

We started a job, we have to finish it. We made the vow we would, we half to keep our word. To walk out on the Iraqi people a second time after a promise of help, would kill our credibility completely.

What becomes of the nation after we have given them a solid foundation is up to them, but we must do as we said we would and give them that firm footing. They deserve the opportunity to make it work, just as we did.Who said anything about walking out, I said a timetable for exit. You are the one that brought up that would lead the enemy to just wait, well the fact is they will be there to take over once we leave no matter how long we stay. Vietnam taught us that.

Vlib/Vlad/Logical not willing to lose another 57,000+ lives on stupidity

Henry
08-17-2005, 10:19 PM
Oh yea of little faith.

We started a job, we have to finish it. We made the vow we would, we half to keep our word. To walk out on the Iraqi people a second time after a promise of help, would kill our credibility completely.

What becomes of the nation after we have given them a solid foundation is up to them, but we must do as we said we would and give them that firm footing. They deserve the opportunity to make it work, just as we did.

Excuse me, are you suggesting that the French hung around after the revolution, and set up an interim government?

Because if you are, you're wrong...and if you're not, then the comparison isn't valid.

Raiderhader
08-17-2005, 10:23 PM
Who said anything about walking out, I said a timetable for exit. You are the one that brought up that would lead the enemy to just wait, well the fact is they will be there to take over once we leave no matter how long we stay. Vietnam taught us that.


If you set a timetable for an exit, and that timetable does not coincide with the Iraqis being able to properly fend for themselves, you are in essence walking out on them.

The enemy will always be there, yes. The question is wether or not Iraq will be in a position to thwart their attempts. We must make sure they are, we have committed ourselves to that.

Raiderhader
08-17-2005, 10:30 PM
Excuse me, are you suggesting that the French hung around after the revolution, and set up an interim government?

Because if you are, you're wrong...and if you're not, then the comparison isn't valid.


Where the f#ck do get me saying that?

We were in a much different position than the Iraqis are now. Our tyranny was not nearly as oppressive as theirs was. We had a largely educated populace. We had the freedom to discuss ideals, including dissent. We had a lot of things going for us. The Iraqi people were kept under Saddam's boot. No freedom, no education, terrorized into submission, they are clearly starting off from a different square than we did.

craneref
08-17-2005, 11:17 PM
Who said anything about walking out, I said a timetable for exit. You are the one that brought up that would lead the enemy to just wait, well the fact is they will be there to take over once we leave no matter how long we stay. Vietnam taught us that.

Vlib/Vlad/Logical not willing to lose another 57,000+ lives on stupidity

I would like to point out that those against the Viet Nam war said that the North would not over run the South, yet they did. Linebacker II the final major bombing campaign into Hanoi and its surrounding military support had brought the Vietnamese to their knees, it was the first time we quit playing nice in the war, but good old Henry Kissenger convinced President Nixon into stopping the bombing to sue for peace. If we had not stopped, we could have gotten an uncondional surrender in no more than a month in my opinion. We are indeed fighting in Iraq, but not the Iraqi's, but Syrians, Iranians and other extremists (terrorists). If all it took was a timetable to solve this, then the terrorists would just stop attacking until we left the country, much easier to leave a peaceful country than one blosing up anybody and everybody. A very wise man once said, "No greater love has a man than one who lays down his life for a brother." This is about resolve, and if we don't finish the job, then we just give every two bit terroirst a reason to attack. It is the nay sayers, whiners and complainers that give strength and courage to the enemy, just like Viet Nam. When things got tough there, they would just show their troops the protests in America, When things get tough now for the terrorists, they just show their troops the protests in America. Notice that in WWII the media was not in a big hurry to find and cover war protesters, the Axis was at war with the ENTIRE United States. I agree that we should not waste lives in stupidity, so how many are lost to drunk driving in America each year!!! Great thing about FREEDOM, each allowed their opinion without being jailed and beat for it, good thing we don't have to share it with anyone else.

Logical
08-17-2005, 11:44 PM
Where the f#ck do get me saying that?

We were in a much different position than the Iraqis are now. Our tyranny was not nearly as oppressive as theirs was. We had a largely educated populace. We had the freedom to discuss ideals, including dissent. We had a lot of things going for us. The Iraqi people were kept under Saddam's boot. No freedom, no education, terrorized into submission, they are clearly starting off from a different square than we did.I am not sure where you get the idea they were not educated? Do you have proof of that assertion? Also I am not sure where you get the idea that the average colonist was well educated as I recall that was not true. Yes the people who led the revolution were well educated, but they were part of the elite class of the time.

Taco John
08-18-2005, 12:05 AM
I wish we'd have taken that $300 billion and put it toward finding alternative fuel sources. America would have been so much better off, and we might actually have been able to focus our military on something Americans could get behind: smiting Al Queda.

Logical
08-18-2005, 12:15 AM
I wish we'd have taken that $300 billion and put it toward finding alternative fuel sources. America would have been so much better off, and we might actually have been able to focus our military on something Americans could get behind: smiting Al Queda.Now come on even you hardcore Republicans have to agree TJ is making solid good sense in this Post.

Rep TJ - excellent post

stevieray
08-18-2005, 12:20 AM
Now come on even you hardcore Republicans have to agree TJ is making solid good sense in this Post.

Rep TJ - excellent post

That would be great if they wanted to destroy us for consuming oil.

Logical
08-18-2005, 12:36 AM
That would be great if they wanted to destroy us for consuming oil.I think you miss the point, they did not want to destroy us in Iraq in the first place. Iraq wanted control of more oil and we wanted them to have less because of our reliance on oil. If we were less reliant we would care less about Iraq.

stevieray
08-18-2005, 12:41 AM
I think you miss the point, they did not want to destroy us in Iraq in the first place. Iraq wanted control of more oil and we wanted them to have less because of our reliance on oil. If we were less reliant we would care less about Iraq.

Care less about Iraq....? That must be why Saddam ignored resoultions for a decade, and after we were attacked, why Bush gave him one last chance.

trndobrd
08-18-2005, 12:42 AM
Or until you evacuate the embassy via helicopter.

One or the other.


Is the North Vietnamese Army going to invade Iraq?

BigMeatballDave
08-18-2005, 01:41 AM
until the President lays out a specific timetable to show an end to this fiasco.

Since war was never declared, Congress can simply cut off funds.

Bush and the administration are failing in this effort and it is time to force their hands or to force a stop to the effort.

Signed
One disgruntled ConservativeGoing on this alone. I'd say you are in favor of a cutting and running. Wonderful idea...

keg in kc
08-18-2005, 03:38 AM
Why would they set a timeline? The "war" on terrorism has never been about anything other than $$$. "Freedom" and "liberation" are nice catchphrases fed to the pea-brained masses who treat all of this like it's a football game, rah-rah-rah for the home team, instead of seeing it like the cold-blooded corporate chess game that it actually is, soldiers on both sides the expendable pawns. The acceptable losses. So they fabricate and/or enhance a faceless enemy for a perpetual "war" and watch the money stream into the coffers of the business interests that run washington. It will never end and whether or not we ever leave Iraq is irrelevant. If the "war" isn't fought there, it'll be fought somewhere else.

Or, maybe even more frightening, we're in a new cold war (or the old one never ended) and all these terrorist organizations are ultimately funded by Russia and/or China. In which case, again, whether we leave Iraq or not is irrelevant in the larger picture.

Saggysack
08-18-2005, 05:37 AM
As a social liberal would like for us to pull out now. In a perfect world that would be ideal. Unfortunately we all know we don't live in a perfect world. We have to stay the course-there just isn't any other viable option in our favor. To pull out now would bring a victory towards islamic extremists. They would win a propaganda war in those ME countries by making the U.S. hiding our tail and running away from something we started. It also brings on a whole new attitude that seriously borders on real reluctance towards our allies in forming coalitions with us in future military actions. There is a bigger picture that we all must look at beyond the # of military deaths we sustain in combat.

Pulling out now is the cowards way to not finish something we started.

As most of you know I am not a Pres. Bush fan in any sense. But when times of cowardice, like pulling out to early in Iraq comes to mind, I read probaly some of the greatest words to come out of a Presidents mouth I have every heard.

We will not waver, we will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail. Peace and freedom will prevail.

G.W. Bush

We started it, we must finish it. End of story.

KCTitus
08-18-2005, 05:48 AM
Pulling out now is the cowards way to not finish something we started.

As most of you know I am not a Pres. Bush fan in any sense. But when times of cowardice, like pulling out to early in Iraq comes to mind, I read probaly some of the greatest words to come out of a Presidents mouth I have every heard.

We started it, we must finish it. End of story.

Well stated. Cutting and running is retarded.

Raiderhader
08-18-2005, 07:37 AM
I am not sure where you get the idea they were not educated? Do you have proof of that assertion? Also I am not sure where you get the idea that the average colonist was well educated as I recall that was not true. Yes the people who led the revolution were well educated, but they were part of the elite class of the time.


Why have we been building schools over there?

And let me rephrase about the colonists: they had more access to higher education.

Raiderhader
08-18-2005, 07:39 AM
Why would they set a timeline? The "war" on terrorism has never been about anything other than $$$. "Freedom" and "liberation" are nice catchphrases fed to the pea-brained masses who treat all of this like it's a football game, rah-rah-rah for the home team, instead of seeing it like the cold-blooded corporate chess game that it actually is, soldiers on both sides the expendable pawns. The acceptable losses. So they fabricate and/or enhance a faceless enemy for a perpetual "war" and watch the money stream into the coffers of the business interests that run washington. It will never end and whether or not we ever leave Iraq is irrelevant. If the "war" isn't fought there, it'll be fought somewhere else.

Or, maybe even more frightening, we're in a new cold war (or the old one never ended) and all these terrorist organizations are ultimately funded by Russia and/or China. In which case, again, whether we leave Iraq or not is irrelevant in the larger picture.


Yeah, 9/11 had NOTHING to do with it.


Conspiracy theorists kill me.

Radar Chief
08-18-2005, 08:08 AM
I wish we'd have taken that $300 billion and put it toward finding alternative fuel sources. America would have been so much better off, and we might actually have been able to focus our military on something Americans could get behind: smiting Al Queda.

You do realize we’re “smiting al Quada” in Iraq right now don’t you?

oldandslow
08-18-2005, 08:12 AM
Care less about Iraq....? That must be why Saddam ignored resoultions for a decade, and after we were attacked, why Bush gave him one last chance.

1. The entire Sadaam fiasco began because, (a) until 1923, Kuwait was a part of Iraq, (b) Kuwait was stealing Iraqi oil, and (C) there was really a miscommunication between Iraq and the US concerning Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

2. Sadaam was our guy. We used him against Iran. We gave him chemical weapons.

3. The so-called UN resolutions were, in actuality US resolutions. We get whatever we want out of the UN. It has been that way since the fall of the USSR.

4. This was is based on oil. Period. You take the oil out of Iraq and we are not there. If this were not true, Kim Jong would be in his grave.

Taco John
08-18-2005, 08:16 AM
You do realize we’re “smiting al Quada” in Iraq right now don’t you?



Eh... I'm not convinced of that. I've seen the mad scramble to make people believe that's the case. But it's not all that compelling. I think the ties between Saddaam and AQ were weak at best. It doesn't seem to me that Saddaam had much to offer AQ.

irishjayhawk
08-18-2005, 08:18 AM
I got the impression Vlib wasn't saying cut and run. I thought he was saying that Congress should force the President to strike up a plan, public plan, that outlines the way in which we are going to end the war we started. Right now, Bush can sit in Iraq for as long as he'd like while draining funds that could otherwise be directed elsewhere if a simple plan was instituted.

irishjayhawk
08-18-2005, 08:20 AM
1. The entire Sadaam fiasco began because, (a) until 1923, Kuwait was a part of Iraq, (b) Kuwait was stealing Iraqi oil, and (C) there was really a miscommunication between Iraq and the US concerning Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

2. Sadaam was our guy. We used him against Iran. We gave him chemical weapons.

3. The so-called UN resolutions were, in actuality US resolutions. We get whatever we want out of the UN. It has been that way since the fall of the USSR.

4. This was is based on oil. Period. You take the oil out of Iraq and we are not there. If this were not true, Kim Jong would be in his grave.
Sadly, gas has yet to go down in price when we have "acquired" these wells.

Taco John
08-18-2005, 08:24 AM
I definitely don't think "cut and run" is in the vocabulary here. But as a taxpayer, I'd like to see a performance plan by which I can judge this war on. I think this idea that "we can't be held accountable now, it will embolden the terrorists" is a poor standard, and goes against everything Bush campaigned for in 1999.

beavis
08-18-2005, 08:31 AM
I think the ties between Saddaam and AQ were weak at best.
Funny... couple of months ago it didn't exist at all.

I am glad however, that we have the mental might of TJ around to work out the details of the war.

oldandslow
08-18-2005, 08:36 AM
Sadly, gas has yet to go down in price when we have "acquired" these wells.

Nor was it meant too. We have reached or are nearing a place in history where the world has used as much or more oil than is in the ground. The Bush admin knows this - Google Matthew Simmons - He was a on the Cheney energy board and is a leading proponent of the "peak oil" argument. The Iraq war was meant to stabilize a large portion of the remaining oil reserves. Whether it will be successful is another story.

The problem is that TJ is right. We decided to do the oil companies bidding rather than go full force for alternative energy.

Again, this is the only issue that matters. Debates concerning stem cell research, gay rights, abortion, schools, and on and on do not mean a damn thing unless we solve the energy crisis. And I do mean crisis.

Taco John
08-18-2005, 08:38 AM
I am glad however, that we have the mental might of TJ around to work out the details of the war.



Oddly enough, we do!


http://www.mummila.net/varasto/kuvat/GWB.jpg

Raiderhader
08-18-2005, 08:41 AM
Some links on the state of education in Iraq -

http://www.nearinternational.org/alerts/iraq420041018.php

http://www.portaliraq.com/news/$16.4+million+invested+in+Iraqi+education__622.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3748560.stm


I'm having trouble finding any links on Colonial education that are not soley about hornbooks and primers, but I did find this tidbit on a site about American literature -

It is likely that no other colonists in the history of the world were as intellectual as the Puritans. Between 1630 and 1690, there were as many university graduates in the northeastern section of the United States, known as New England, as in the mother country -- an astounding fact when one considers that most educated people of the time were aristocrats who were unwilling to risk their lives in wilderness conditions. The self-made and often self-educated Puritans were notable exceptions. They wanted education to understand and execute God's will as they established their colonies throughout New England.

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/oal/lit1.htm

The Southern Colinies were different, they were much aristocratic in all aspects of life, including education.

The fact remains that Iraq's education system was in major decline, while in the American Colonies the education system was growing.

Raiderhader
08-18-2005, 08:44 AM
Now come on even you hardcore Republicans have to agree TJ is making solid good sense in this Post.


No, I don't.

MOhillbilly
08-18-2005, 08:48 AM
i said it from the get go,Iraq was the weakest kid on the block to make an example of.
To leave now would only show the enemies that were chickenshit and dont have the resolve to make a point.And bolster there ranks.

im sorry so many of you bought into the BS both sides were selling.

Radar Chief
08-18-2005, 08:49 AM
Eh... I'm not convinced of that. I've seen the mad scramble to make people believe that's the case. But it's not all that compelling. I think the ties between Saddaam and AQ were weak at best. It doesn't seem to me that Saddaam had much to offer AQ.

Nothing to offer, 'cept chit loads of money and a place to hide. (http://67.18.68.69/BB/showthread.php?t=120408)

Hell, didn’t al-Quada declare Iraq the center of their Jihad?
Funny, they seem to think Iraq has everything to do with it, why are you in denile?

Taco John
08-18-2005, 08:56 AM
i said it from the get go,Iraq was the weakest kid on the block to make an example of.
To leave now would only show the enemies that were chickenshit and dont have the resolve to make a point.And bolster there ranks.

im sorry so many of you bought into the BS both sides were selling.



Actually, I think this is the way most anti-war folks see it, and simply disagree with the tactic.

Myself, I was pro-war, having been sold on the idea that we needed to secure WMDs in the region. The absence of WMDs makes me question our role over there. But we're there, and we need to win the war. So how do we do that? What's our exit strategy? I'd like to know what our official exit strategy is. I could get behind an exit strategy. I can't get behind a lingering war that has no end in sight.

Want to unify America? Give us an exit strategy that gives us something to look forward to.

Taco John
08-18-2005, 08:58 AM
Hell, didn’t al-Quada declare Iraq the center of their Jihad?




Are you talking before or after our occupation of the country?

Raiderhader
08-18-2005, 08:58 AM
I found this an interesting read....

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_081705/content/stop_the_tape.guest.html

Radar Chief
08-18-2005, 09:01 AM
Are you talking before or after our occupation of the country?

From that quote? After.

Raiderhader
08-18-2005, 09:01 AM
Actually, I think this is the way most anti-war folks see it, and simply disagree with the tactic.

Myself, I was pro-war, having been sold on the idea that we needed to secure WMDs in the region. The absence of WMDs makes me question our role over there. But we're there, and we need to win the war. So how do we do that? What's our exit strategy? I'd like to know what our official exit strategy is. I could get behind an exit strategy. I can't get behind a lingering war that has no end in sight.

Want to unify America? Give us an exit strategy that gives us something to look forward to.


We have been given one, but some of you are not happy because there is no date involved. It would be nice if we could put a date to it, but we cannot.

