PDA

View Full Version : Saving face in Iraq is pretty simple if the powers that be want to do it.


CHIEF4EVER
07-14-2007, 09:43 AM
Try issuing a press release stating the following to the worldwide press:

We have freed Iraq and have attempted for YEARS to give the freely elected Iraqi government the opportunity to pass legislation that will heal the wounds in their land. Unfortunately, the patience we have shown and the sacrifices we have made have been taken for granted by the same government and they are unwilling to put aside their differences and pass legislation that will bring peace to their land. Likewise, they have refused to disarm the militias which are fomenting violence in their own country. In light of the situation previously described, the United States of America is no longer willing to provide assistance to a government that is unwilling to help itself or pass laws to ensure peace and lawful tranquility. We have won the war, Saddam is gone. However, the winning of the peace is up to the people of Iraq. It is time for the people of Iraq to take their liberty into their own hands. As of today, the lions share of American troops are going to begin returning to the United States or to Afghanistan to continue the fight against our REAL enemy - AL Quaeda and the Taliban.

patteeu
07-14-2007, 09:59 AM
Looking for a way to save face is something only losers do (edit: I just re-read this and it sounds like I'm calling you a loser, but I'm not. I'm saying that saving face is a poor substitute for victory). Personally, I'm not ready to give up in Iraq and I have a hard time understanding what, other than domestic political pressure, would lead former advocates of victory over to the other side even as so many promising developments have begun to occur under our surge strategy.

Is it really that surprising that the Iraqi government is having trouble with some of their contentious issues? Our own Congress is paralyzed with gridlock and we don't have car bombs blowing up our markets.

Our strategy has, for perhaps the first time, had an impact on bringing Sunni leaders who had been sympathetic to the insurgency into alliance with our military against the common enemy of al Qaeda. We need to build on this progress in order to foster the kind of trust between the Shia, Kurds, and Sunnis that will make a political settlement of the most contentious issues possible. In the meantime we should be encouraging partial steps in that direction even if a final solution to some of those problems is not within immediate reach.

CHIEF4EVER
07-14-2007, 10:15 AM
Looking for a way to save face is something only losers do (edit: I just re-read this and it sounds like I'm calling you a loser, but I'm not. I'm saying that saving face is a poor substitute for victory). Personally, I'm not ready to give up in Iraq and I have a hard time understanding what, other than domestic political pressure, would lead former advocates of victory over to the other side even as so many promising developments have begun to occur under our surge strategy.

You should know me well enough by now Pat and if you do you know that I am no defeatist or liberal. I am not criticizing this effed up engagement because of some morons' article in the New York Times, I am criticizing it because of the idiocy of continuing our current course. They are playing us for fools Pat. They smile to our faces and stab us in the back. If they aren't ready to secure their own country, then let the chips fall where they may. F*CK THEM. I am sick and tired of their excuses. They have had YEARS to get this done.

Bowser
07-14-2007, 10:17 AM
You should know me well enough by now Pat and if you do you know that I am no defeatist or liberal. I am not criticizing this effed up engagement because of some morons' article in the New York Times, I am criticizing it because of the idiocy of continuing our current course. They are playing us for fools Pat. They smile to our faces and stab us in the back. If they aren't ready to secure their own country, then let the chips fall where they may. F*CK THEM. I am sick and tired of their excuses. They have had YEARS to get this done.

Good for you, C4E.

banyon
07-14-2007, 10:18 AM
Wow, even Chief4ever has seen the light. We must be under 30% now.

banyon
07-14-2007, 10:20 AM
You should know me well enough by now Pat and if you do you know that I am no defeatist or liberal. I am not criticizing this effed up engagement because of some morons' article in the New York Times, I am criticizing it because of the idiocy of continuing our current course. They are playing us for fools Pat. They smile to our faces and stab us in the back. If they aren't ready to secure their own country, then let the chips fall where they may. F*CK THEM. I am sick and tired of their excuses. They have had YEARS to get this done.

Nope. Sorry. If you disagree you are with us now, the terrorist liberal defeatists who only wish ill to our troops. :)

patteeu
07-14-2007, 10:22 AM
You should know me well enough by now Pat and if you do you know that I am no defeatist or liberal. I am not criticizing this effed up engagement because of some morons' article in the New York Times, I am criticizing it because of the idiocy of continuing our current course. They are playing us for fools Pat. They smile to our faces and stab us in the back. If they aren't ready to secure their own country, then let the chips fall where they may. F*CK THEM. I am sick and tired of their excuses. They have had YEARS to get this done.

We are there, first and foremost, for us not for them.

I think our country should consider whether it's time for a change of course as part of our national elections in 2008. There are plenty of candidates running for President that represent changes of course ranging from limited withdrawal from the Iraqi capital to complete withdrawal to a neo-isolationism that would have us withdraw from the entire region.

BucEyedPea
07-14-2007, 10:22 AM
Iraq has neither been won or lost. It just is what it is.
Those framing this in the two valued logic mold of black and white....see the result as a loss. Only the delusional neocons in the WH still think a victory, as they see it, but which has never been defined openly, is achievable, being the hegemons that they are.

Jenson71
07-14-2007, 10:24 AM
Many Iraqis however, are still not happy about everything and feel the U.S. needs to do more.

BucEyedPea
07-14-2007, 10:25 AM
There are no neo-isolationists running.
Only one who will take troops off their lands ala Ronald Reagan....ya' know like before PGWI when we were still getting oil and just using ships to police the area.

Bowser
07-14-2007, 10:28 AM
We are there, first and foremost, for us not for them.



Perhaps that is why we have failed, and why they want us out.

BucEyedPea
07-14-2007, 10:30 AM
Perhaps that is why we have failed, and why they want us out.
Excellent Point! Rep! :thumb:

CHIEF4EVER
07-14-2007, 10:30 AM
We are there, first and foremost, for us not for them.

True Pat, but we have nothing left to gain. Those dickheads REFUSE to pass legislation that will bring peace. The seem to WANT a civil war. Fine. Let them fight it.

I think our country should consider whether it's time for a change of course as part of our national elections in 2008. There are plenty of candidates running for President that represent changes of course ranging from limited withdrawal from the Iraqi capital to complete withdrawal to a neo-isolationism that would have us withdraw from the entire region.

Yep. I am voting for the conservative candidate who advocates withdrawal from Iraq. Whoever that may be.

patteeu
07-14-2007, 10:33 AM
There are no neo-isolationists running.
Only one who will take troops off their lands ala Ronald Reagan....ya' know like before PGWI when we were still getting oil and just using ships to police the area.

I was referring to Ron Paul, of course.

BucEyedPea
07-14-2007, 10:41 AM
The seem to WANT a civil war. Fine. Let them fight it.

This is a Ronald Reagan Moment!

"Perhaps we didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the Marines' safety that it should have. In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believed the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 Marines would be alive today."-- Ronald Reagan's Autobiography

BucEyedPea
07-14-2007, 10:44 AM
I was referring to Ron Paul, of course.
I know you were. But he's not a neo-isolationist. He even says he hates that word. You have a wrong definition unless you just like newspeak. :p

CHIEF4EVER
07-14-2007, 10:45 AM
This is a Ronald Reagan Moment!

A great quote from a great leader. Where TF are the Reagan and Kennedy types now when we need them?

patteeu
07-14-2007, 11:06 AM
I know you were. But he's not a neo-isolationist. He even says he hates that word. You have a wrong definition unless you just like newspeak. :p

I don't recall Paul ever commenting on the word "neo-isolationist." In fact, I made it up specifically to cater to those of you who were afraid of being confused with old fashioned isolationists.

Of course, Paul would like to be called a non-interventionist, but I'm afraid his extreme non-interventionism would be confused with the non-interventionism I favor.

Adept Havelock
07-14-2007, 11:11 AM
A great quote from a great leader. Where TF are the Reagan and Kennedy types now when we need them?