We'll leave when Iraq is capable of running the show themselves. Just because you fail to acknowledge it as an exit strategy does not make it any less one.

MOhillbilly
08-18-2005, 09:14 AM
i for one didnt need an excuse.if politicians get caught in political lies,why is anyone suprised?

My brother and i talked right after 9-11 and both said 'someones gonna pay,right or wrong'.
As far as exiting the war,we leave when Iraq can hold there own,no sooner no later.

The more the media and Americans talk about it(exiting Iraq),the less confidence we show to our allies and enemies.

Taco John
08-18-2005, 09:17 AM
We have been given one, but some of you are not happy because there is no date involved. It would be nice if we could put a date to it, but we cannot.

We'll leave when Iraq is capable of running the show themselves. Just because you fail to acknowledge it as an exit strategy does not make it any less one.



You are absolutely right about not being happy due to no date (and thus, no accoutability) involved. When you have a timeline, you have accountability. You have "clear goals."

George W. Bush, 4/9/99:

“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”


That's what I want. Exit strategy.

George W. Bush, 6/5/99


“I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.”


That's what I want. A timetable. Accountability. Based on what George Bush said himself, I don't think that it's too much to ask. I don't buy the argument that setting a date will do nothing but embolden terrorists... What about the effect it has on the Iraqis to get their act together?

I could support this war if we had a time table and some accountability. But I can't support an open ticket with no end in sight.

mlyonsd
08-18-2005, 09:29 AM
We've all heard the administration will keep troops in Iraq until their own security can handle the country. Does that mean Iraqi security forces get to a point where US forces aren't needed to respond to an IED? Does it mean a high ranking US official can ride in a car from the Baghdad airport to anywhere he wants to go?

I would like to know how we're going to measure that and know when the goal is reached.

It's a military and political question so I'm guessing it can't be answered at this point but would like to know if it's being considered.

Raiderhader
08-18-2005, 09:30 AM
You are absolutely right about not being happy due to no date (and thus, no accoutability) involved. When you have a timeline, you have accountability. You have "clear goals."



That's what I want. Exit strategy.



That's what I want. A timetable. Accountability. Based on what George Bush said himself, I don't think that it's too much to ask. I don't buy the argument that setting a date will do nothing but embolden terrorists... What about the effect it has on the Iraqis to get their act together?

I could support this war if we had a time table and some accountability. But I can't support an open ticket with no end in sight.


It is not feasible. You may not buy the argument, but that does not make it any less valid.

The infastructure is a mess, and attempts to bring it where it needs to be are being slowed due to terrorists attacks. There is no way you can set a date to have all of this accomplished, because we do not know what lies ahead. Things are slow now, they may get slower yet. A timetable is not feasible, it is not realistic. Not if you wish to actually accomplish what we set out to do.

Chief Faithful
08-18-2005, 09:42 AM
Now come on even you hardcore Republicans have to agree TJ is making solid good sense in this Post.

Rep TJ - excellent post

Two completely different issues. There was nothing and is still nothing preventing the government from investing in alternative fuels making us less dependent on foreign sources. That was the reason for the recent energy legislation that took 4 years to pass. The dependancy issue is a failure of the whole Congress both Democrat and Republican.

TJ's arguement is a Red Herring.

trndobrd
08-18-2005, 09:49 AM
Why is there no outcry for an exit strategy from Afghanistan? There is no pull-out date set for Afghanistan and I haven't heard a single peep from anyone demanding one. Americans are still dying there.

RINGLEADER
08-18-2005, 09:59 AM
I don't agree with setting a timetable and not just because it gives the bad guys a date to wait out. Unless you say the timeline is 5 years from now, in which case why have a timeline? I think the thresholds a lot of people apply to war are completely unrealistic.

That said, it IS taking way too frickin' long to get the Iraqi military structure in place.

It's kinda pointless to try to argue the reasons for the war...I supported it based on what was known at the time and I supported the idea of establishing democracy/military bases in our enemy's backyard. I have no problem if they keep a large number of troops in easy-to-defend bases to strike from. But at some point the Iraqis have to stand on their own two feet.

I know some areas of Iraq are operating with minimal US presence...but in those areas where the Iraqi government has control they should pull out completely and let them stand on their own. If they need our help send in the firepower to take care of that specific problem then pull back to base again.

Then again, a percentage of the current insurgency would have been neutralized if they weren't in such a head-long rush to proclaim victory. If we had gone into Fallujah and N. Iraq and swept them in May, 2003 we might have just rolled up some of the enemy fighters that, because we didn't go after them, were able to organize into the stronger group that we're fighting now.

Taco John
08-18-2005, 10:01 AM
Why is there no outcry for an exit strategy from Afghanistan? There is no pull-out date set for Afghanistan and I haven't heard a single peep from anyone demanding one. Americans are still dying there.



I think because by and large, Americans support that action and believe it is a legitimate action...

Uatu
08-18-2005, 10:03 AM
What is the point of a date? To say, if things aren't hunky-dory by XXX, we're going to leave it half assed and retreat?

RINGLEADER
08-18-2005, 10:04 AM
Actually, I think this is the way most anti-war folks see it, and simply disagree with the tactic.

Myself, I was pro-war, having been sold on the idea that we needed to secure WMDs in the region. The absence of WMDs makes me question our role over there. But we're there, and we need to win the war. So how do we do that? What's our exit strategy? I'd like to know what our official exit strategy is. I could get behind an exit strategy. I can't get behind a lingering war that has no end in sight.

Want to unify America? Give us an exit strategy that gives us something to look forward to.


There is an exit strategy, Taco. Train the Iraqis and draw down the US troops. Some on the left (and I'm not including you in that group) simply don't like the answer or the fact that it doesn't make a lot of sense to clue the bad guys in on our plans vis-a-vis when we're going to hand-over things to the Iraqis. I understand that too. Just seems to me that you should be able to start putting Iraqi troops in total control of certain areas of the country and, based on what I've read, that hasn't happened yet.

Taco John
08-18-2005, 10:07 AM
It is not feasible. You may not buy the argument, but that does not make it any less valid.

By your point of view, maybe... Personally, I don't see the validity of it. That's my point of view.


The infastructure is a mess, and attempts to bring it where it needs to be are being slowed due to terrorists attacks. There is no way you can set a date to have all of this accomplished, because we do not know what lies ahead. Things are slow now, they may get slower yet. A timetable is not feasible, it is not realistic. Not if you wish to actually accomplish what we set out to do.


Well, there is one point of view, which I find compelling, that says the insurgency will die out once American occupation dies out. In any case, at some point in time the Iraqis are simply going to have to fend for themselves, and put their mettle to the test. At that point in time, if they need support, they can call upon the International community for that help.

trndobrd
08-18-2005, 10:09 AM
I don't agree with setting a timetable and not just because it gives the bad guys a date to wait out. Unless you say the timeline is 5 years from now, in which case why have a timeline? I think the thresholds a lot of people apply to war are completely unrealistic.

That said, it IS taking way too frickin' long to get the Iraqi military structure in place.

It's kinda pointless to try to argue the reasons for the war...I supported it based on what was known at the time and I supported the idea of establishing democracy/military bases in our enemy's backyard. I have no problem if they keep a large number of troops in easy-to-defend bases to strike from. But at some point the Iraqis have to stand on their own two feet.

I know some areas of Iraq are operating with minimal US presence...but in those areas where the Iraqi government has control they should pull out completely and let them stand on their own. If they need our help send in the firepower to take care of that specific problem then pull back to base again.

Then again, a percentage of the current insurgency would have been neutralized if they weren't in such a head-long rush to proclaim victory. If we had gone into Fallujah and N. Iraq and swept them in May, 2003 we might have just rolled up some of the enemy fighters that, because we didn't go after them, were able to organize into the stronger group that we're fighting now.

How long does it take to create a military structure? You can train a soldier in about 8 weeks, form and train Battalion size units in about 6-8 months. That is the easy part.

Developing the military logistics infrastructure to transport supplies, food, spare parts, ammunition is a bigger challenge, and one that was placed on the back burner as combat forces were trained and equipped. You can't just tell an Iraqi Brigade Commander "good luck". Without motor transportation, he's got no way to move his soldiers, or move supplies to his soldiers.

As the logistics side of the Iraqi Army comes online, you will start to see larger geographical areas that are entirely under the security of Iraqi forces. US forces will be focused on specific areas and missions, as well as strategic logistics.

trndobrd
08-18-2005, 10:14 AM
I think because by and large, Americans support that action and believe it is a legitimate action...

So demands for exit timetables are directly linked to the percieved ligitimacy of the action. Thus, the demand for an exit timetable is really just a ruse by the anti-Iraq crowd. A means for demanding the end to what they believe is an illegitimate action?

Taco John
08-18-2005, 10:15 AM
What is the point of a date? To say, if things aren't hunky-dory by XXX, we're going to leave it half assed and retreat?



The point of a date is accountability. And it's not to say "if things aren't hunky dory by XXX, we're going to leave it half assed and retreat." That's moronic. It's to say "by XYZ date, things WILL be hunky dory." It's to say "we have this goal, and it WILL be accomplished by this date." And if it's not accomplished by that date, there's no need to cut and run, but at least there is some accountability, because when we don't accomplish it by that date, we can then evaluate what is and isn't working.

I'm not willing to give Bush a blank check. I think he's a dope, and I want him on a short leash. I can get behind this war if we set clear objectives with clear timelines, like this dope said he'd do. Now that he's in the thick of it, the dope doesn't want to adhere to his own measures of accountability. I find that unacceptable.

I. Want. Accountability. That's it.

$300 billion of American taxpayers are tied up into this mess and we can't have any accontability? That is unacceptable. Put the dope on a leash and hold him accountable. ESPECIALLY since he isn't willing to hold his own people accountable... It's hard to believe Rumsfeld still has a job. Somewhere, accontability needs to be introduced into this thing.

Taco John
08-18-2005, 10:16 AM
So demands for exit timetables are directly linked to the percieved ligitimacy of the action. Thus, the demand for an exit timetable is really just a ruse by the anti-Iraq crowd. A means for demanding the end to what they believe is an illegitimate action?



Pretty much. That's the only way I can explain it. Americans are tolerant of the war in Afghanistan, because by and large, they believe in it. The same can't be said for Iraq.

trndobrd
08-18-2005, 10:23 AM
Pretty much. That's the only way I can explain it. Americans are tolerant of the war in Afghanistan, because by and large, they believe in it. The same can't be said for Iraq.


Just so long as we understand the motives behind those demanding a timetable.


As far as setting goals, they have been set. Expect a national referendum in December. Expect national elections of a new government within 6 months after that.

Taco John
08-18-2005, 10:30 AM
Just so long as we understand the motives behind those demanding a timetable.


To bring our soldiers home from a war that a large portion of the nation views as an illegitimate action, and a repeat of mistakes made in Vietnam and Korea? I didn't think there was any misunderstanding there. I think the motives behind demanding a timetable are both noble and appropriate. Especially given Bush's on words on the subject when he was campaigning for the position of Commander in Chief in 1999.

In any event, this war would be a lot easier for Americans to support if it was Congress who declared war, and the president executing congresses action.

Uatu
08-18-2005, 10:39 AM
The point of a date is accountability. And it's not to say "if things aren't hunky dory by XXX, we're going to leave it half assed and retreat." That's moronic. It's to say "by XYZ date, things WILL be hunky dory." It's to say "we have this goal, and it WILL be accomplished by this date." And if it's not accomplished by that date, there's no need to cut and run, but at least there is some accountability, because when we don't accomplish it by that date, we can then evaluate what is and isn't working.

WHAT accountability? If the date is August 18, 2006, and we can't pull out by then for whatever reason, what happens?

There has to be some meaningful if-then to make it worth your demanding.

Taco John
08-18-2005, 10:43 AM
WHAT accountability? If the date is August 18, 2006, and we can't pull out by then for whatever reason, what happens?

There has to be some meaningful if-then to make it worth your demanding.


You don't have a mind for follow-through. The fact that you can't come up with a "what happens" scenario for that question on your own reveals a lack of understanding on how the political process works.

The answer, at least to me, is fairly obvious. I'm suprised that you aren't able to come up with it.

RINGLEADER
08-18-2005, 10:45 AM
How long does it take to create a military structure? You can train a soldier in about 8 weeks, form and train Battalion size units in about 6-8 months. That is the easy part.

Developing the military logistics infrastructure to transport supplies, food, spare parts, ammunition is a bigger challenge, and one that was placed on the back burner as combat forces were trained and equipped. You can't just tell an Iraqi Brigade Commander "good luck". Without motor transportation, he's got no way to move his soldiers, or move supplies to his soldiers.

As the logistics side of the Iraqi Army comes online, you will start to see larger geographical areas that are entirely under the security of Iraqi forces. US forces will be focused on specific areas and missions, as well as strategic logistics.

I hope you're right.

RINGLEADER
08-18-2005, 10:49 AM
The point of a date is accountability. And it's not to say "if things aren't hunky dory by XXX, we're going to leave it half assed and retreat." That's moronic. It's to say "by XYZ date, things WILL be hunky dory." It's to say "we have this goal, and it WILL be accomplished by this date." And if it's not accomplished by that date, there's no need to cut and run, but at least there is some accountability, because when we don't accomplish it by that date, we can then evaluate what is and isn't working.

I'm not willing to give Bush a blank check. I think he's a dope, and I want him on a short leash. I can get behind this war if we set clear objectives with clear timelines, like this dope said he'd do. Now that he's in the thick of it, the dope doesn't want to adhere to his own measures of accountability. I find that unacceptable.

I. Want. Accountability. That's it.

$300 billion of American taxpayers are tied up into this mess and we can't have any accontability? That is unacceptable. Put the dope on a leash and hold him accountable. ESPECIALLY since he isn't willing to hold his own people accountable... It's hard to believe Rumsfeld still has a job. Somewhere, accontability needs to be introduced into this thing.


It seems strange that you'd want to give the enemy a key strategic point like when we're going to leave or set a date when we're going to pull out when we don't know if the Iraqi government will be able to sustain itself at that point.

I've got no problem with setting goals for Iraqi training and deployment...but they've already announced those goals haven't they?

RINGLEADER
08-18-2005, 10:54 AM
You don't have a mind for follow-through. The fact that you can't come up with a "what happens" scenario for that question on your own reveals a lack of understanding on how the political process works.

The answer, at least to me, is fairly obvious. I'm suprised that you aren't able to come up with it.


So if the terrorists/insurgents aren't irradicated by ___________ the left can say the war was a blunder? So the NY Times can write a nasty editorial? So D-Nise can start a new thread about how Bush lied? I think you can have accountability (in Iraqi training, in building infrastructure, in exporting oil, etc., etc.) on a lot of levels without risking the possibility that naming an arbitrary date could result in empowering the enemy.

Seriously, as a strategy (politically, militarily or otherwise) naming a pull-out might make some happy, but other than emboldening the bad guys to stay the course knowing they can wait us out, what does it really accomplish?

I guess you'd feel better about the war if they broadcast troop movements each day so you have a better understanding of what's going on? What you're asking for really isn't that much different.

dirk digler
08-18-2005, 10:56 AM
Does it really matter anyway? If we leave tomorrow or leave 5 yrs from now there will be a civil war in Iraq and there is really nothing that the new government or the US can do about it.

We can only do so much nation building but the Iraq people are the ones ultimately responsible to run their country and they have never been able to and probably never will.

Uatu
08-18-2005, 11:03 AM
You don't have a mind for follow-through. The fact that you can't come up with a "what happens" scenario for that question on your own reveals a lack of understanding on how the political process works.

The answer, at least to me, is fairly obvious. I'm suprised that you aren't able to come up with it.

Is this like when Kerry said "I have a plan but I'm not telling"?

Come on, indulge us. What should happen? Going to cut all the funding? Bring in the UN to take over and get it done right?

Taco John
08-18-2005, 11:15 AM
Is this like when Kerry said "I have a plan but I'm not telling"?

Come on, indulge us. What should happen? Going to cut all the funding? Bring in the UN to take over and get it done right?



No you dumbass. ...or suffer the political consequences.

You don't cut funding. You don't go to the U.N. You hold yourself accountable to the American people, the ones paying for this fiasco.

If you meet your objective, you get hailed a hero. If you fail to meet it, you suffer the political consequences. Let America decide. And they will, when they go to the polls.

How hard is this? I can't believe the lack of sense on display here.

Taco John
08-18-2005, 11:20 AM
It seems strange that you'd want to give the enemy a key strategic point like when we're going to leave or set a date when we're going to pull out when we don't know if the Iraqi government will be able to sustain itself at that point.

I've got no problem with setting goals for Iraqi training and deployment...but they've already announced those goals haven't they?



It's not about giving the enemy anything. It's about giving Americans HOPE. And what enemy? We still can't get a straight answer on who the enemy over there is... Some reports have it being disgruntled iraqis. Others have it being Saddam Loyalists. And even others have it being outsiders who are attracted to teh region by Americas presence there... Given that, two out of three of those enemies are there because of our presence there. Let the Iraqis deal with the Saddam loyalists.

This idea that we can't set a date is foolish and nothing more than apologism for Bush's failed policy. We can absolutely set a date, and say that by X/XX/XXXX, these goals are to be achieved. If that needs to be adjusted, so be it... But at least we can have some accountability on why that needs to be adjusted and who isn't doing their job to make it happen.

There is no argument that I can think of that makes any sense in why we can't set a goal date... Unless, of course, we have no intentions of ever leaving the region.

Uatu
08-18-2005, 11:23 AM
No you dumbass. ...or suffer the political consequences.

You don't cut funding. You don't go to the U.N. You hold yourself accountable to the American people, the ones paying for this fiasco.

If you meet your objective, you get hailed a hero. If you fail to meet it, you suffer the political consequences. Let America decide. And they will, when they go to the polls.

How hard is this? I can't believe the lack of sense on display here.

I think it's laughable that you think some deadline would change anything. Conservatives would still hail him as a hero even if the date were missed. Liberals would still be wagging their fingers at him even if he made it. Let America decide? They're already going to do that.

You still haven't named anything that this would change, since the date is not a requirement to pull out, and there are no meaningful consequences.

Taco John
08-18-2005, 11:27 AM
Seriously, as a strategy (politically, militarily or otherwise) naming a pull-out might make some happy, but other than emboldening the bad guys to stay the course knowing they can wait us out, what does it really accomplish?


Well, it would make the people paying for it happy... Not to mention, unite everybody behind the effort. I'd be a lot more supportive of it myself if some accountability were implemented into this scenario.

Taco John
08-18-2005, 11:31 AM
I think it's laughable that you think some deadline would change anything. Conservatives would still hail him as a hero even if the date were missed.

You're wrong. Bush's base is already eroding with regards to the war in Iraq. Ask Michael Savage. Ask Pat Buchanon. Ask Bill Oreilly. Real conservatives believe in accontability. Sheep, not so much.


You still haven't named anything that this would change, since the date is not a requirement to pull out, and there are no meaningful consequences.


Yes I have. The level of support for the war would change, for starters. I suspect the level of attacks would diminish as well... I think the people who are attacking because America is there would be more willing to wait it out, rather than risk their lives when there is light at the end of the tunnel for them.

The idea that we can't set a date is nothing short of not wanting there to be clear accountability.

dirk digler
08-18-2005, 11:38 AM
IMO we should stay 1 more year and then cut bait and let the Iraqi people sink or swim.

We stood up and decided to make our own government and constitution without anyone's help. Did we have setbacks, problems and a Civil War? Sure we did and we still have major differences today but we still came together for what is best for this country and the Iraqi people are going to have to do that as well.

It isn't America's job to build nations but we can give people opportunity and it is up to them to take it or piss on it.

We have given the Iraqi people the opportunity with the removal of Saddam now it is there turn to decide the fate of their own country not ours.

Mr. Kotter
08-18-2005, 11:53 AM
....The idea that we can't set a date is nothing short of not wanting there to be clear accountability.

We set a date in Vietnam. Then Charlie layed in waiting until the Americans were gone, got to rearm, replenish his supplies and troops, and rest up for "Vietnamization."

And that went really well didn't it? :hmmm:

Uatu
08-18-2005, 11:54 AM
You're wrong. Bush's base is already eroding with regards to the war in Iraq. Ask Michael Savage. Ask Pat Buchanon. Ask Bill Oreilly. Real conservatives believe in accontability. Sheep, not so much.


I find it very humorous that you consider Michael Savage and Pat Buchanan people who have 'eroded' due to the progress of the war. Savage has never been a Bush fan and didn't like the way the war was begun or executed since, from what my listening at the time garnered, and Buchanan was against the war from the get-go if memory serves. And O'Reilly being called a 'real conservative' is pretty amusing too.

The reality is that other than conservatives that are outliers with regards to the Republican party, just about everyone who was on board initially still is with finishing the job.

And I don't like this situation at all. I think they could have come about this with a harder edge, with more resources and more men, and hit it with everything we had and done it more effectively. I'm not a Bush honk and if he were running again I wouldn't vote for him. I'm just saying that your prediction of how some date would affect his support is off base.


Yes I have. The level of support for the war would change, for starters. I suspect the level of attacks would diminish as well... I think the people who are attacking because America is there would be more willing to wait it out, rather than risk their lives when there is light at the end of the tunnel for them.

The idea that we can't set a date is nothing short of not wanting there to be clear accountability.

I guess we'll just have to disagree about the idea that if we're late on a specific date that all the conservatives and republicans in the country are suddenly going to turn on Bush and Democrats will win with 70% majorities in the midterm elections. The conservative base is nothing if not loyal. They will stand by their man.

Eye Patch
08-18-2005, 12:01 PM
You're wrong. Bush's base is already eroding with regards to the war in Iraq. Ask Michael Savage. Ask Pat Buchanon. Ask Bill Oreilly. Real conservatives believe in accontability. Sheep, not so much.
.

Well since you are going to quote from these folks lets quote them all the way… all of them say that setting a date is stupid and foolish. I guess it must have slipped your mind. btw.. which war college did you go to.. to from this brillant strategy? Was it war & date setting 101.


The level of support for the war would change, for starters.

You for one would not change your position or any of your like mined friends would either. I bet your pet Sheehan will come around too... if only we had a date...


I suspect the level of attacks would diminish as well....

Of course, with a date, they would diminish because the terrorist would give us the illusion that things are going good and as soon as we leave… they will kill those Iraqis who voted like sheep…. But that is not an issue for you.

I think the people who are attacking because America is there would be more willing to wait it out, rather than risk their lives when there is light at the end of the tunnel for them. .

Light at the end of the tunnel for them/terrorist?????? Unbelievable… with your own words you have destroyed you date argument. You’re not really that bright.

Mr. Kotter
08-18-2005, 12:03 PM
....Light at the end of the tunnel for them/terrorist?????? Unbelievable… with your own words you have destroyed you date argument. You’re not really that bright.

Between this and the "Pork" thread, he's not havin' a good day. Heh. ROFL

Eye Patch
08-18-2005, 12:09 PM
I think the ties between Saddaam and AQ were weak at best. It doesn't seem to me that Saddaam had much to offer AQ.

except money to finance 9/11 according to the Able Report.

The only dispute over Atta's whereabouts is whether he was in Prague on April 9, 2001, to meet with Samir al Ani, an Iraqi intelligence officer.
Czech intelligence insists he was. Able Danger, apparently, had information supporting the Czechs.

The CIA, and the September 11 Commission, say Atta wasn't in Prague April 9, because his cell phone was used in Florida that day. But there is no evidence of who used the phone. Atta could have lent it to a confederate. (It wouldn't have worked in Europe anyway.)

But acknowledging that possibility would leave open the likelihood that Saddam's regime was involved in, or at least had foreknowledge of, the September 11 attacks.

penchief
08-18-2005, 12:12 PM
This is because the dems have all the spine of the common garden slug.

And that is exactly why those who employ ruthless and dishonest tactics to accomplish their political or financial goals continue to effectively portray democrats and liberals as wishy-washy pussies with no plan for America.

There is more to effective government than certainty. Pragmatism consists of an objective evaluation of all the factors affecting any situation. If this president and his cohorts had been more pragmatic about all of the factors and potential consequences of an Iraqi invasion instead of their ideological certainty and moral superiority then this war may have produced a different scenario or might not have occurred at all.

Uatu
08-18-2005, 12:24 PM
Of course, with a date, they would diminish because the terrorist would give us the illusion that things are going good and as soon as we leave… they will kill those Iraqis who voted like sheep…. But that is not an issue for you.

Look at Somalia. There, warlords let us believe that everything was taken care of and we should pull out and let the UN handle it, at which point it was worse than before and we had to come back again to clean up the mess.

The mess wasn't all Bush 1's fault, Clinton should have used adequate force when we returned. But it wasn't a good idea to just leave because it would then be someone else's problem.

Chris Meck
08-18-2005, 12:44 PM
The biggest problem here, in my opinion, is that we simply CANNOT leave until the 'job is done'. This isn't a poor little country in SE Asia that we don't want to go communist. This is the lid on a powderkeg in the world's most volatile region.

I also don't believe that the job will ever BE done, particularly not with the manpower we have. The borders are still not sealed (which should've been done immediately) and the steady stream of jihadists will not slow down.

We needed ten times the troops we went in with; and we're making all of the exact same mistakes as Vietnam, which is ironic considering Rumsfeld should know better as he was around during that time.

I was against it from the start, but that being said, if you're going to commit to the action of war you do it full-on, all the way, with overwhelming numbers. There should be nowhere to hide and no way to get in or out.

I really feel for the boys over there, they're being put in an impossible situation.

Chris

KCTitus
08-18-2005, 12:59 PM
And that is exactly why those...continue to effectively portray democrats and liberals as wishy-washy pussies with no plan for America.

Ive asked and asked and asked and asked...what is the plan from the left?

Mr. Kotter
08-18-2005, 01:07 PM
Between this and the "Pork" thread, he's not havin' a good day. Heh. ROFL

Heh....I guess TJ's itty-bitty wittle feewings got hurt?

Two neg rep hits in two days from you Taco? That's pretty good...even for a pansy like you.

If you think I'm not gonna respond though, you're even less bright than I thought.....remember though, I'm responding to you. Heh. ;)

Eye Patch
08-18-2005, 01:14 PM
What's our exit strategy? I'd like to know what our official exit strategy is. I could get behind an exit strategy. I can't get behind a lingering war that has no end in sight.

Want to unify America? Give us an exit strategy that gives us something to look forward to.

I always thought the idea of a war was to win and then exit. I guess tj goes to the war college of the unconscious collections of morons.

Quick somebody call the pentagon… a new brilliant military strategist is right here on an Internet board…. No really… please hurry.




I could support this war if we had a timetable and some accountability. But I can't support an open ticket with no end in sight.

and this is what taco has been doing for years... trying to have it both ways. You know there will never be a time table but you give the illusion you would support the war knowing this will never happen. Saw right through it from the start. How typical

You like many others are fighting this war politically rather than letting the men in the field decide their fate. The date thing is pure politics nothing else. I thought we learned that lesson in Vietnam…. I guess not.

You just want a timetable so it will give you ammo when those goals are not met…. And in the fog of war this is not even realistic.

Even if a solider or general was against the war... I would venture to say that setting a time line in a WAR none of them would support this ridiculous idea….except for General Taco.

Hup one, two, three, four…. We need a date to win a war.... only because an elephant has got the chore.

memyselfI
08-18-2005, 01:41 PM
until the President lays out a specific timetable to show an end to this fiasco.

Since war was never declared, Congress can simply cut off funds.

Bush and the administration are failing in this effort and it is time to force their hands or to force a stop to the effort.

Signed
One disgruntled Conservative

Great idea but it's not going to happen. To do so would mean that Congress was complicit in a huge mistake and a Republican majority Congress is not going to do that to themselves let alone the President.

HC_Chief
08-18-2005, 02:05 PM
Yeah, great idea! Cut off all funding to our troops in the field, then yank them out immediately, leaving a huge vacuum and proving OBL's point that American's are pussies.

What a GREAT IDEA!!!




:rolleyes:


F*CKTARD

Taco John
08-18-2005, 02:14 PM
and this is what taco has been doing for years... trying to have it both ways. You know there will never be a time table but you give the illusion you would support the war knowing this will never happen.


Actually, I'm of the belief that the Administration will be pressured into setting a time table. And when that happens, I'll support the effort. I'm of the opinion that we need to win this thing, make no mistake. I'm also of the opinion that we need some accountability, of which there has been precious little when it comes to the execution of this war.

I don't believe the idea that setting a timetable is equal to losing this war. Not at all. I think that's merely an excuse for a prolonged conflict, with zero accountability.

Taco John
08-18-2005, 02:16 PM
Heh....I guess TJ's itty-bitty wittle feewings got hurt?

Two neg rep hits in two days from you Taco? That's pretty good...even for a pansy like you.

If you think I'm not gonna respond though, you're even less bright than I thought.....remember though, I'm responding to you. Heh. ;)



Dude, are you crying about your rep in a completely unrelated thread under Patch's skirt?

Shut up man... I'm embarassed for you.

DanT
08-18-2005, 02:17 PM
We've all heard the administration will keep troops in Iraq until their own security can handle the country. Does that mean Iraqi security forces get to a point where US forces aren't needed to respond to an IED? Does it mean a high ranking US official can ride in a car from the Baghdad airport to anywhere he wants to go?

I would like to know how we're going to measure that and know when the goal is reached.

It's a military and political question so I'm guessing it can't be answered at this point but would like to know if it's being considered.

You might find the following transcript interesting, mylonsd. I'll quote the opening statement from Mr. Rumsfeld. There are some questions and answers that are concerned with how progress is being measured later on in the transcript:

http://www.dod.gov/transcripts/2005/tr20050627-secdef3161.html

Presenter: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld; General George Casey, USA, Commander, U.S. Forces In Iraq Monday, June 27, 2005 1:39 p.m. EDT

DoD News Briefing

SEC. RUMSFELD: Good afternoon, folks. One week from today Americans will celebrate the 229th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence that launched our war of liberation. It's easy to forget that those early patriots faced monumental difficulties as they sought to overcome an array of failures and obstacles. But they had the vision and the courage to persevere and establish the first enduring democracy the world had then known.



The people of Iraq today are in the earliest days of their struggle to build a multiethnic democracy. Ultimately, it will be up to the Iraqi people -- not the United States, not the coalition -- to rebuild and secure their country. The mission of our coalition is to create an environment, where the Iraqis themselves can contain and ultimately defeat their insurgency.



Despite their long-neglected infrastructure and their lack of experience with democracy, the Iraqi people have demonstrated both the will and the capacity to succeed. They have oil, water, intelligent people, well-educated people, and a heritage of a great civilization that can be put to work to build a moderate Iraq version of a self- governing society.



The suggestion of those who say we are losing, or that we're in a quagmire, seems to be that, as long as there's violence in Iraq, that the conclusion must be that insurgents are winning. Not so.



Consider the changes of the past year. A democratically elected government is in place, and more than 8 million Iraqis went to the polls, defying intimidation at home and skepticism here in the United States, in their region and abroad. The Sunni minority now has belatedly recognize that boycotting their election was a mistake. And they are rejoining the political process.



Insurgents remain capable of savage attacks, to be sure. But they can no longer take advantage of sanctuaries like Fallujah to train, plan and hold hostages.



Iraq's security forces have grown steadily in size and capability. They have equipment and experience they previously lacked, and are earning the confidence and support of the Iraqi people.



Conversely, the violent extremists have had little to show for their efforts, except for a growing body count of mostly Iraqi civilians, and a skillful knack for grabbing headlines -- free publicity worth millions to their violent cause. But despite their public affairs skills, they are not a nationalist movement, they don't have a vision, and they will eventually lose.



In his meeting with President Bush on Friday, Iraq's new prime minister thanked the American people for their patience and for their resolve. The Iraqi leaders recognize that there's more work to be done and that the work is theirs to do. Their tasks include: ensuring that there are no delays in drafting or voting on the new Iraqi constitution, strengthening the Iraqi ministries to improve their ability to provide needed services and to reduce coalition involvement, aggressively encouraging their neighbors to close their neighbors to terrorists, persuading Iraqi's Sunnis to reject the insurgency and embrace the political process, and to work closely with their coalition allies to turn responsibility for more cities and provinces over to Iraqi security forces.



Success for the coalition should not be defined as domestic tranquility in Iraq. Other democracies have had to contend with terrorism and insurgencies for a number of years, but they've been able to function and eventually succeed. As in difficult conflicts of the past, lasting progress and achievements do not come from reacting to headlines or chasing mercurial opinion polls. Setbacks are inevitable, and important victories are seldom won without risk, sacrifice and patience.



Recently, the mood and commitment of the American people towards the efforts in Iraq have been the subject of discussion. Our American system places all of our faith and all of our hope in the people of our country, and the confidence that, given sufficient information, over time that they'll find their way to the right decisions. I believe they will do so on Iraq. And I also believe that one day, those that have worked so hard and sacrificed so much -- Americans, our coalition partners, and Iraqis alike -- will look back with pride at what will then be seen as an historic accomplishment.



With me today is General George Casey, commanding general of the Multinational Force in Iraq. We're fortunate to have men like General Casey and General Abizaid leading our superb men and women in uniform in what is clearly a difficult, but critically important effort.


http://www.dod.gov/transcripts/2005/tr20050627-secdef3161.html

Mr. Kotter
08-18-2005, 02:18 PM
Dude, are you crying about your rep in a completely unrelated thread under Patch's skirt?

Shut up man... I'm embarassed for you.

Who's cryin'.....? Just pointin' it out, like you did yesterday.....:shrug:

Eh, actually it was THIS thread the second time; try again, Pedro Pansy.

|Zach|
08-18-2005, 02:18 PM
Yeah, great idea! Cut off all funding to our troops in the field, then yank them out immediately, leaving a huge vacuum and proving OBL's point that American's are pussies.

What a GREAT IDEA!!!




:rolleyes:


F*CKTARD
Alright, lets say erverything I want others to say instead of what they actually say so I can call them idiots!

Hooray!

Taco John
08-18-2005, 02:20 PM
Yeah, great idea! Cut off all funding to our troops in the field, then yank them out immediately, leaving a huge vacuum and proving OBL's point that American's are pussies.

What a GREAT IDEA!!!




:rolleyes:


F*CKTARD



Who is he even talking to? I know that I've made it very clear that I'm not in favor of cutting any funding, nor yanking our troops if the job isn't finished.

Mr. Kotter
08-18-2005, 02:22 PM
Who is he even talking to? I know that I've made it very clear that I'm not in favor of cutting any funding, nor yanking our troops if the job isn't finished.