Indeed, Chief4ever...indeed. :banghead:

The cartoon on this cover said it all to me long ago...which is why I picked it up out of the bargain bin.
.

BucEyedPea
07-14-2007, 11:14 AM
I don't recall Paul ever commenting on the word "neo-isolationist." In fact, I made it up specifically to cater to those of you who were afraid of being confused with old fashioned isolationists.
When did you pick up the psych degree?
It has nothing to do with fear, it has to do with feeling it doesn't reflect our views because it conjures up the idea of a hermit country. Now we've had this debate before as well. Ron Paul has commented on the word "isolationist" despite your adding the "neo" to it which just means new. It isn't new. Pauls' comments on it were posted in RedDread's thread with a You Tube of the Stephanopolus interview, as well as in another YouTube in another Paul thread.

Of course, Paul would like to be called a non-interventionist, but I'm afraid his extreme non-interventionism would be confused with the non-interventionism I favor.
What's extreme to one is rational in another. The NC point of view is considered extreme to a greater majority of Americans right now. This is the camp you're in. That's what matters more than what any Pre-Emptivist thinks.

There are three main divisions among conservatives on FP: realist (Baker camp) what is deemed isolationist but really isn't (is non interventionist) and the NeoConservative hegemonic pre-emptivist pov. I'm between a non-interventionist and the realist camp. I absolutely hold no cards in the NC camp.
You're in the NC camp or the extreme camp on this war. You may not say it's for democracy, but it's just semantic cover with these guys.

BTW, WWII and the Cold War are over. So for you, a free introductory 45 minutes on the couch to bring you back to reality.

Logical
07-14-2007, 02:54 PM
You should know me well enough by now Pat and if you do you know that I am no defeatist or liberal. I am not criticizing this effed up engagement because of some morons' article in the New York Times, I am criticizing it because of the idiocy of continuing our current course. They are playing us for fools Pat. They smile to our faces and stab us in the back. If they aren't ready to secure their own country, then let the chips fall where they may. F*CK THEM. I am sick and tired of their excuses. They have had YEARS to get this done.No matter what the reason I am happy you have come to the right conclusion. Excellent thread post.

CHIEF4EVER
07-14-2007, 03:18 PM
No matter what the reason I am happy you have come to the right conclusion. Excellent thread post.

Thanks Jim. I am quite simply sick and tired of the effing excuses for failure. We won the war. Let these f*cks win the peace on their own time, and at their leisure. If they want to kill each other in the name of extremism, so be it. I am tired of footing the bill for people who aren't interested in fighting tyrants for their freedom. Freedom isn't free. The sooner those idiots realize that, the sooner they will be free.

CHIEF4EVER
07-14-2007, 04:18 PM
Indeed, Chief4ever...indeed. :banghead:

The cartoon on this cover said it all to me long ago...which is why I picked it up out of the bargain bin.
.

Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mindů And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded with patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader, and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."

-Julius Caesar-

Bowser
07-14-2007, 04:33 PM
Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mindů And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded with patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader, and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."

-Julius Caesar-

www.whywefight.com

CHIEF4EVER
07-14-2007, 04:37 PM
www.whywefight.com (http://www.whywefight.com)
I couldn't watch the video because I live out in the boonies and don't have broadband, only dial up. Can you tell me what it was please?

Bowser
07-14-2007, 04:51 PM
I couldn't watch the video because I live out in the boonies and don't have broadband, only dial up. Can you tell me what it was please?

It's a documentary about modern day America based off of the speech President Eisenhower gave about the "American Military Industrial Complex". It's not a partisan blast from one side to the other, but a straight forward documentary about how war is considered big business in today's America, and how we have built a world wide empire since the end of WWII. An excellent film, a real eye opener.

Mr. Laz
07-14-2007, 04:53 PM
OIL


if we were to just 'wash our hands' of the situation then i doubt whatever payments the Iraqi's have agreed to give us for the war in oil would be gone.