Psssttt....pay attention; I'm pretty sure he's addressing the THREAD starter.

Boy you are SLLLLLOOOOOWWWW today..... ROFL

Taco John
08-18-2005, 02:22 PM
Who's cryin'.....?



That woud be you, Mr. Porked

|Zach|
08-18-2005, 02:23 PM
Psssttt....pay attention; I'm pretty sure he's addressing the THREAD starter.

Boy you are SLLLLLOOOOOWWWW today..... ROFLThen his reading comprehension skills are not good...

..at all.

We are talking Duck Dog type reading skills.

Mr. Kotter
08-18-2005, 02:24 PM
That woud be you, Mr. Porked

Heh.

Are you delirious today, or what? Talk about delusions of granduer.... :shake:

Mr. Kotter
08-18-2005, 02:26 PM
Then his reading comprehension skills are not good...

..at all.

We are talking Duck Dog type reading skills.

What part of Vlad's proposal for Congress to pull funding and troops are we missing/misunderstanding? :shrug:

Taco John
08-18-2005, 02:29 PM
Heh.

Are you delirious today, or what? Talk about delusions of granduer.... :shake:



Really? Is that the best you can do? I have pets that could run intellectual circles around you if that's the best you can do.


/reprise of using his own weak stuff against him and considering it a master burn.


Kotter, it gets old doing this routine of running circles around you. Yes, I get a lot of laughs out of it and pats on the back for continously pantsing you while you pretend that it's not a sock stuffed in your shorts when everyone clearly sees that it is... But it gets old. In the same way that Bugs Bunny probably got sick of screwing with Elemer Fudd, I get tired of this little game.

Please go away. I'll try to ignore your constant clap trap of fake idealism. Really I will.

|Zach|
08-18-2005, 02:30 PM
What part of Vlad's proposal for Congress to pull funding and troops are we missing/misunderstanding? :shrug:He made it sound like if he had his way the sun would come up tomorrow with all troops gone...which is not what he has said at all...big difference between forming an exit time table and running out of somewhere as fast as you can.

|Zach|
08-18-2005, 02:31 PM
I'll try to ignore your constant clap trap of fake idealism.ROFL

Mr. Kotter
08-18-2005, 02:31 PM
Really? Is that the best you can do? I have pets that could run intellectual circles around you if that's the best you can do.


/reprise


Kotter, it gets old doing this routine of running circles around you. Yes, I get a lot of laughs out of it and pats on the back for continously pantsing you while you pretend that it's not a sock stuffed in your shorts when everyone clearly sees that it is... But it gets old. In the same way that Bugs Bunny probably got sick of screwing with Elemer Fudd, I get tired of this little game.

Please go away. I'll try to ignore your constant clap trap of fake idealism. Really I will.


Whatever you say, Pedro. ROFL

My, oh, my....heh. I'll leave da wittle boy awone. rochambeau

Mr. Kotter
08-18-2005, 02:32 PM
He made it sound like if he had his way the sun would come up tomorrow with all troops gone...which is not what he has said at all...big difference between forming an exit time table and running out of somewhere as fast as you can.

You really believe that too, don't you?

|Zach|
08-18-2005, 02:34 PM
You really believe that too, don't you?Oh wow, Pssvagrssv Dick is back. By all means start being a total tool again. Everyone sees through it...

If you couldn't comprehend what was being written in this thread then you and HC deserve each other.

Mr. Kotter
08-18-2005, 02:37 PM
Oh wow, Pssvagrssv Dick is back. By all means start being a total tool again. Everyone sees through it...

If you couldn't comprehend what was being written in this thread then you and HC deserve each other.

Dude, all I'm saying is....in the minds of terrorists (like the VietCong) there is NO substantive difference between setting a time table for a pull-out, and pulling-out tomorrow.

Ask the former South Vietnamese if there was a difference. If you can't see that, well.....I can't help you I guess.

|Zach|
08-18-2005, 02:39 PM
Dude, all I'm saying is....in the minds of terrorists (like the VietCong) there is NO substantive difference between setting a time table for a pull-out, and pulling-out tomorrow.

Ask the former South Vietnamese if there was a difference. If you can't see that, well.....I can't help you I guess.Isn't alot easier not to act like a complete tool and post like big boy? Wouldn't you say?

Taco John
08-18-2005, 02:44 PM
Dude, all I'm saying is....in the minds of terrorists (like the VietCong) there is NO substantive difference between setting a time table for a pull-out, and pulling-out tomorrow.




What are you talking about? Why? You guys keep parrotting this nonsense, and I can't for the life of me understand why setting achievable goals is paramount to giving "the enemy" a victory. There is a huge substantive difference between setting a time table for a pull-out and pulling out tomorrow... I can't believe your brain would allow that thought to even escape your head.

Setting goals and dates to achieve those goals does exactly WHAT to embolden terrorists?

Mr. Kotter
08-18-2005, 02:44 PM
Isn't alot easier not to act like a complete tool and post like big boy? Wouldn't you say?

Point taken; I apologize.

Pedro, er Taco John or Taco Jihad....brings out the worse in me. He's like the nerdy little kid in middle school who deserved all the ass kickings he got.....no excuse--just the truth.

Taco John
08-18-2005, 02:46 PM
Point taken; I apologize.

Pedro, er Taco John or Taco Jihad....brings out the worse in me. He's like the nerdy little kid in middle school who deserved all the ass kickings he got.....no excuse--just the truth.



Hmmm... Imagine that... Kotter blames someone else for his own shortcomings... Maybe you really *are* a democrat.

Mr. Kotter
08-18-2005, 02:52 PM
What are you talking about? Why? You guys keep parrotting this nonsense, and I can't for the life of me understand why setting achievable goals is paramount to giving "the enemy" a victory. There is a huge substantive difference between setting a time table for a pull-out and pulling out tomorrow... I can't believe your brain would allow that thought to even escape your head.

Setting goals and dates to achieve those goals does exactly WHAT to embolden terrorists?

I'll spell it out for you is plain language, Pedro....but you'd do well to look at the consequences of Vietnamization and the fall of South Vietnam.

First, setting a time table gives the bad guys a light at the end of the tunnel; they rest, regroups, reinforce, and await the pull-out.

Second, once the American's "pull-out" all hell breaks loose with a reinvigorated, recharged, and fresh round of well-planned, targeted, and ferocious attacks by the "insurgents" and terrorists in this case. That would lead to a collapse of almost any "new" government.

Third, those facts render any difference between a pull-out tomorrow...or a pull-out by a predetermined "time-table" insignificant and meaningless. The only difference is "when" would the terrorists win? Now, or after we leave.

To prevent that, we have to defeat the bastards now....by rooting them out, and killing every last one of them that we can--along with the cooperation and support of the majority of Iraqis who want their "new" government to work. Then we have to be certain, that the Iraqis can defend themselves. Setting an artificial time-table would undermine both of those efforts, IMHO.

If you don't believe me, ask the next South Vietnamese refugee who's now an American citizen....about it.

Mr. Kotter
08-18-2005, 02:55 PM
Hmmm... Imagine that... Kotter blames someone else for his own shortcomings... Maybe you really *are* a democrat.

Yup, you are like a bed-sore, a pain in the ass that won't go away: nasty, crusty, ooozing with infected puss....and, well, you get the idea.

:p

Taco John
08-18-2005, 02:58 PM
The biggest problem here, in my opinion, is that we simply CANNOT leave until the 'job is done'. This isn't a poor little country in SE Asia that we don't want to go communist. This is the lid on a powderkeg in the world's most volatile region.

I also don't believe that the job will ever BE done, particularly not with the manpower we have. The borders are still not sealed (which should've been done immediately) and the steady stream of jihadists will not slow down.

We needed ten times the troops we went in with; and we're making all of the exact same mistakes as Vietnam, which is ironic considering Rumsfeld should know better as he was around during that time.

I was against it from the start, but that being said, if you're going to commit to the action of war you do it full-on, all the way, with overwhelming numbers. There should be nowhere to hide and no way to get in or out.

I really feel for the boys over there, they're being put in an impossible situation.

Chris



I agree with this post completely, except that I do think the job can and will be done. To my understanding, the job, as currently defined, is to install a stable government in Iraq. Well, elections are coming up. I think after they have ratified a constitution and elected officials, our obligation to them will be done and from that point, it's up to them and their military to fight for their own freedom... and if they have more need, they can go to the international community and get the help they need.

Mr. Kotter
08-18-2005, 03:02 PM
.... it's up to them and their military to fight for their own freedom... and if they have more need, they can go to the international community and get the help they need.

Like in South Vietnam?

You are neglecting the main objective: destroy and erradicate the insurgency movement to the greatest extent possible, and within reason.

penchief
08-18-2005, 03:51 PM
The biggest problem here, in my opinion, is that we simply CANNOT leave until the 'job is done'. This isn't a poor little country in SE Asia that we don't want to go communist. This is the lid on a powderkeg in the world's most volatile region.

I also don't believe that the job will ever BE done, particularly not with the manpower we have. The borders are still not sealed (which should've been done immediately) and the steady stream of jihadists will not slow down.

We needed ten times the troops we went in with; and we're making all of the exact same mistakes as Vietnam, which is ironic considering Rumsfeld should know better as he was around during that time.

I was against it from the start, but that being said, if you're going to commit to the action of war you do it full-on, all the way, with overwhelming numbers. There should be nowhere to hide and no way to get in or out.

I really feel for the boys over there, they're being put in an impossible situation.

Chris

You continue to provide examples as to why I consider you one of the wisest and most practical members of Chiefsplanet.

Logical
08-18-2005, 03:56 PM
As a social liberal would like for us to pull out now. In a perfect world that would be ideal. Unfortunately we all know we don't live in a perfect world. We have to stay the course-there just isn't any other viable option in our favor. To pull out now would bring a victory towards islamic extremists. They would win a propaganda war in those ME countries by making the U.S. hiding our tail and running away from something we started. It also brings on a whole new attitude that seriously borders on real reluctance towards our allies in forming coalitions with us in future military actions. There is a bigger picture that we all must look at beyond the # of military deaths we sustain in combat.

Pulling out now is the cowards way to not finish something we started.

As most of you know I am not a Pres. Bush fan in any sense. But when times of cowardice, like pulling out to early in Iraq comes to mind, I read probaly some of the greatest words to come out of a Presidents mouth I have every heard.



We started it, we must finish it. End of story.I said nothing about pull out now, I said set a timetable for withdrawel and for the Iraq people to be in control.

Logical
08-18-2005, 03:58 PM
Why have we been building schools over there?

And let me rephrase about the colonists: they had more access to higher education.Lets see maybe because during shock and awe we destroyed a hell of a lot of infrastructure and that would include schools.

I looked it up Iraq is not all that bad in world wide education ranking 39th out of 190 countries for secondary education schools in 2000.

penchief
08-18-2005, 04:00 PM
Ive asked and asked and asked and asked...what is the plan from the left?

Well. First off, if you are talking about Iraq then I would say that the opposition's plan would have been to build a coalition similar to that which G Herbert W Bush built, utilize the UN to our benefit as opposed to alienating it and every other muthereffing country in the world except for those whose loyalty we purchased (sans Britian).

In fact, the left's plan has been well documented on this board well before and well after the invasion of Iraq. But when those protestations are brought up now those on the right say, "yeah, but what are you offering now?" That seems a little cheesy to me. Those who accuse the left of not having a plan are being a little disingenuous if you ask me. That's like someone totally screwing the pooch for their own benefit and when the shit hits the fan they say, "I suppose you could have done better."

If you are talking about everything else I'd say that the government's job is to be as pragmatic as possible. Certainty about one's ideology or philosophy does not guarantee his/her righteousness. If that were true Hitler would have been right about the master race, the Islamofacists would be right about their interpretation of humankind and it's relationship to their God, and Bush would have been right about Iraq, corportate America, health care, education, wages, the environment, and humankind and it's relationship to his God.

But most importantly, I would say that the best plan is to not stubbornly and blindly stick to a plan that has proven to be an utter failure and destined to lead to dire consequences. Unfortunately, that plan doesn't just apply to Iraq when evaluating the presidency of GWBush.

Logical
08-18-2005, 04:01 PM
I got the impression Vlib wasn't saying cut and run. I thought he was saying that Congress should force the President to strike up a plan, public plan, that outlines the way in which we are going to end the war we started. Right now, Bush can sit in Iraq for as long as he'd like while draining funds that could otherwise be directed elsewhere if a simple plan was instituted.

Thank you for getting my point.

Logical
08-18-2005, 04:21 PM
Actually, I think this is the way most anti-war folks see it, and simply disagree with the tactic.

Myself, I was pro-war, having been sold on the idea that we needed to secure WMDs in the region. The absence of WMDs makes me question our role over there. But we're there, and we need to win the war. So how do we do that? What's our exit strategy? I'd like to know what our official exit strategy is. I could get behind an exit strategy. I can't get behind a lingering war that has no end in sight.

Want to unify America? Give us an exit strategy that gives us something to look forward to.It is truly bizarre how closely TJ see eye to eye on this subject. I would happily claim this opinion as mine had he not wrote it first.

Logical
08-18-2005, 04:23 PM
We have been given one, but some of you are not happy because there is no date involved. It would be nice if we could put a date to it, but we cannot.

We'll leave when Iraq is capable of running the show themselves. Just because you fail to acknowledge it as an exit strategy does not make it any less one.That is not an exit strategy that is a strategy to occupy them and reap the profits for the corporations like Haliburton forever.

memyselfI
08-18-2005, 04:28 PM
But those calling for an 'exit strategy' fail to see the fallacy of their hopes...

it's rather hard to call for an exit strategy when your initial strategy has been based on lies and then the justifications for being there continued to change to support the policy. The way this has played out there is no way to call an 'end' to the game because the rules of the game have kept changing.

The WH kept talking about 'winning' a 'WOT' and using tough talk and semantics as their strategy and plan. The problem with using that sort of talk is that it's subjective. Thus, short of eliminating terrorism, which was their stated goal, they've failed. A stated exit strategy prior to this goal looks like defeat. Thus, it matters not if we 'cut and run' or not. They will not be able to claim a winnable end.

Basically, the WH has been defeated by their OWN RHETORIC. That would be ironic beyond comprehension if I had not stated it was likely to happen at the start. :hmmm:

Logical
08-18-2005, 04:29 PM
It is not feasible. You may not buy the argument, but that does not make it any less valid.

The infastructure is a mess, and attempts to bring it where it needs to be are being slowed due to terrorists attacks. There is no way you can set a date to have all of this accomplished, because we do not know what lies ahead. Things are slow now, they may get slower yet. A timetable is not feasible, it is not realistic. Not if you wish to actually accomplish what we set out to do.You know what, infrastructure is a mess. You know what terrrorist are doing everything in their power to stop the US from fixing that?

You know what else, if we had withdrawn and instead sent in aid to the people of Iraq the terrorists would not be interested in stopping the infrastructure from being rebuilt. They want to stop the US, damage the US's reputation which they are succeeding in accomplishing, we are making the terrorists effort in Iraq a success.

penchief
08-18-2005, 04:30 PM
That is not an exit strategy that is a strategy to occupy them and reap the profits for the corporations like Haliburton forever.

Logical (can I call you Jim?), when considering my experiences with you when I was a newbie I can honestly say that I get goose bumps lately when I read the majority of your posts.

Mr. Kotter
08-18-2005, 04:31 PM
... if we had withdrawn and instead sent in aid to the people of Iraq the terrorists would not be interested in stopping the infrastructure from being rebuilt. They want to stop the US, damage the US's reputation which they are succeeding in accomplishing, we are making the terrorists effort in Iraq a success.

If you truly believe that, on what basis do you make such a statement.

Personally, I think this proves you are delirious. :shake:

memyselfI
08-18-2005, 04:32 PM
Logical (can I call you Jim?), when considering my experiences with you when I was a newbie I can honestly say that I get goose bumps lately when I read the majority of your posts.

Ain't that the truth.

He has given me the real knowledge that not all CONS are created equal. ;)

Certainly not all are RWNJs!!!!

Mr. Kotter
08-18-2005, 04:33 PM
Logical (can I call you Jim?), when considering my experiences with you when I was a newbie I can honestly say that I get goose bumps lately when I read the majority of your posts.

Just as Chancellor Palpatine did, as Darth Vader made his way to the dark side.

Mr. Kotter
08-18-2005, 04:33 PM
Ain't that the truth.

He has given me the real knowledge that not all CONS are created equal. ;)

Certainly not all are RWNJs!!!!

And your journey to the Dark Side is thus complete!

ROFL

memyselfI
08-18-2005, 04:33 PM
Just as Chancellor Palpatine did, as Darth Vader made his way to the dark side.

Don't be so hard on yourself...

I bet some folks here still believe you are a 'Democrat.' ROFL

Logical
08-18-2005, 04:34 PM
There is an exit strategy, Taco. Train the Iraqis and draw down the US troops. Some on the left (and I'm not including you in that group) simply don't like the answer or the fact that it doesn't make a lot of sense to clue the bad guys in on our plans vis-a-vis when we're going to hand-over things to the Iraqis. I understand that too. Just seems to me that you should be able to start putting Iraqi troops in total control of certain areas of the country and, based on what I've read, that hasn't happened yet.These folks have been fighting their war of attrition for thousands of years, you think they are worried the US is going to stay for 2, 5, or 10 years, short of the US staying forever and making Iraq a state they know they can out last us.

Logical
08-18-2005, 04:36 PM
Logical (can I call you Jim?), when considering my experiences with you when I was a newbie I can honestly say that I get goose bumps lately when I read the majority of your posts.Of course you can call me Jim, however the goose bumps kind of bother me.;)

penchief
08-18-2005, 04:42 PM
Of course you can call me Jim, however the goose bumps kind of bother me.;)

Jim, I'm just an easily inspired guy.

Logical
08-18-2005, 04:42 PM
Just so long as we understand the motives behind those demanding a timetable.


As far as setting goals, they have been set. Expect a national referendum in December. Expect national elections of a new government within 6 months after that.In my case it is not that I did not support the war, I don't support the goals of the occupation (or rather the lack of realistic goals). We appear to be trying to force a Western style down the throats of a country where it will never work, to the idiotic point we are taking up sides with known wack jobs such as Al Sadr. You can see the sloppy haphazard workings of the CIA in the background once again setting up the makings of a tyrant in the making such as Reza Pahlovi Shah of Iran and Marcos of the Phillipines.

DanT
08-18-2005, 04:43 PM
Here's an article from over 16 months ago, a relative drop in the bucket of time.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lind/lind19.html
Why We Get It Wrong
by William S. Lind


One of the few consistencies of the war in Iraq is America’s ability to make the wrong choices. From starting the war in the first place through outlawing the Ba'ath and sending the Iraqi army home to assaulting Fallujah and declaring war on Shiite militia leader Muqtada al-Sadr, we repeatedly get it wrong. Such consistency raises a question: can we identify a single factor that consistently leads us in the wrong direction?

I think we can. That is not to say other factors are not also in play. But one wrong notion does appear to underlie many of our blunders. That is the belief that in this war, the U.S. military is the strongest player.

We hear this at every level from the rifle squad to the White House. In Fallujah, Marine privates and sergeants want to finish the job of taking the city, with no doubt whatsoever that they can. In Baghdad, spokesmen for the CPA regularly trumpet the line that no Iraqi fighters can hope to stand up to the US military. Washington casts a broader net, boasting that the American military can defeat any enemy, anywhere. The bragging and self-congratulation reach the point where, as Oscar Wilde might have said, it is worse than untrue; it is in bad taste.

In fact, in Iraq and in Fourth Generation war elsewhere, we are the weaker party. The most important reason this is so is time.

For every other party, the distinguishing characteristic of the American intervention force is that it, and it alone, will go away. At some point, sooner or later, we will go home. Everyone else stays, because they live there.

This has many implications, none of them good from our perspective. Local allies know they will at some time face their local enemies without us there to support them. French collaborators with the Germans, and there were many, can tell us what happens then. Local enemies know they can outlast us. Neutrals make their calculations on the same basis; as my neighbor back in Cleveland said, one of Arabs’ few military virtues is that they are always on the winning side.

All our technology, all our training, all our superiority in techniques (like being able to hit what we shoot at) put together are less powerful than the fact that time is against us. More, we tend to accelerate the time disadvantage. American election cycles play a role here; clearly, that is what lies behind the June 30 deadline for handing Iraq over to some kind of Iraqi government. So does a central feature of American culture, the desire for quick results and "closure." Whether we are talking about wars or diets, Americans want action now and results fast. In places like Fallujah, that leads us to prefer assaults to talks. Our opponents, in contrast, have all the time in the world – and in the next world for that matter.

Time is not the only factor that renders us the weaker party. So does our lack of understanding of local cultures and languages. So also do our reliance on massive firepower, our dependence on a secure logistics train (we are now experiencing that vulnerability in Iraq, where our supply lines are being cut), our insistence on living apart from and much better than the local population. But time still overshadows all of these. Worse, we can do nothing about it, unless, like the Romans, we plan to stay for three hundred years.

Until we accept the counterintuitive fact that in Fourth Generation interventions we are and always will be the weaker party, our decisions will continue to be consistently wrong. The decisions will be wrong because the assumption that lies behind them is wrong. We will remain trapped by our own false pride.

What if we do come to understand our own inherent weakness in places like Iraq? Might we then come up with some more productive approaches? Well, the Byzantines might have something to teach us on that score. Greek fire notwithstanding, what kept the Eastern Roman Empire alive for a thousand years after Rome fell was knowing how to play weak hands brilliantly.

April 22, 2004

William Lind is Director of the Center for Cultural Conservatism at the Free Congress Foundation.

Logical
08-18-2005, 04:45 PM
IMO we should stay 1 more year and then cut bait and let the Iraqi people sink or swim.

We stood up and decided to make our own government and constitution without anyone's help. Did we have setbacks, problems and a Civil War? Sure we did and we still have major differences today but we still came together for what is best for this country and the Iraqi people are going to have to do that as well.

It isn't America's job to build nations but we can give people opportunity and it is up to them to take it or piss on it.

We have given the Iraqi people the opportunity with the removal of Saddam now it is there turn to decide the fate of their own country not ours.Though even I have doubts we can exit completely in one year, this is how I feel about letting the country build their own future.

Logical
08-18-2005, 04:56 PM
The biggest problem here, in my opinion, is that we simply CANNOT leave until the 'job is done'. This isn't a poor little country in SE Asia that we don't want to go communist. This is the lid on a powderkeg in the world's most volatile region.

I also don't believe that the job will ever BE done, particularly not with the manpower we have. The borders are still not sealed (which should've been done immediately) and the steady stream of jihadists will not slow down.

We needed ten times the troops we went in with; and we're making all of the exact same mistakes as Vietnam, which is ironic considering Rumsfeld should know better as he was around during that time.

I was against it from the start, but that being said, if you're going to commit to the action of war you do it full-on, all the way, with overwhelming numbers. There should be nowhere to hide and no way to get in or out.

I really feel for the boys over there, they're being put in an impossible situation.

ChrisThough I agree with much of what you say the facts are we do not have the troops to commit significantly larger numbers and we do not have the materials of war sufficient to support them if we could double the troops. Facts are we are not adequately supporting the troops we have there at present with armor, hell even with something so simple as bullets. We did not gear up American industry to procure and build more logistical support for these troops, this is another reason a plan is needed because supplies will begin to dwindle even more for the troops we have stationed there right now.

Taco John
08-18-2005, 05:00 PM
Though even I have doubts we can exit completely in one year, this is how I feel about letting the country build their own future.



It's called the Monroe Doctrine, and it was a pretty damned good doctrine that kept us out of this kind of crap...

memyselfI
08-18-2005, 05:00 PM
Not to obsess about a small point...

but could someone spell out to me what exactly 'the job done' MEANS both to them and their understanding of what the Administration means/t when it says that.

It's MHO that it is not possible to define 'the job done' based on the administrations various stated/restated objectives and thus there is no way to accomplish it...

because it, as a definable objective, doesn't exist.

penchief
08-18-2005, 05:07 PM
Here's an article from over 16 months ago, a relative drop in the bucket of time.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lind/lind19.html
Why We Get It Wrong
by William S. Lind


One of the few consistencies of the war in Iraq is America’s ability to make the wrong choices. From starting the war in the first place through outlawing the Ba'ath and sending the Iraqi army home to assaulting Fallujah and declaring war on Shiite militia leader Muqtada al-Sadr, we repeatedly get it wrong. Such consistency raises a question: can we identify a single factor that consistently leads us in the wrong direction?

I think we can. That is not to say other factors are not also in play. But one wrong notion does appear to underlie many of our blunders. That is the belief that in this war, the U.S. military is the strongest player.

We hear this at every level from the rifle squad to the White House. In Fallujah, Marine privates and sergeants want to finish the job of taking the city, with no doubt whatsoever that they can. In Baghdad, spokesmen for the CPA regularly trumpet the line that no Iraqi fighters can hope to stand up to the US military. Washington casts a broader net, boasting that the American military can defeat any enemy, anywhere. The bragging and self-congratulation reach the point where, as Oscar Wilde might have said, it is worse than untrue; it is in bad taste.

In fact, in Iraq and in Fourth Generation war elsewhere, we are the weaker party. The most important reason this is so is time.

For every other party, the distinguishing characteristic of the American intervention force is that it, and it alone, will go away. At some point, sooner or later, we will go home. Everyone else stays, because they live there.

This has many implications, none of them good from our perspective. Local allies know they will at some time face their local enemies without us there to support them. French collaborators with the Germans, and there were many, can tell us what happens then. Local enemies know they can outlast us. Neutrals make their calculations on the same basis; as my neighbor back in Cleveland said, one of Arabs’ few military virtues is that they are always on the winning side.

All our technology, all our training, all our superiority in techniques (like being able to hit what we shoot at) put together are less powerful than the fact that time is against us. More, we tend to accelerate the time disadvantage. American election cycles play a role here; clearly, that is what lies behind the June 30 deadline for handing Iraq over to some kind of Iraqi government. So does a central feature of American culture, the desire for quick results and "closure." Whether we are talking about wars or diets, Americans want action now and results fast. In places like Fallujah, that leads us to prefer assaults to talks. Our opponents, in contrast, have all the time in the world – and in the next world for that matter.

Time is not the only factor that renders us the weaker party. So does our lack of understanding of local cultures and languages. So also do our reliance on massive firepower, our dependence on a secure logistics train (we are now experiencing that vulnerability in Iraq, where our supply lines are being cut), our insistence on living apart from and much better than the local population. But time still overshadows all of these. Worse, we can do nothing about it, unless, like the Romans, we plan to stay for three hundred years.

Until we accept the counterintuitive fact that in Fourth Generation interventions we are and always will be the weaker party, our decisions will continue to be consistently wrong. The decisions will be wrong because the assumption that lies behind them is wrong. We will remain trapped by our own false pride.

What if we do come to understand our own inherent weakness in places like Iraq? Might we then come up with some more productive approaches? Well, the Byzantines might have something to teach us on that score. Greek fire notwithstanding, what kept the Eastern Roman Empire alive for a thousand years after Rome fell was knowing how to play weak hands brilliantly.

April 22, 2004

William Lind is Director of the Center for Cultural Conservatism at the Free Congress Foundation.


When I first went to college in the early eighties it seemed like their was an abundance of Iranian exchange students. I remember one specifically that hated Israel and listened to Cat Stevens as if he were the second coming of Van Morrison (a musical icon of western male philosophy, IMO).

The point is, that maybe that wasn't such a bad thing. Even though there is a large portion of the Iranian population which is old school fundamentalists, there is also a progressive segment of Iranian society that is pro-western because of that exchange program. That progressive pro-western segment of Iran is what even the neocons hang their hats on. Why can't hardliners in this country see that the subtle seeds of democracy and liberty are more effective than the seeds of aggression?

Does America continue to repeat it's mistakes in the Middle East due to it's lack of cultural understanding or it's self-righteous inclination toward western philosophy?

Excuse me for pondering......

Logical
08-18-2005, 05:26 PM
Psssttt....pay attention; I'm pretty sure he's addressing the THREAD starter.

Boy you are SLLLLLOOOOOWWWW today..... ROFLI never stated that either, in fact I have clarified several times early on that was not my intent. So who is being slow here?

Logical
08-18-2005, 05:37 PM
What part of Vlad's proposal for Congress to pull funding and troops are we missing/misunderstanding? :shrug:Evidently this part of the thread post
until the President lays out a specific timetable to show an end to this fiasco.

Well probably this part in 17
Who said anything about walking out, I said a timetable for exit. You are the one that brought up that would lead the enemy to just wait, well the fact is they will be there to take over once we leave no matter how long we stay. Vietnam taught us that.

Vlib/Vlad/Logical not willing to lose another 57,000+ lives on stupidity
or this part in 11

What is irrationale is to believe the job can ever be done and that this country will ever turn into anything other than a theocracy or ruled by a dictatorship. That is why the timetable not only makes sense it is a must. We need to quit wasting lives on a country that will never be a Democracy or Republic. We can only hope we exit as quickly as possible leaving on terms that will leave us with allies in the Islamic Theocracy that ends up ruling the country.
So I guess you just cannot read either.

Logical
08-18-2005, 05:43 PM
Whatever you say, Pedro. ROFL

My, oh, my....heh. I'll leave da wittle boy awone. rochambeauNice, way to go the racist route and try to cover it with a smilie.:shake::rolleyes:

Taco John
08-18-2005, 05:52 PM
Nah. Pedro isn't racist...

It's just Kotter being SDChiefsfan being PSSVAGGRSV being Monica etc.

The guy has an inferiority complex and I have a way of bringing it out of him.

Logical
08-18-2005, 05:53 PM
Dude, all I'm saying is....in the minds of terrorists (like the VietCong) there is NO substantive difference between setting a time table for a pull-out, and pulling-out tomorrow.

Ask the former South Vietnamese if there was a difference. If you can't see that, well.....I can't help you I guess.

Really we lost over 50,000 without ever setting a timetable to pull out of Vietnam, evidently you are being a historical dumbshit.

Logical
08-18-2005, 05:58 PM
Nah. Pedro isn't racist...

It's just Kotter being SDChiefsfan being PSSVAGGRSV being Monica etc.

The guy has an inferiority complex and I have a way of bringing it out of him.You are probably right, but you may just be being nice as well. He could have just called you TJ, why Pedro especially in conjunction to the the widdle boy reference.

Logical
08-18-2005, 06:01 PM
Not to obsess about a small point...

but could someone spell out to me what exactly 'the job done' MEANS both to them and their understanding of what the Administration means/t when it says that.

It's MHO that it is not possible to define 'the job done' based on the administrations various stated/restated objectives and thus there is no way to accomplish it...

because it, as a definable objective, doesn't exist.
Exactly, a timetable for ending the occupation would be ideal. Real definable objectives with planned dates for accomplishing them +/- 3 months would be just fine as a start of a plan.

mlyonsd
08-18-2005, 06:05 PM
Not to obsess about a small point...

but could someone spell out to me what exactly 'the job done' MEANS both to them and their understanding of what the Administration means/t when it says that.

It's MHO that it is not possible to define 'the job done' based on the administrations various stated/restated objectives and thus there is no way to accomplish it...

because it, as a definable objective, doesn't exist.

I think I asked the same question in an earlier post but am to lazy to go look for it. I think the goals are set although I'm not clear as to know when the administration and military think they have met that goal.

They deal with knowing when the Iraqi's can handle their own security.

nychief
08-18-2005, 06:06 PM
This is because the dems have all the spine of the common garden slug.

yes. all people who vote democratic are spineless pussies. mystery solved.
:banghead:

Logical
08-18-2005, 06:07 PM
Point taken; I apologize.

Pedro, er Taco John or Taco Jihad....brings out the worse in me. He's like the nerdy little kid in middle school who deserved all the ass kickings he got.....no excuse--just the truth. Oh goody Taco Jihad, all because he is asking for accountability. I really try not to neg rep people especially ones I know, but going to have to make an exception for this post.

Logical
08-18-2005, 06:40 PM
Ive asked and asked and asked and asked...what is the plan from the left?Seriously, they do not control the House, the Senate, or the White House how would it make sense for them to have a plan they would have no hope of implementing?

On the other hand the White House not only is supposed to have a plan but has majorities in the Senate and House to approve it so have no reason to fear proposing a plan.

Baby Lee
08-18-2005, 06:55 PM
What is irrationale is to believe the job can ever be done and that this country will ever turn into anything other than a theocracy or ruled by a dictatorship. That is why the timetable not only makes sense it is a must. We need to quit wasting lives on a country that will never be a Democracy or Republic. We can only hope we exit as quickly as possible leaving on terms that will leave us with allies in the Islamic Theocracy that ends up ruling the country.
The D@mn Dune Coons is too stoopid fer Democracy anyways.

Taco John
08-18-2005, 07:17 PM
The D@mn Dune Coons is too stoopid fer Democracy anyways.


I don't think Democracy is something that can just be given. I think it is something that has to be won through a societal revolution of one type or another. I could be wrong.

I definitely don't think anyone who opposes this war is on the "Dune Coon" wagon. That mentality is found primarily on your side of the aisle.

Logical
08-18-2005, 07:17 PM
The D@mn Dune Coons is too stoopid fer Democracy anyways.It is not a matter of intellect it is a fundamental difference in how they perceive what is important in life, their culture and philosophy do not lend themselves to a Western based type of government. They have several factions that have been fighting each other for literally 100s possibly 1000s of years. Are we truly so arrogant as to believe we can fix those sort of rifts?

Taco John
08-18-2005, 07:19 PM
You are probably right, but you may just be being nice as well. He could have just called you TJ, why Pedro especially in conjunction to the the widdle boy reference.



Mostly because he's frustrated that I keep getting the better of him in these exchanges. Between him and Stevie, my rep is full of frustrated assholes who are tired of getting shown up. Eight of my last ten have been from these two... Definitely lets me know I'm doing/saying the right things...

Baby Lee
08-18-2005, 07:23 PM
I definitely don't think anyone who opposes this war is on the "Dune Coon" wagon. That mentality is found primarily on your side of the aisle.
Enjoy your pretty little world where everyone has a side of the aisle and you know who the white hats and the black hats are.

memyselfI
08-18-2005, 07:25 PM
I think I asked the same question in an earlier post but am to lazy to go look for it. I think the goals are set although I'm not clear as to know when the administration and military think they have met that goal.

They deal with knowing when the Iraqi's can handle their own security.