..... and i doubt they would be anxious to make any oil deals with us in the future.

CHIEF4EVER
07-14-2007, 04:56 PM
It's a documentary about modern day America based off of the speech President Eisenhower gave about the "American Military Industrial Complex". It's not a partisan blast from one side to the other, but a straight forward documentary about how war is considered big business in today's America, and how we have built a world wide empire since the end of WWII. An excellent film, a real eye opener.

I wish i could watch it. :banghead:

penchief
07-14-2007, 06:39 PM
Looking for a way to save face is something only losers do.

'Saving face' is a term reserved for when you do something wrong or embarassing and have to backtrack or make a concession out of necessity that you were previously unwilling to make. It has nothing to do with us or anybody else being losers. By painting it that way you're only trying to influence the debate in a base and meaningless way by challenging our pride when our humility is more appropriate.

Personally, I'm not ready to give up in Iraq and I have a hard time understanding what, other than domestic political pressure, would lead former advocates of victory over to the other side even as so many promising developments have begun to occur under our surge strategy.

The thing that is leading former advocates of victory over to the side of practicality and pragmatism is this administration's ideological adherance to a lethel recipe. It was a bad recipe to begin with and this administration insists on feeding us the posion as if it were going to suddenly transform into an elixir.

Is it really that surprising that the Iraqi government is having trouble with some of their contentious issues? Our own Congress is paralyzed with gridlock and we don't have car bombs blowing up our markets.

What a silly analogy, imo. Their issues are nothing like ours. It took a dictator to keep them from blowing each other up. Our dalliances in that part of the world have been the biggest part of our own problem. Our congress is paralyzed mainly because of the manufactured partisanship and divisiveness that the Bush Administration has created and thrives on. The Iraqi government is a puppet of the Bush Administration. And since the Bush Administration's world view will never jibe with that part of the world, we are only making our own situation worse.

Our strategy has, for perhaps the first time, had an impact on bringing Sunni leaders who had been sympathetic to the insurgency into alliance with our military against the common enemy of al Qaeda. We need to build on this progress in order to foster the kind of trust between the Shia, Kurds, and Sunnis that will make a political settlement of the most contentious issues possible. In the meantime we should be encouraging partial steps in that direction even if a final solution to some of those problems is not within immediate reach.

You act as if al-Qaeda in Iraq is a wing of the bin-Laden faction. What proof do you have? al-Qaeda in Iraq is so insignificant compared to the other factors creating chaos in that country. To make al-Qaeda out to be the problem is to ignore the facts (you are just like Bush in that regard). While there are three of four elements that are far more pertinent to the problems that exist for us in Iraq, you continue to harp on al-Qaeda as if the American people still believed that was the reason we invaded and occupied a country that did nothing to harm our own sovereignty in the first place.

Logical
07-14-2007, 07:52 PM
Thanks Jim. I am quite simply sick and tired of the effing excuses for failure. We won the war. Let these f*cks win the peace on their own time, and at their leisure. If they want to kill each other in the name of extremism, so be it. I am tired of footing the bill for people who aren't interested in fighting tyrants for their freedom. Freedom isn't free. The sooner those idiots realize that, the sooner they will be free.

Amen

Bowser
07-14-2007, 10:48 PM
I wish i could watch it. :banghead:

Trailer....


<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/gf1CDmn8q0M"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/gf1CDmn8q0M" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Ugly Duck
07-14-2007, 10:51 PM
You should know me well enough by now Pat and if you do you know that I am no defeatist or liberal. I am not criticizing this effed up engagement because of some morons' article in the New York Times, I am criticizing it because of the idiocy of continuing our current course. They are playing us for fools Pat. They smile to our faces and stab us in the back. If they aren't ready to secure their own country, then let the chips fall where they may. F*CK THEM. I am sick and tired of their excuses. They have had YEARS to get this done.