The goals, in no particular order since the order of relevance have changed:

Find WMD- no. No need to harbor on the obvious here.

Remove SH and replace with US friendly 'democratic government'-no.

This objective is not met if we removed SH only to install something worse...like Iran friendly government. The constitution and upcoming election will indicate whether the US sent their soldiers to die in order to install an oppressive Islamic regime that is friendly to our enemies... :shake: Most indicators are pointing that way.

Fight a WOT: '"So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."-GWB. Nope.

This was NEVER a realistic goal. The fact that they are likely going to fail in the first country they really tried is telling. Credit is given for what they accomplished in Afghanistan but outside of the capital the country is nothing more than a drug infested warlord haven that has housed the leader of the biggest terrorist organization in the world...right under our noses.

Iraq has turned into the biggest strip of terrorist fly paper on the planet. :rolleyes: It was NOT this way before the invasion so arguing that Iraq is 'central to the WOT' is a joke.

Rebuilding infrastructure in Iraq: Nope. As the this article states GAO has reported, date of article 8/18/05:

'In the power and oil sectors, a lot of work must still be done. The Government Accountability Office said in a recent report that as of May, overall power generation and crude oil production are at lower levels than when the U.S. invaded.'

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B75D9C67B-0348-47D5-834F-176AC25EBC59%7D&siteid=google


Staying until Iraqis can defend themselves: ??? HUH?

This country has a history of violent division of which SH brutally kept under control. Exactly what does it mean that the Iraqis can defend 'themselves???' WHICH IRAQIS and 'defend' FROM WHOM? Remember their biggest threat is EACH OTHER. So do we train and arm each ethnic group to fight/defend against the other?

Defend against the 'terrorists/insugents?' Well, it probably serves as a good reminder that before the Iraq war they did not have the problem of terrorism/insurgents. Yes, they had ethnic conflicts but there has been marked increase in terror in that country since the invasion MOST aimed at the US or US interests/'collaborators.'

So what exactly does 'defend itself' mean?

These have been given as the major objectives and as I've, in rudimentary fashion, laid out, NONE of them seem to be accomplished to the point of being able to leave with an 'exit strategy' and still claim 'victory.'

So, I ask again, what does 'until the job is done' REALLY mean?

Baby Lee
08-18-2005, 07:25 PM
Mostly because he's frustrated that I keep getting the better of him in these exchanges. Between him and Stevie, my rep is full of frustrated assholes who are tired of getting shown up. Eight of my last ten have been from these two... Definitely lets me know I'm doing/saying the right things...
Lie much?

Taco John
08-18-2005, 07:27 PM
Lie much?



How 'bout you give me your signature for a month when I prove that I'm telling the truth? We have a deal?

Logical
08-18-2005, 07:27 PM
Enjoy your pretty little world where everyone has a side of the aisle and you know who the white hats and the black hats are.Well if you do not enjoy being cast in that role then why make a comment like the "Dune Coons" comment and instead participate in a civil exchange of ideas? This thread has been amaingly civil considering the normally explosive nature of this type of topic. Kotter got a little churlish, but even that was tame.

Baby Lee
08-18-2005, 07:31 PM
Well if you do not enjoy being cast in that role then why make a comment like the "Dune Coons" comment and instead participate in a civil exchange of ideas? This thread has been amaingly civil considering the normally explosive nature of this type of topic. Kotter got a little churlish, but even that was tame.
The tone of my post was clear. I was putting a clear, honest, face on what YOU posted, and in the course deriding the racism of it.

And what about this place is civil? This place is about overlabelling people and playing "I win" rather than discussing anything civilly. Witness the asshole Taco.

Taco John
08-18-2005, 07:31 PM
Enjoy your pretty little world where everyone has a side of the aisle and you know who the white hats and the black hats are.



I don't know what any of that is supposed to mean... I do know that you're not going to find many people at Anti-War rallies calling Iraqis "dune coons."

I also know that you are a hypocrite for pulling the statement above after the way you just got done painting your opposition. Of course, this is nothing new for Babbly Lee.

Baby Lee
08-18-2005, 07:32 PM
How 'bout you give me your signature for a month when I prove that I'm telling the truth? We have a deal?
I'm making no arrangements with you, but feel free to post whatever you have. But, and I'm sure you have the honesty to do it anyways somewhere in there, be sure to include the dates.

Baby Lee
08-18-2005, 07:34 PM
I also know that you are a hypocrite for pulling the statement above after the way you just got done painting your opposition.
I don't have an 'opposition.' I strongly oppose Vlad on this particular point, and stand behind my characterization of the motives underlying it. Doesn't mean I think Vlad's right or wrong about any other thing, let alone EVERY other thing, until he speaks for himself.

Taco John
08-18-2005, 07:34 PM
I'm making no arrangements with you, but feel free to post whatever you have.



I didn't figure... You're not the type who is willing to put their money where their mouth is.

Taco John
08-18-2005, 07:36 PM
I don't have an 'opposition.' I strongly oppose Vlad on this particular point, and stand behind my characterization of the motives underlying it. Doesn't mean I think Vlad's right or wrong about any other thing, let alone EVERY other thing, until he speaks for himself.


Well, whatever. I doubt that Vlad's motives are racist in the least.

Baby Lee
08-18-2005, 07:37 PM
I didn't figure... You're not the type who is willing to put their money where their mouth is.
'Money' has nothing to do with it.
You made an assertion.
I called you a liar.
Ball's in you court, with my full blessing to post whatever you have.
But I could care less about interacting with you in any way beyond that.

Baby Lee
08-18-2005, 07:40 PM
Well, whatever. I doubt that Vlad's motives are racist in the least.
He thinks that an entire culture is incapable of governing themselves in a free and democratic manner.

I see no difference between than and thinking the black populace is generally incapable of holding a job.

Took the anti-admin populace about as long to forget the purple thumbs Iraqis walked miles to get as it took them to lose the facade of unity after 9/11.

Taco John
08-18-2005, 07:44 PM
'Money' has nothing to do with it.
You made an assertion.
I called you a liar.
Ball's in you court, with my full blessing to post whatever you have.
But I could care less about interacting with you in any way beyond that.


Actually, 'money' does have something to do with it. Or more aptly 'currency.'

You're quick to call me a liar. I'm prepared to prove I'm not, but I'd like to punish you for being such an asshole. If you truly believe I'm lying, then you have nothing to lose. If you can't stand behind the convictions of your words, I can understand that too.

I dont want/need your blessing to prove what I, Kotter, and Stevie know is true. I want your signature for a month for being a hypocritical asshole who doesn't know what he's talking about.

So do we have a deal, or are you unable to stand behind the convictions of your keyboard?

memyselfI
08-18-2005, 07:44 PM
I didn't figure... You're not the type who is willing to put their money where their mouth is.

You might be right but I wish you'd see what this is. It's a deflection from the fact that he still supports a failed policy and cannot argue FOR the policy so he's deflecting by attacking the messenger...those who've made, and admitted, the realization of the failure.

All you are doing is allowing him to succeed in his diverting attention from Jim's thread and the importance of conservatives like him (or those who initially supported the war) falling away from supporting the President and his ridiculous policy in Iraq.

Again, folks like him have become lurkers instead of defend their views or if they are here posting they are usually attacking the personalities of those who disagree with them vs. actually supporting their position. A few notable exceptions ie: Mark and Donger. I'm sure there are a few others I can't think of at the moment.

Taco John
08-18-2005, 07:48 PM
He thinks that an entire culture is incapable of governing themselves in a free and democratic manner.

I see no difference between than and thinking the black populace is generally incapable of holding a job.

Took the anti-admin populace about as long to forget the purple thumbs Iraqis walked miles to get as it took them to lose the facade of unity after 9/11.


I think that the 12 year old kids down the street are incapable of doing my taxes. Does that make me "age-ist" against 12 year olds? Or maybe does it mean that I think they probably need to mature a little before they can handle the responsibility and understanding that goes along with filing taxes. I know one thing... I'm not going to pay for their education and tie myself and my tax situation into their future.

I'm suprised in a way, and at the same time not suprised at all to see you jump to the race card. Part of your hypocritical charm...

Baby Lee
08-18-2005, 07:51 PM
I think that the 12 year old kids down the street are incapable of doing my taxes. Does that make me "age-ist" against 12 year olds? Or maybe does it mean that I think they probably need to mature a little before they can handle the responsibility and understanding that goes along with filing taxes.

I'm suprised in a way, and at the same time not suprised at all to see you jump to the race card. Part of your hypocritical charm...
You see nothing bigoted about viewing a culture thousands of years older than yours like a little child that might grow some day to be a useful, civilized, place.
So, you're on the record that Iraqi culture is uneducated and insufficiently mature for grown up governance.
Geez, 10 minutes from inkling to confirmation.

mlyonsd
08-18-2005, 07:51 PM
The goals, in no particular order since the order of relevance have changed:

Find WMD- no. No need to harbor on the obvious here.

Remove SH and replace with US friendly 'democratic government'-no.

This objective is not met if we removed SH only to install something worse...like Iran friendly government. The constitution and upcoming election will indicate whether the US sent their soldiers to die in order to install an oppressive Islamic regime that is friendly to our enemies... :shake: Most indicators are pointing that way.

Fight a WOT: '"So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."-GWB. Nope.

This was NEVER a realistic goal. The fact that they are likely going to fail in the first country they really tried is telling. Credit is given for what they accomplished in Afghanistan but outside of the capital the country is nothing more than a drug infested warlord haven that has housed the leader of the biggest terrorist organization in the world...right under our noses.

Iraq has turned into the biggest strip of terrorist fly paper on the planet. :rolleyes: It was NOT this way before the invasion so arguing that Iraq is 'central to the WOT' is a joke.

Rebuilding infrastructure in Iraq: Nope. As the this article states GAO has reported, date of article 8/18/05:

'In the power and oil sectors, a lot of work must still be done. The Government Accountability Office said in a recent report that as of May, overall power generation and crude oil production are at lower levels than when the U.S. invaded.'

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B75D9C67B-0348-47D5-834F-176AC25EBC59%7D&siteid=google


Staying until Iraqis can defend themselves: ??? HUH?

This country has a history of violent division of which SH brutally kept under control. Exactly what does it mean that the Iraqis can defend 'themselves???' WHICH IRAQIS and 'defend' FROM WHOM? Remember their biggest threat is EACH OTHER. So do we train and arm each ethnic group to fight/defend against the other?

Defend against the 'terrorists/insugents?' Well, it probably serves as a good reminder that before the Iraq war they did not have the problem of terrorism/insurgents. Yes, they had ethnic conflicts but there has been marked increase in terror in that country since the invasion MOST aimed at the US or US interests/'collaborators.'

So what exactly does 'defend itself' mean?

These have been given as the major objectives and as I've, in rudimentary fashion, laid out, NONE of them seem to be accomplished to the point of being able to leave with an 'exit strategy' and still claim 'victory.'

So, I ask again, what does 'until the job is done' REALLY mean?

You make me laugh. No seriously, you really do. I tried replying to you in a dignified way and you go off with your usual bull shit. Take me seriously when I say I'm not going to argue this anymore.

All I can say is have fun the next 3 1/2 years. If Bush doesn't falter to the mother of a fallen soldier why would he listen to a shrill simple minded person like you? Have fun at your next vigil.

Taco John
08-18-2005, 07:54 PM
So, you're on the record that Iraqi culture is uneducated and insufficiently mature for grown up governance.
Geez, 10 minutes from inkling to confirmation.


Again... I don't think Democracy is something that can just be given. I think it is something that has to be won through a societal revolution of one type or another.

I believe that no matter what we do, or when we leave, Iraq is destined for civil war.

That has nothing to do with racism, despite your desperate and hysterical attempt to make it be so.

mlyonsd
08-18-2005, 07:56 PM
Again... I don't think Democracy is something that can just be given. I think it is something that has to be won through a societal revolution of one type or another.

I believe that no matter what we do, or when we leave, Iraq is destined for civil war.

That has nothing to do with racism, despite your desperate and hysterical attempt to make it be so.

Sometimes a civil war is necessary. Not wanted mind you, just the best thing that could happen.

Taco John
08-18-2005, 07:58 PM
Sometimes a civil war is necessary. Not wanted mind you, just the best thing that could happen.



I understand that... Which is why I disagreed with our approach to the war there. I would have been in favor of covertly proppng up a revolution there. But we tied our future in with the future of a country that we have no way of knowing will succeed. That's just bad policy.

Baby Lee
08-18-2005, 07:59 PM
Again... I don't think Democracy is something that can just be given. I think it is something that has to be won through a societal revolution of one type or another.

I believe that no matter what we do, or when we leave, Iraq is destined for civil war.

That has nothing to do with racism, despite your desperate and hysterical attempt to make it be so.
I see Iraq as a place full of a lot of people who want we are offering, who are beset by insurgents who wish them and us ill.
I also see Iraq as a place that remains haunted by a spurt of bravery back in 91 that resulted in wholesale slaughter when we left abruptly, and contrary to all previous representations, before they were equipped to deal with the same anti-democratic impulses, then in the hands of Saddam.

But you're the one who made the analogy;

Iraq is to civilized governance as a pre-adolescent is to licensed and educated tax preparer.

not me.

stevieray
08-18-2005, 08:00 PM
Mostly because he's frustrated that I keep getting the better of him in these exchanges. Between him and Stevie, my rep is full of frustrated assholes who are tired of getting shown up. Eight of my last ten have been from these two... Definitely lets me know I'm doing/saying the right things...

:deevee: :deevee: :deevee:

look who's whining about their rep.... ROFL

my only neg rep comes from you and gochiefs... ROFL

and then you have to compliment yourself... ROFL ROFL

mlyonsd
08-18-2005, 08:01 PM
I understand that... Which is why I disagreed with our approach to the war there. I would have been in favor of covertly proppng up a revolution there. But we tied our future in with the future of a country that we have no way of knowing will succeed. That's just bad policy.

I understand you point but didn't we try that in '91 with the Kurds? I'm not sure a revolution would have worked in Iraq seeing the power Saddam had. I mean he gassed how many people at one time?

IMO the Iraqi people were never in a position to free themselves.

Baby Lee
08-18-2005, 08:01 PM
:deevee: :deevee: :deevee:

look who's whining about their rep.... ROFL
And don't forget lying, again.

Taco John
08-18-2005, 08:02 PM
:deevee: :deevee: :deevee:

look who's whining about their rep.... ROFL



Well if it isn't my second biggest fan!

Will I get another rep from you this evening to match the ones I got yesterday and this morning? I ever do hope so!

Taco John
08-18-2005, 08:05 PM
I understand you point but didn't we try that in '91 with the Kurds?

First, how do you equate propping up a revolution with stabbing a revolution in the back? I don't see a parallel at all. And might I add, George H. W. Bush is a pussy.



I'm not sure a revolution would have worked in Iraq seeing the power Saddam had. I mean he gassed how many people at one time?


Are you kidding? All they needed was revolution. The minute Saddam makes a move to gas his own people, you don't think that we'd have milti-lateral support to prop up this revolution?

stevieray
08-18-2005, 08:05 PM
Well if it isn't my second biggest fan!

Will I get another rep from you this evening to match the ones I got yesterday and this morning? I ever do hope so!

:deevee: :deevee: :deevee:

so much drama.... ROFL

and a rep victim... ROFL

memyselfI
08-18-2005, 08:08 PM
You make me laugh. No seriously, you really do. I tried replying to you in a dignified way and you go off with your usual bull shit. Take me seriously when I say I'm not going to argue this anymore.

All I can say is have fun the next 3 1/2 years. If Bush doesn't falter to the mother of a fallen soldier why would he listen to a shrill simple minded person like you? Have fun at your next vigil.

And what, EXACTLY, is UNdignified, or bullshit for that matter, about my post that laid out each of the stated objectives and why I didn't think we'd met them and/or sourced others who've said the same?

I mean, I understand the desire to take pot shots at me personally because you cannot offer anything substantive in response to my questions or points. But, I would like to point out that many people are asking these questions now...

and not just the 'shills' of 'simple minded' people like me. MOF, it takes someone who knows quite abit about the issues in Iraq to ask the questions I asked. It takes very little to attack personally in response....

see simpleminded.

So, I ask again what does 'when the job is done' REALLY mean? And I'm not merely asking you but anyone who has stated that is when it's time to leave Iraq.

Baby Lee
08-18-2005, 08:13 PM
Cut and paste is sooo hard.

Eight of your last ten reps, me and stevie. Your words, your lie.

Taco John
08-18-2005, 08:13 PM
I see Iraq as a place full of a lot of people who want we are offering, who are beset by insurgents who wish them and us ill.
I also see Iraq as a place that remains haunted by a spurt of bravery back in 91 that resulted in wholesale slaughter when we left abruptly, and contrary to all previous representations, before they were equipped to deal with the same anti-democratic impulses, then in the hands of Saddam.

But you're the one who made the analogy;

Iraq is to civilized governance as a pre-adolescent is to licensed and educated tax preparer.

not me.


I have no problem with the anology... You want to make the analogy about the people and call me a racist for it. In reality, the anaology is about the complicated nature of Democracy.

We won our Democracy through a societal revolution in which we over-threw a monarchy who out-equipped us, and had armies who were infinitely more organized than us... How did we do it? With grit and determination and an amazing amount of will from the people.

I'm told that the Iraqi people aren't capable of that kind of grit and determination, to rise up and fight Saddaam's armies and claim Democracy for themselves... Should I not turn around now and call you a racist for such a position?