Excellent post, well put & non-partisan.

patteeu
07-15-2007, 09:37 AM
'Saving face' is a term reserved for when you do something wrong or embarassing and have to backtrack or make a concession out of necessity that you were previously unwilling to make. It has nothing to do with us or anybody else being losers. By painting it that way you're only trying to influence the debate in a base and meaningless way by challenging our pride when our humility is more appropriate.

Saving face is something that wouldn't be a consideration for anyone who was planning on winning. I know you don't like to face the reality of your position, but you and many others have been advocating for US failure in Iraq for quite some time whether you like it or not.

patteeu
07-15-2007, 09:41 AM
What a silly analogy, imo. Their issues are nothing like ours. It took a dictator to keep them from blowing each other up. Our dalliances in that part of the world have been the biggest part of our own problem. Our congress is paralyzed mainly because of the manufactured partisanship and divisiveness that the Bush Administration has created and thrives on. The Iraqi government is a puppet of the Bush Administration. And since the Bush Administration's world view will never jibe with that part of the world, we are only making our own situation worse.

You call it a silly analogy and then you proceed to demonstrate why it's so meaningful. As you correctly suggest, our political problems are child's play compared to those of the various factions in Iraq. Nonetheless, our Congress finds itself in gridlock over relatively minor political differences. Is it really any surprise that political unity and compromise are in short supply in Iraq?

patteeu
07-15-2007, 09:47 AM
You act as if al-Qaeda in Iraq is a wing of the bin-Laden faction. What proof do you have? al-Qaeda in Iraq is so insignificant compared to the other factors creating chaos in that country. To make al-Qaeda out to be the problem is to ignore the facts (you are just like Bush in that regard). While there are three of four elements that are far more pertinent to the problems that exist for us in Iraq, you continue to harp on al-Qaeda as if the American people still believed that was the reason we invaded and occupied a country that did nothing to harm our own sovereignty in the first place.

It *is* a wing of the bin Laden faction, but it doesn't matter whether it is or not. Proof of the relationship can be found in the intercepted communications between the two and in the taped statements by AQ's Zawahiri. Either way, it's a branch of the radical islamist movement that we are fighting in the GWoT.

None of the other elements pertinent to the problems that exist for us in Iraq change the fact that we are fighting, not only radical islamists there, but AQ itself.

banyon
07-15-2007, 09:53 AM
It *is* a wing of the bin Laden faction, but it doesn't matter whether it is or not. Proof of the relationship can be found in the intercepted communications between the two and in the taped statements by AQ's Zawahiri. Either way, it's a branch of the radical islamist movement that we are fighting in the GWoT.

None of the other elements pertinent to the problems that exist for us in Iraq change the fact that we are fighting, not only radical islamists there, but AQ itself.

It's precisely this sort of black or white tunnelvision thinking that got us here in the first place. If you're fighting us in Iraq, then the only explanation is that you are with the terrorists.

In reality, there are a variety of reasons insurgents are resisting us, the main one being that we are an occupying force and not that they want to swear allegiance to Bin Laden. Once we are gone, the 2-4% of Al Qaeda foreign fighters will be too, and if Iraqis still have something to fight about, it probably won't be about us anymore.

patteeu
07-15-2007, 10:12 AM
It's precisely this sort of black or white tunnelvision thinking that got us here in the first place. If you're fighting us in Iraq, then the only explanation is that you are with the terrorists.

In reality, there are a variety of reasons insurgents are resisting us, the main one being that we are an occupying force and not that they want to swear allegiance to Bin Laden. Once we are gone, the 2-4% of Al Qaeda foreign fighters will be too, and if Iraqis still have something to fight about, it probably won't be about us anymore.

I'm not employing black and white tunnelvision, and your own analysis confirms that you agree with my allegation that AQ is present. We are fighting AQ in Iraq even if we may also be fighting other brands of insurgents at times. I was responding to a specific statement focusing on AQ in Iraq.

I don't know where you get your numbers, but it's not really important whether they are accurate or not. The fact that there is a continuing, significant presence of not only AQ, but of radical shia islamists is enough to justify our continued presence, IMO. Is it your view that only 2-4% of the car bombings of civilians are carried out by AQ in Iraq and it's allies? I doubt that that's the case, but I don't know of any reliable numbers for any of these things. And our new strategy has shown some success in efforts to split the insurgency and bring the sunni nationalists into an anti-AQ coalition.

banyon
07-15-2007, 10:33 AM
I'm not employing black and white tunnelvision, and your own analysis confirms that you agree with my allegation that AQ is present. We are fighting AQ in Iraq even if we may also be fighting other brands of insurgents at times. I was responding to a specific statement focusing on AQ in Iraq.

I don't know where you get your numbers, but it's not really important whether they are accurate or not. The fact that there is a continuing, significant presence of not only AQ, but of radical shia islamists is enough to justify our continued presence, IMO. Is it your view that only 2-4% of the car bombings of civilians are carried out by AQ in Iraq and it's allies? I doubt that that's the case, but I don't know of any reliable numbers for any of these things. And our new strategy has shown some success in efforts to split the insurgency and bring the sunni nationalists into an anti-AQ coalition.

This is the best source I can find. Pg. 27.

http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf

There are radical islamists throughout the ME. Does that mean that our presence would be justified in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, The Sudan, Syria, Lebanon, Pakistan, and even India or Indonesia? What makes Iraq so special aother that it's our clusterf*** and it has some oil (which can be said of other countries on this list too)?

StcChief
07-15-2007, 10:36 AM
US will have a significant presence in ME for quite a while.

patteeu
07-15-2007, 11:23 AM
This is the best source I can find. Pg. 27.

http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf

There are radical islamists throughout the ME. Does that mean that our presence would be justified in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, The Sudan, Syria, Lebanon, Pakistan, and even India or Indonesia? What makes Iraq so special aother that it's our clusterf*** and it has some oil (which can be said of other countries on this list too)?

Yes, I think we'd be justified to hunt our enemies in any of those countries if we aren't getting enough cooperation out of those governments. I'd imagine that we have a military or paramilitary presence of some sort in several of those countries now. Having said that, that certainly doesn't mean we have to invade or even hunt our enemies in all of those places. Each situation deserves unique analysis as well as a comprehensive analysis of how much we can handle at any given time.

What makes Iraq special now is that we've already committed and a big part of the GWoT is psychological. As some Bush critics are fond of pointing out, we can't kill everyone who is or may become a radical islamist without going to near genocidal lengths. What we need to be able to do is to discourage this lifestyle choice (for lack of a better phrase). While our occupation is an encouragement to jihad, leaving Iraq would be an even greater encouragement. Winning in Iraq would be a discouragement. IMO, we have a vital national interest in showing radical islamists that we can't be defeated by merely bleeding us for (a paltry, by comparison to previous wars,) 3,500 lives and in showing those who would step up to work with us, both governments and individuals, that they need not fear being abandoned.

It was special at the time of our invasion because Saddam was already an international pariah with whom we had a not-quite-resolved relationship (including his belligerence against our no-fly zone aircraft), his regime was not one that was going to generate a lot of sympathy among our allies, his military was weak, he was a catalyst for instability between Israel and the palestinians, and his country was in a strategically important location.

P.S. Thanks for the link, I'm downloading it now. I wasn't doubting that you had a source for your numbers though, I'm just skeptical that anyone really has a very good handle on the proportional make-up of the insurgency, and more importantly, how the proportion of violent acts relates to the proportion of people involved.

P.S.S. I'm assuming you are getting your number by comparing the "foreign fighter" estimates with the overall insurgency strength estimates. I'd suggest that you don't have to be foreign to be AQ, an AQ associate, or some other brand of radical islamist.

Ultra Peanut
07-15-2007, 11:27 AM
'Saving face' is a term reserved for when you do something wrong or embarassing and have to backtrack or make a concession out of necessity that you were previously unwilling to make.But this hasn't been a mistake at all!

banyon
07-15-2007, 11:36 AM
a big part of the GWoT is psychological.