I should... But that would be cheap and so Babbly Lee like...

mlyonsd
08-18-2005, 08:14 PM
First, how do you equate propping up a revolution with stabbing a revolution in the back? I don't see a parallel at all. And might I add, George H. W. Bush is a pussy.

Take '91 and what Bush Sr. did as a lesson. The UN let down the Iraqi people. We played the UN game in '91 and the Iraqi's suffered. Make no mistake we played by UN (world) rules back then and learned at that time they were nothing but a weak corrupt entity. I'm sure Bush Sr. feels like he failed humanity on that one.


Are you kidding? All they needed was revolution. The minute Saddam makes a move to gas his own people, you don't think that we'd have milti-lateral support to prop up this revolution?

Again, in '91 Saddam threw down the Kurdish revolution attempt and hundreds of thousands of people died because the UN did nothing. No support what so ever. So I can't agree with your second argument.

Baby Lee
08-18-2005, 08:15 PM
First, how do you equate propping up a revolution with stabbing a revolution in the back? I don't see a parallel at all.
Perhaps if you factored in the very relevant part where the 'propping up,' comes AFTER the stabbing in the back, and you'll see where us keeping our promise this time might be important.

Taco John
08-18-2005, 08:15 PM
Cut and paste is sooo hard.

Eight of your last ten reps, me and stevie. Your words, your lie.


What are you talking about? I never said you... I said Kotter and Stevie...

Unless you're one of Kotter's accounts? But then, there's no way that could be. You actually seem to have a brain in your head.

Taco John
08-18-2005, 08:17 PM
Take '91 and what Bush Sr. did as a lesson.

Bah!

That's a pretty selective lesson... How about you add "take Vietnam and Korea" as a lesson, and let's talk...

Raiderhader
08-18-2005, 08:18 PM
That is not an exit strategy that is a strategy to occupy them and reap the profits for the corporations like Haliburton forever.


My God... You've turned into Denise.

mlyonsd
08-18-2005, 08:20 PM
And what, EXACTLY, is UNdignified, or bullshit for that matter, about my post that laid out each of the stated objectives and why I didn't think we'd met them and/or sourced others who've said the same?

I mean, I understand the desire to take pot shots at me personally because you cannot offer anything substantive in response to my questions or points. But, I would like to point out that many people are asking these questions now...

and not just the 'shills' of 'simple minded' people like me. MOF, it takes someone who knows quite abit about the issues in Iraq to ask the questions I asked. It takes very little to attack personally in response....

see simpleminded.

So, I ask again what does 'when the job is done' REALLY mean? And I'm not merely asking you but anyone who has stated that is when it's time to leave Iraq.

There is some chemical or genetic thing going on in your head which doesn't allow you to reason. Meaning, you can't concede a point, which means you can't reason. Therefore two way discussion is impossible.

If you'd like to go through an interpretor I'll talk with them. I gave you another chance tonight and you failed. Even in T-ball you eventually strike out.

Raiderhader
08-18-2005, 08:20 PM
You might be right but I wish you'd see what this is. It's a deflection from the fact that he still supports a failed policy and cannot argue FOR the policy so he's deflecting by attacking the messenger...those who've made, and admitted, the realization of the failure.

All you are doing is allowing him to succeed in his diverting attention from Jim's thread and the importance of conservatives like him (or those who initially supported the war) falling away from supporting the President and his ridiculous policy in Iraq.

Again, folks like him have become lurkers instead of defend their views or if they are here posting they are usually attacking the personalities of those who disagree with them vs. actually supporting their position. A few notable exceptions ie: Mark and Donger. I'm sure there are a few others I can't think of at the moment.


She would know, she's the master of this little game.

Baby Lee
08-18-2005, 08:22 PM
I'm told that the Iraqi people aren't capable of that kind of grit and determination, to rise up and fight Saddaam's armies and claim Democracy for themselves... Should I not turn around now and call you a racist for such a position?
Except that 'grit and determination' pitting guys with muskets against guys coming from an ocean away with muskets is a lot different than 'grit and determination' pitting an unarmed populace against an existing army sharing their soil and weilding the vast panoply of modern arms.
I don't fault the unarmed Jews of Germany for being unprepared to overthrow the Nazi machine, and I don't fault the Iraqi citizen for being unprepared to defeat Saddam, or today's insurgent, without our muscle.

You view it as a matter of character. I view it as a matter of muscle. One is innate, one is circumstantial. One is racist, one is pragmatic.

Raiderhader
08-18-2005, 08:22 PM
He thinks that an entire culture is incapable of governing themselves in a free and democratic manner.

I see no difference between than and thinking the black populace is generally incapable of holding a job.

Took the anti-admin populace about as long to forget the purple thumbs Iraqis walked miles to get as it took them to lose the facade of unity after 9/11.


No shit.

mlyonsd
08-18-2005, 08:23 PM
Bah!

That's a pretty selective lesson... How about you add "take Vietnam and Korea" as a lesson, and let's talk...

What I'm saying is in '91 Saddam's military was knocked to it's lowest possible level and the Kurds still couldn't muster a revolution that lasted even two months.

Maybe you could tell me what we could have done logistically to let the Iraqi people overthrow him? I just can't see it.

memyselfI
08-18-2005, 08:24 PM
There is some chemical or genetic thing going on in your head which doesn't allow you to reason. Meaning, you can't concede a point, which means you can't reason. Therefore two way discussion is impossible.

If you'd like to go through an interpretor I'll talk with them. I gave you another chance tonight and you failed. Even in T-ball you eventually strike out.

OK, I get it. Rather than support your position or even try to define what you think is 'done' you'd rather try to insult me and me position even though not much of what I posted is actually opinion vs. what is actually happening. I guess I need to remove you from that post I posted earlier. :rolleyes:

memyselfI
08-18-2005, 08:25 PM
She would know, she's the master of this little game.

Oh, yes, I constantly resort to unprovoked name calling and refusing to defend my position. ROFL I'm sure there are a few folks here who believe this...of course they are all still believing this Iraq war was a good thing.

Raiderhader
08-18-2005, 08:26 PM
Except that 'grit and determination' pitting guys with muskets against guys coming from an ocean away with muskets is a lot different than 'grit and determination' pitting an unarmed populace against an existing army sharing their soil and weilding the vast panoply of modern arms.
I don't fault the unarmed Jews of Germany for being unprepared to overthrow the Nazi machine, and I don't fault the Iraqi citizen for being unprepared to defeat Saddam, or today's insurgent, with our muscle.

You view it as a matter of character. I view it as a matter of muscle. One is innate, one is circumstantial. One is racist, one is pragmatic.


Quit being sensible Johnny, that is not desired in this thread.

Raiderhader
08-18-2005, 08:28 PM
Oh, yes, I constantly resort to unprovoked name calling and refusing to defend my position. ROFL I'm sure there are a few folks here who believe this...of course they are all still believing this Iraq war was a good thing.


I'm talking about the deflection itself, you dope. Not the manner in which it is carried out.

Baby Lee
08-18-2005, 08:28 PM
What are you talking about? I never said you... I said Kotter and Stevie...

Unless you're one of Kotter's accounts? But then, there's no way that could be. You actually seem to have a brain in your head.
I completely and abjectly apologize. I thought you had cited Vlad's response to me, not to Kotter. Hope you can understand, as your attacks on your 'enemies' tend to look alike.
I have no idea what rep Kotter or Steve have given you, and no interest. Don't know why you'd think I'd be able to speak with authority to such a thing, either.
I thought your were accusing me of negrepping you, and if you had you'd be a liar. But in fact, you were accusing Kotter and Steve, and my lack of reading comprehension makes me an idiot. Feel free to quote me on that wherever you like.

memyselfI
08-18-2005, 08:28 PM
I'm told that the Iraqi people aren't capable of that kind of grit and determination, to rise up and fight Saddaam's armies and claim Democracy for themselves...

Perhaps they could have...

if Donald Rumsfeld had given them chemicals for weapons as well. :hmmm:

memyselfI
08-18-2005, 08:31 PM
I'm talking about the deflection itself, you dope. Not the manner in which it is carried out.

Yeah, I guess I have been guilty of deflecting from the fact that much of what I stated would happen in Iraq two years ago has happened...so sorry. :hmmm:

memyselfI
08-18-2005, 08:32 PM
I completely and abjectly apologize. I thought you had cited Vlad's response to me, not to Kotter. Hope you can understand, as your attacks on your 'enemies' tend to look alike.
I have no idea what rep Kotter or Steve have given you, and no interest. Don't know why you'd think I'd be able to speak with authority to such a thing, either.
I thought your were accusing me of negrepping you, and if you had you'd be a liar. But in fact, you were accusing Kotter and Steve, and my lack of reading comprehension makes me an idiot. Feel free to quote me on that wherever you like.

OHMYGAWD, this whole pizzing episode was based on reading the wrong name?

Gotta give you credit for fessing up, BL. :thumb:

Raiderhader
08-18-2005, 08:32 PM
Yeah, I guess I have been guilty of deflecting from the fact that much of what I stated would happen in Iraq two years ago has happened...so sorry. :hmmm:


I rest my case.

memyselfI
08-18-2005, 08:33 PM
I rest my case.

That one was JUST for you. :p ROFL

mlyonsd
08-18-2005, 08:34 PM
OK, I get it. Rather than support your position or even try to define what you think is 'done' you'd rather try to insult me and me position even though not much of what I posted is actually opinion vs. what is actually happening. I guess I need to remove you from that post I posted earlier. :rolleyes:

meme, I've tried to be civil and apologize if you have taken offense. But my premise still stands, you can't be reasoned with because something in your psychy doesn't allow you to be wrong. Meaning I'm wasting my time trying to convince you of anything.

I think I've been more cordial towards you then most. But do what you gotta do, take me off whatever post you're talking about.

Taco John
08-18-2005, 08:34 PM
I completely and abjectly apologize. I thought you had cited Vlad's response to me, not to Kotter. Hope you can understand, as your attacks on your 'enemies' tend to look alike.
I have no idea what rep Kotter or Steve have given you, and no interest. Don't know why you'd think I'd be able to speak with authority to such a thing, either.
I thought your were accusing me of negrepping you, and if you had you'd be a liar. But in fact, you were accusing Kotter and Steve, and my lack of reading comprehension makes me an idiot. Feel free to quote me on that wherever you like.



Wanna hug it out, bitch? ;)


/I went back and gathered that... I was wondering why you were calling me a liar with such authority. I'll never bring it up again...

Raiderhader
08-18-2005, 08:35 PM
If you really want to do something for me you could leave the board. Short of that, don't waste your time.

memyselfI
08-18-2005, 08:39 PM
meme, I've tried to be civil and apologize if you have taken offense. But my premise still stands, you can't be reasoned with because something in your psychy doesn't allow you to be wrong. Meaning I'm wasting my time trying to convince you of anything.

I think I've been more cordial towards you then most. But do what you gotta do, take me off whatever post you're talking about.

Not ten minutes before you posted your response, I cited you and Donger as being two folks willing to stick around and defend your positions (even with doubts, if any) WITHOUT the personal attacks...

no biggie.

Again, if I'm wrong about any of this, I'll admit it. To date, I have not seen too much I've been wrong about regarding Iraq. If you have knowledge of something, please point it out. I've been willing to read positive stories (outside of those written by the military) and consider the information in formulating my opinion. MOF, before I read that article I cited about the gas and power lines, I was under the impression that those industries were IMPROVED based on something I read here a few days ago.

Imagine my surprise when I read that the government's OWN accounting office is stating otherwise. I actually was going to grant the point of infrastructure as being one that could have been stated as a met objective but wanted to check out the latest on that issue before I posted it. I found the article I quoted...written TODAY.

So, if you have something that you can source that sheds light on the darkness I see, post it. But just stating that I'm wrong, delusional, unreasonable, etc. won't cut it because unlike my opinion 2 years ago of what might happen, much of what I state now is factual and is happening or has happened.

|Zach|
08-18-2005, 08:40 PM
Wanna hug it out, bitch? ;)


Ha!

Piven is great.

memyselfI
08-18-2005, 08:40 PM
Wanna hug it out, bitch? ;)


/I went back and gathered that... I was wondering why you were calling me a liar with such authority. I'll never bring it up again...

I believe there will be folks here who will hold you to that... ;)

DanT
08-18-2005, 08:42 PM
Except that 'grit and determination' pitting guys with muskets against guys coming from an ocean away with muskets is a lot different than 'grit and determination' pitting an unarmed populace against an existing army sharing their soil and weilding the vast panoply of modern arms.
I don't fault the unarmed Jews of Germany for being unprepared to overthrow the Nazi machine, and I don't fault the Iraqi citizen for being unprepared to defeat Saddam, or today's insurgent, without our muscle.

You view it as a matter of character. I view it as a matter of muscle. One is innate, one is circumstantial. One is racist, one is pragmatic.

The Iraqi populace was not unarmed during the Saddam Hussein regime. Handguns and hunting rifles were widely available and widely owned.

Here, for example, is a newspaper story from March 6, 2003:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20030306-1157-battleforbaghdad.html

Baghdad's residents snap up guns as city gears up for street-to-street battle

By Hamza Hendawi
ASSOCIATED PRESS
11:57 a.m., March 6, 2003

BAGHDAD, Iraq – Baghdad residents are snapping up pistols and hunting rifles; trenches and sandbagged gun positions are multiplying. Militiamen loyal to Saddam Hussein say they're ready for a fight to the death.

Baghdad is gearing up for what could be a street-to-street fight against American troops, if President Bush gives the order to invade. Saddam appears nightly on television to reassure Iraqis the Americans would be no match in a ground battle.

Iraqis echo his words. But some say privately they are preparing to fight off another enemy: gunmen who may try to settle old scores or simply take advantage of a power vacuum to rob and loot.

"A lot of it is going to depend on motivation and the level of loyalty to Saddam, and that's difficult to gauge," Ian Kemp of Jane's Defense Weekly said Thursday in a telephone interview from London.

The United States and Britain have nearly 300,000 troops in the Persian Gulf region – and expect to have 100,000 more within weeks – for a threatened invasion of Iraq to remove Saddam from power and ensure Iraq isn't hiding weapons of mass destruction.

In a week, this city of 5 million people on the banks of the Tigris River has taken on the appearance of a defense line, where preparations for battle are visible at almost every corner.

Residents say the number of sandbagged positions has almost tripled in two weeks. There are at least twice as many armed policemen in full combat gear as there were a week ago.

Guns are very common in Iraq. Even so, gun shop owners say business has risen by 25 percent over the past month, with cheap pistols priced under $100 in highest demand. The shops are not allowed to sell assault rifles, but store owners say hunting rifles are selling fast.

"This is a business like any other business, and the present situation makes everyone want to think he's equipped to defend himself and his family," gun shop owner Mahmoud Mahdi said Thursday.

Mohiey Khalaf, 72, has been in the business of repairing and maintaining firearms for over 40 years. On Thursday, he was busy fixing a black revolver at his workshop in a small pedestrian alley.

"Business has been good. A lot of people are trying to make sure their firearms work," he said, holding a torch in one hand and a red-hot piece of metal in the other.

On Wednesday, in an ominous sign of what may be in store if American troops attempt to capture the city, 60 men clad in white paraded through Baghdad, pledging to give their lives in suicide attacks on U.S. troops.

Members of Saddam's ruling Baath Party say they've set up neighborhood brigades with a structure of command that ensures uninterrupted communication if fighting breaks out.

"How can they possibly try and enter Baghdad?" said Ali Mohammed, a 30-year-old local Baath leader in the working class district of Al-Habibiyah. "They dare not come in because they will meet a certain defeat."

Emerging from a gun repair shop, he tucked his pistol into his belt.

Mohammed, like millions of Baath Party members and militiamen loyal to Saddam, also has a Kalashnikov, the weapon of preference for most Iraqis. Occasional violence between rival tribes and Iraqis' love of hunting mean hardly an Iraqi household is without at least one firearm.

Saddam has for weeks been feeding the notion that Iraqis fighting on home terrain would have an edge over the better-armed Americans. Meeting with infantry commanders Wednesday, he catalogued the features of a U.S. aircraft carrier he did not identify: a nuclear power station, a water desalination plant, nine stories and 20,000 meals a day.

"But does it have tires to reach Baghdad? Certainly not. The one thing that will finally decide the battle is a soldier on his feet," he said.

Many in Baghdad agreed.

"My family taught me how to use a gun at age 5," said Nazer Qahtan Khalil, co-owner of one of Baghdad's estimated 45 gun shops. "Would you allow someone to enter your home uninvited? God willing, Baghdad will be the grave of the Americans."

In addition to the danger posed by street battles in Baghdad, experts and some Iraqis warn any power vacuum, however brief, would tempt looters or people who want to settle scores among the city's many clans and tribes.

Residents of the capital are reluctant to speak openly about the prospect of violence between Iraqis, preferring instead to stick to the official line that every citizen would rise to the defense of his country against foreign invaders.

But Hussein, a 31-year-old Baghdad taxi driver who wouldn't give his last name, said while Iraqis would indeed fight for their country, some of the city's residents fear Iraqis could attack their local enemies if lawlessness breaks out.

"Without government officials mediating as they always do, there could be a lot of fighting," he said.

Taco John
08-18-2005, 08:45 PM
Thanks for the link DanT...