Truer words were never spoken.

While our occupation is an encouragement to jihad, leaving Iraq would be an even greater encouragement.


Oft-claimed, rarely shown to be accurate historically. People need reasons to be motivated. Our occupation provides more motivation than Iraqis have ever had to despise us. Leaving/significantly scaling down would mean this motivation would wane over time, and there aren't any motivations nearly as compelling.

Winning in Iraq would be a discouragement. Neither you nor the Bush Administration can explain what this means in any specific, achievable way. As such, it's really just a slogan that shouldn't define our policy objectives.


It was special at the time of our invasion because Saddam was already an international pariah with whom we had a not-quite-resolved relationship (including his belligerence against our no-fly zone aircraft), his regime was not one that was going to generate a lot of sympathy among our allies, his military was weak, he was a catalyst for instability between Israel and the palestinians, and his country was in a strategically important location.

Yes, there were easy targets to hit unlike in Afghanistan, as Rumsfield explained in the strategy session in the pre-war build up. "Because it's easy" should not ever be a guiding principle of war.

Ultra Peanut
07-15-2007, 11:55 AM
Why not just act like WWE did with the Mr. McMahon storyline? **** continuity. Just refer to the "global War on Terror" as the "global War on al-Qaeda" from now on, and solely focus on crushing what's left of them like the cockroaches they are.

penchief
07-15-2007, 12:26 PM
But this hasn't been a mistake at all!

I was pointing out to patteeu that saving face is not the same as losing. Yes, we do have to save face but no, we don't have to accept his definition of it as losing. Right now we are losing. Correcting our course in Iraq can only minimize the damage instead of watching it get worse.

What is happening in Iraq could have easily been avoided. We have made a major mess of things and we have to own up to it if we are going to regain any semblance of our former self. Denial and delay are not the ways to do that, IMO. If we don't make an attempt to salvage this war honestly, we're going to continue digging a deeper hole for ourselves. And we'll just continue to drive a wedge between the rest of the world and the U.S, imo.

Ultra Peanut
07-15-2007, 12:37 PM
Stay the course! Don't cut and run!

Logical
07-15-2007, 02:18 PM
I notice patteeu did not address CHIEF4EVER's excellent post.

patteeu
07-16-2007, 06:17 AM
Oft-claimed, rarely shown to be accurate historically. People need reasons to be motivated. Our occupation provides more motivation than Iraqis have ever had to despise us. Leaving/significantly scaling down would mean this motivation would wane over time, and there aren't any motivations nearly as compelling.

I'm just repeating the consensus of our intelligence community. As for historical examples, the islamist "victories" over the Soviets in Afghanistan, the US in Somolia, and the US on 9/11 come to mind.

Neither you nor the Bush Administration can explain what this means in any specific, achievable way. As such, it's really just a slogan that shouldn't define our policy objectives.

That's nonsense. It's been explained over and over. We are trying to establish a stable, democratic government that can defend itself and that will be an ally in the GWoT.

Yes, there were easy targets to hit unlike in Afghanistan, as Rumsfield explained in the strategy session in the pre-war build up. "Because it's easy" should not ever be a guiding principle of war.

"Because it's easy" was never a guiding principle for this war. It was a factor among many.

patteeu
07-16-2007, 06:21 AM
I notice patteeu did not address CHIEF4EVER's excellent post.

To which C4E post are you referring?

Ugly Duck
07-16-2007, 07:40 AM
To which C4E post are you referring?