Do you happen to have anything on the state of Iraqi infrastrructure before the war? Iowanian got into this the other night, and he seemed pretty insistent that they were drinking out of mud puddles and had sewage running out in the streets prior to their infrastructure being obliterated...

memyselfI
08-18-2005, 08:46 PM
Thanks for the link DanT...

Do you happen to have anything on the state of Iraqi infrastrructure before the war? Iowanian got into this the other night, and he seemed pretty insistent that they were drinking out of mud puddles and had sewage running out in the streets prior to their infrastructure being obliterated...

I do know that the embargo did take a toll on their infrastructure and prior to the Iran/Iraq and the 1st Iraq war the Iraqis were rather state of the art relative to the region.

DanT
08-18-2005, 08:50 PM
Here's Charely Reese's pre-invasion commentary on the idea of installing a liberal democracy in Iraq. This column appeared in newspapers around March 14, 2003.
http://reese.king-online.com/Reese_20030314/index.php
Not A Gamble

New York Times columnist Tom Friedman says President Bush's plans to invade Iraq and replace the government of Saddam Hussein with a liberal democracy is one of the greatest presidential gambles in history. I disagree. I think it's just playing poker with Clyde.

Clyde was a supertough ex-cop who ran a strip joint in a town where I worked as a youth. There were fairly regular illegal, high-stakes poker games played in the backroom. One evening, a tourist got into the game and lost all of his money. Having lost, he suddenly remembered that gambling was illegal and went to the police department to file a complaint.

"Can't help you," a cop who was a friend of mine told the tourist.

"Why not?" the indignant tourist said. "Gambling is illegal, isn't it?"

"Yes, it is," replied my pal, "but, mister, when you play poker with Clyde, that ain't gambling."

And neither is trying to impose democracy on Iraq. It's a sure loser. Iraq hasn't had an experience with democracy for, oh, the last four or five thousand years. That part of the Fertile Crescent has contributed a great deal to human civilization, but democracy is not on the list.

I don't know why the president thinks that Iraqis will understand democracy when these days, most Americans, including the president, have only a murky idea of it themselves. As someone else has pointed out, if Mr. Bush wishes to impose democracy on the Middle East, he could start with America's Arab allies, not one of which is a democracy. For that matter, he could start with the United States by repealing the Patriot Act and putting a leash and a muzzle on his attorney general, John Ashcroft, who is conducting a modern version of the Salem witch hunts.

But imposing democracy on the ruins of Iraq will be the least of Mr. Bush's problems. Wait until Americans realize how much it's going to cost. People who have a city infrastructure that is aging and in need of replacement will not take kindly, I predict, to having to provide sewer, water and power plants for the Iraqis while their own needs go unanswered. Americans will be told to tighten their belts and raise local and state taxes, while billions of their tax dollars flow into Iraq — via American contractors, of course. And that doesn't count the billions of dollars that will go to the coalition of the willing-for-a-price.

This is a funny administration. The president's mouthpiece, Ari Fleischer, waxed indignant the other day at a question that he said implied that foreign leaders could be bought. That simply isn't true, he said seriously, at which point the entire press corps burst into loud and long laughter.

It's also funny that the Pentagon, which professes to know everything about terrorism and Iraq, nevertheless professes ignorance when asked to estimate either the financial or human costs of the war.

At any rate, while the economy contracts and the environment — what's left of it — goes to hell, Americans can amuse themselves watching the caped crusader bring the blessings of freedom to people who define it somewhat differently than we do. Their idea of freedom is the freedom to get even with and exploit the people who were exploiting them. There is even an old Arab saying: "Do not judge me until you have lived under my successor." Not exactly an optimistic forecast.

But if Mr. Bush wishes to play poker with Clyde, that's his prerogative. Clyde, by the way, had left the police force after shooting a prisoner six times at point-blank range. It seems the prisoner took a swipe at Clyde with a straight razor, severing his necktie. Clyde, who was a large part Choctaw Indian, did not take kindly to losing a perfectly good tie. And he never lost at poker.

DanT
08-18-2005, 08:59 PM
Thanks for the link DanT...

Do you happen to have anything on the state of Iraqi infrastrructure before the war? Iowanian got into this the other night, and he seemed pretty insistent that they were drinking out of mud puddles and had sewage running out in the streets prior to their infrastructure being obliterated...

Iraq had modern facilities prior to the first Gulf War, but the war and the ensuing sanctions put those in a calamitous state of repair. Here, for example, is an Oxfam report from January, 2003, that describes some aspects of the situation prior to the 2003 invasion:

http://www.oxfam.org.uk/what_we_do/issues/conflict_disasters/iraq_disaster.htm

go bowe
08-18-2005, 09:04 PM
Taco?
...remember though, I'm responding to you. Heh. ;)responding to him???

nttawwt... :p :p :p

Taco John
08-18-2005, 09:17 PM
To defend myself against the charge that I'm racist... I think that all people are capable of governing themselves. I also believe that Democracy isn't something that can be just given without societal revolution. And to add, I don't believe our tax dollars should be spent guessing that we can force it to happen. The Monroe Doctrine kept us out of this kind of stuff for a reason.

Mr. Kotter
08-18-2005, 09:18 PM
Nice, way to go the racist route and try to cover it with a smilie.:shake::rolleyes:

Racist, are you gettin' fuggin' SENILE Jim?

He calls HIMSELF "Taco John"... ROFL

Taco John
08-18-2005, 09:24 PM
Racist, are you gettin' fuggin' SENILE Jim?

He calls HIMSELF "Taco John"... ROFL



Mmmmkay sweetheart. Run along now. Adults are talking...

Mr. Kotter
08-18-2005, 09:29 PM
Mmmmkay sweetheart. Run along now. Adults are talking...

Fine. Okay, daddy. ROFL

petegz28
08-18-2005, 09:59 PM
Timetable? SO why not jsut tell the terorrists...just wait until such and such a date then we will eb gone and you can blow up everyone then.

Taco John
08-18-2005, 10:15 PM
It's amusing to me how we are suddenly so careful about the messages we're sending.

Logical
08-18-2005, 11:38 PM
I don't have an 'opposition.' I strongly oppose Vlad on this particular point, and stand behind my characterization of the motives underlying it. Doesn't mean I think Vlad's right or wrong about any other thing, let alone EVERY other thing, until he speaks for himself.Why don't you pull up a history of my posts on the Planet showing that I am racist when it comes to the people of Iraq, how about Muslims. I have defended the Muslim faith on this BB as being no better and no worse than the Christian, Jewish, and Buddhist faiths. I don't like any organized religion but that does not make me a racist, maybe religion bigot, but not a racist. I think your shortcomings in argumentative technique on this matter are appalling, you have no decent arguement so you pull up some ad hoc argument of racism to divert attention away from your shortcoming in this arena.

Logical
08-18-2005, 11:44 PM
He thinks that an entire culture is incapable of governing themselves in a free and democratic manner.

I see no difference between than and thinking the black populace is generally incapable of holding a job.

Took the anti-admin populace about as long to forget the purple thumbs Iraqis walked miles to get as it took them to lose the facade of unity after 9/11.I said they are culturally incapable of getting along which makes a western style government impossible. The three to four sects in Iraq have been fighting amongst themselves for 100s if not 1000s of years, it is unlike you and unbecoming to misrepresent my position the way you just did.

Logical
08-18-2005, 11:49 PM
You see nothing bigoted about viewing a culture thousands of years older than yours like a little child that might grow some day to be a useful, civilized, place.
So, you're on the record that Iraqi culture is uneducated and insufficiently mature for grown up governance.
Geez, 10 minutes from inkling to confirmation.Actually what I see is a blatant cultural bigotry that you just showed that infers our culture is something superior that needs to be grown into or achieved. Now THAT is a bias.

Logical
08-19-2005, 12:02 AM
I completely and abjectly apologize. I thought you had cited Vlad's response to me, not to Kotter. Hope you can understand, as your attacks on your 'enemies' tend to look alike.
I have no idea what rep Kotter or Steve have given you, and no interest. Don't know why you'd think I'd be able to speak with authority to such a thing, either.
I thought your were accusing me of negrepping you, and if you had you'd be a liar. But in fact, you were accusing Kotter and Steve, and my lack of reading comprehension makes me an idiot. Feel free to quote me on that wherever you like.

Damn I neg rep'd you for the whole calling TJ a liar and not being willing to back it up then you go and apologize.

Good job, as soon as the BB will let me I will send some Pos rep to counter the neg.

memyselfI
08-19-2005, 06:15 AM
Still no response to my challenge to define 'when the job is done.' I'll assume that is because no one, including the Administration, has any idea WTF that truly means or what it will look like until they 'see' it...

sort of like that famous description of pornography. :shake:

Mr. Kotter
08-19-2005, 08:17 AM
Still no response to my challenge to define 'when the job is done.' I'll assume that is because no one, including the Administration, has any idea WTF that truly means or what it will look like until they 'see' it...

sort of like that famous description of pornography. :shake:

Eh....keep up. Post #119:

Like in South Vietnam?

You are neglecting the main objective: destroy and erradicate the insurgency movement to the greatest extent possible, and within reason.

You won't ever get rid of all the murdering bastards; but you can damn sure get most of 'em.

And whenever the Iraqi's themselves, as a new government tell us, "Okay, we can handle it now," THAT'S when we leave. Until then, we are doing them/we would be doing them the same disservice we did to the South Vietnamese.

If they wish, I would not be oppossed to a long term presence of say 50,000 or so in Iraq (as in S. Korea)....but that would only be at THEIR request.

Contrary to the myopic historical views of some offered here, it took a 50 year presence of hundreds of thousands of troops in Europe to ensure the success of the Marshall Plan. And we still have troops in Korea, in case some have forgotten. I'd prefer to pull out entirely at some point in the not too distant future, but we do what the new government of Iraq REQUESTS, within reason...and with the approval of Congress, of course.

In other words, when we finish the job we started.

Eye Patch
08-19-2005, 09:02 AM
I'm told that the Iraqi people aren't capable of that kind of grit and determination, to rise up and fight Saddaam's armies and claim Democracy for themselves... Should I not turn around now and call you a racist for such a position?



"I'm told"

Who told you this General Taco... do you have boots on the ground... did you find it at your favorite anti-bush blog. You are truly unbelievable... as you prance and dance around here like you have all the answers to this dynamic and complicated situation.

Let me repeat there is nobody on this board that has a complte idea what is going on over there unless you have spent some major time in and about that country… and even then you might only have a glimpse of what is really going on… and that includes me.

This is a f*cking war and nobody on this planet from the dawn of time can make completely accurate predictions, provide complete battle tactics, timelines, and see all the variables and all the political ramifications from a war while trying to form a new government at the same time. Boy that sure sounds easy…. yet General Taco thinks this is some children’s video game where you move from level to level to achieve your greatness to form his idea of success from the confines of his basement computer. WOW.

Anybody can go to any blog and find any position they wish to support to prop up their truisms to reflect whatever bias you bring to this board. We all do it.

Who here has insight to CIA and military intelligence? Do you get to see the military briefing of the Pentagon, Secretary of Defense, briefings from the president, speak to the Iraqi people, their leaders, their enemies? Of course you don’t and neither do I but I don’t going around saying I can save the Iraqi war with my brilliant intellect by parroting I want a xx/xx/xx date and the Monroe doctrine as you hold those two things up running around like a school girl saying look at me, look at me, I know how to win this war. I’m taco john… military strategist, political guru, Internet board slug, and bus boy at dennys.

Dude you are just some clown trying to prop yourself up to achieve whatever insecurities and inadcequaics you bring here which are obviously written all over you with your constant bullshit.

Just don’t get upset when you are exposed for the fool that you are… because it’s an all day job.

Taco John
08-19-2005, 09:45 AM
"I'm told"

Who told you this General Taco...


Uh, the people making the argument that Iraqis can't fight for themselves.

I'm not going to bother to read your other stuff. First off, you're a lunatic who follows me around, and I can't reward that. Secondly, you've already marginalized yourself on this forum too. See how quickly your act gets old?

Radar Chief
08-19-2005, 09:56 AM
Uh, the people making the argument that Iraqis can't fight for themselves.

Like who?

HC_Chief
08-19-2005, 10:11 AM
Secondly, you've already marginalized yourself on this forum too. See how quickly your act gets old?

HA!!! HAHAHAHAHHA!!!!!!

Mr "WAAAAH, I'm Leaving!!!" has the nerve to spout this crap to ANYONE on this site?


ROFLMAO

You really are king douchenozzle

Mr. Kotter
08-19-2005, 10:12 AM
HA!!! HAHAHAHAHHA!!!!!!

Mr "WAAAAH, I'm Leaving!!!" has the nerve to spout this crap to ANYONE on this site?



Heh....heh-heh. ROFL

Eye Patch
08-19-2005, 10:42 AM
Uh, the people making the argument that Iraqis can't fight for themselves.

I'm not going to bother to read your other stuff. First off, you're a lunatic who follows me around, and I can't reward that. Secondly, you've already marginalized yourself on this forum too. See how quickly your act gets old?

Oh… you mean the “people” who support your arguments… How convenient that was. It was a simple question for a simpleton so I figured you could at least answer that question rather than pull bullshit out of your burrito butt.

If I was to post a thread from some blog that says they can fight for themselves would that count. My guess it would not because it does not support your argument and that was the whole point of my post which obviously when over your superior intellect. Like I said you don’t debate you just rearrange your bias when you are exposed for the fraud that you are. Get it through your refried brain you don’t know nada about the world so quit pretending like you do.

Btw.. what makes you so smart… Where is your degree in geo-politics, Middle East History, or military war colleges. What branch of the service have you been to know the workings of the military, how about government jobs, have you been to Iraqi, have you ventured outside your state, how about your very own basement. What books have you written on such topics or is being some slug who runs a homer football forum is all that is needed.

Bottom line sport… you are the punch line of a joke and everybody gets it except you.

You say you won’t read my stuff because the truth about you hurts. Thanks, that proves I have wounded you deeply. I have seen your act longer than anybody on this board and I have you dialed in so you can run but you can’t hide. What a coward. Waaaaahhhh… Eye Patch follows me around… Waaaahhhhh…. You are nothing but a ping pong ball that I smack around for my enjoyment when I become bored… nothing more nothing less because it's so damn easy.

You know I can live with being a lunatic… but at least I don’t claim some kind of superiority slobbering out the answers to save the world with your bias drivel. So if that makes me a lunatic what does that make you?

Eye Patch
08-19-2005, 10:50 AM
HA!!! HAHAHAHAHHA!!!!!!

Mr "WAAAAH, I'm Leaving!!!" has the nerve to spout this crap to ANYONE on this site?


ROFLMAO

You really are king douchenozzle

Now don't tell me that Taco Jane has complained about being treated un-fairly... Oh the horror. It almost brings a tear to my one eye. Sniff.

Did he really pout about leaving?... What a rag. When you consider how he runs his board with the pussies over at the Orange Vagina Monologues this proves his hypocrisy is beyond compare. Typical taco he can dish it but he can't take it which has always been the motto of his board.

HC_Chief
08-19-2005, 10:52 AM
Orange Vagina Monologues

ROFL!

Eye Patch
08-19-2005, 11:25 AM
Secondly, you've already marginalized yourself on this forum too. See how quickly your act gets old?

I have???... gee you could have fooled me. Maybe I should post all of the positive reps I get when I expose you for the fool that you are. Seems you have been marginalized here because maybe... must maybe your act is old. Ya think?

Typical taco there is reality and than there is you.

Step back, take a deep breath, and pull you're head out of your chalupa ass.

memyselfI
08-19-2005, 12:34 PM
Eh....keep up. Post #119:





So, the most powerful nation in the WORLD cannot eradicate an insurgency or even successfully wage a WOT and we expect the Iraqis to be able to do so... :hmmm:

Mr. Kotter
08-19-2005, 12:39 PM
So, the most powerful nation in the WORLD cannot eradicate an insurgency or even successfully wage a WOT and we expect the Iraqis to be able to do so... :hmmm:

Patience, child....we are in the midst of that eradication, presently. It may take a while, and it may be costly. But the ends justify the means, in the eyes of many of us. The Marshall Plan and South Korea required patience though.

Unless subversive types like you convince Americans it can't be "won"--in at least the sense the bad guys didn't win (like in Korea, Serbia, etc). If you subversives succeed, then cowardly politicians won't have the spine, courage, or political committment to finish the job....and you and yours will have won. :shake:

go bowe
08-19-2005, 12:44 PM
subversive?

how 'bout seditious?

or maybe treasonable?

or is "subversive" the new term for commie pinko liberal whackjob?

i just love the way you use words...

so creative and yet functional... :thumb:

Eye Patch
08-19-2005, 12:52 PM
So, the most powerful nation in the WORLD cannot eradicate an insurgency or even successfully wage a WOT and we expect the Iraqis to be able to do so... :hmmm:

I believe it was 7 years for both Germany and Japan before we pulled U.S troops out and I don't think they were blowing up their own women and children while we were there.

Mr. Kotter
08-19-2005, 01:16 PM
subversive?

how 'bout seditious?

or maybe treasonable?

or is "subversive" the new term for commie pinko liberal whackjob?

i just love the way you use words...

so creative and yet functional... :thumb:

Thanks. :D

Subversive AND Seditious, from where I sit. Heh.

Treasonable? Not yet, probably....as soon as we have a "declared war" though, I'll be calling for a Grand Jury. Heh.