Originally Posted by CHIEF4EVER:

You should know me well enough by now Pat and if you do you know that I am no defeatist or liberal. I am not criticizing this effed up engagement because of some morons' article in the New York Times, I am criticizing it because of the idiocy of continuing our current course. They are playing us for fools Pat. They smile to our faces and stab us in the back. If they aren't ready to secure their own country, then let the chips fall where they may. F*CK THEM. I am sick and tired of their excuses. They have had YEARS to get this done.

patteeu
07-16-2007, 11:47 AM
Originally Posted by CHIEF4EVER:

You should know me well enough by now Pat and if you do you know that I am no defeatist or liberal. I am not criticizing this effed up engagement because of some morons' article in the New York Times, I am criticizing it because of the idiocy of continuing our current course. They are playing us for fools Pat. They smile to our faces and stab us in the back. If they aren't ready to secure their own country, then let the chips fall where they may. F*CK THEM. I am sick and tired of their excuses. They have had YEARS to get this done.

What am I supposed to respond to? He's got an opinion. I don't agree with it.

Here, how about this: I don't think he has a very good reason for embracing surrender and looking for face saving opportunities. Is that better?

memyselfI
07-16-2007, 11:50 AM
Forget saving face. How about saving lives?

I'm glad that you are coming around on the issue but the delay in getting to this point has cost lives. And there are still 28% of the sheeple in this country who believe saving face is WORTH losing lives.

CHIEF4EVER
07-16-2007, 05:29 PM
What am I supposed to respond to? He's got an opinion. I don't agree with it.

Here, how about this: I don't think he has a very good reason for embracing surrender and looking for face saving opportunities. Is that better?

What "surrender" bro? We won the war 4+ years ago. We have since been the glorified Iraqi Police Force while those who are supposed to be passing legislation to reconcile the 3 factions in that country have not only failed to do so, they feel like it is time for a vacation from getting nothing done. WTH is that all about? So we should just stay and fight their battles for them while they are unwilling to compromise on solutions that would end the division and violence in their own country? Their own people don't want us to leave because they know the chaos that will ensue if we do under the current circumstances. Yet the Iraqi Parliament is unwilling to put off their vacation long enough to hammer out some deals that could potentially lead to peace. Sorry Pat, I can no longer go along with our involvement under those circumstances. Time for Maliki and the Iraqi Parliament to sack up and get some things done.

KC Dan
07-16-2007, 05:33 PM
What "surrender" bro? We won the war 4+ years ago. We have since been the glorified Iraqi Police Force while those who are supposed to be passing legislation to reconcile the 3 factions in that country have not only failed to do so, they feel like it is time for a vacation from getting nothing done. WTH is that all about? So we should just stay and fight their battles for them while they are unwilling to compromise on solutions that would end the division and violence in their own country? Their own people don't want us to leave because they know the chaos that will ensue if we do under the current circumstances. Yet the Iraqi Parliament is unwilling to put off their vacation long enough to hammer out some deals that could potentially lead to peace. Sorry Pat, I can no longer go along with our involvement under those circumstances. Time for Maliki and the Iraqi Parliament to sack up and get some things done.
even though you are a ManU fan, I must agree with you... But, I disagree with a full and complete pull out because when all hell breaks loose, we WILL have to step in later or let the Bin Laden's have another Afghanistan. A drawdown with a pull back out of Baghdad is more palatable to me.

CHIEF4EVER
07-16-2007, 07:27 PM
even though you are a ManU fan, I must agree with you... But, I disagree with a full and complete pull out because when all hell breaks loose, we WILL have to step in later or let the Bin Laden's have another Afghanistan. A drawdown with a pull back out of Baghdad is more palatable to me.

A pullback to WHERE Dan? I guess I am unclear as to your vision on this matter. I can see the drawdown and a limited presence in the area. But where is the limited presence to be? Kuwait? Saudi? An 'over the horizon' presence of Airborne units and Marines say in Diego Garcia and aboard Task Force ships respectively? Playing Devils' Advocate for a moment, if we pull back to Anbar we will be viewed as Sunni sympathizers. If we pull back to Basra then we are suddenly viewed as supporting the Shia. If in the North, we are viewed as siding with the Kurds (not to mention the logistics would be a nightmare). Just throwing that out there.

Mr. Kotter
07-16-2007, 08:53 PM
Nice spin. But it is still spin, even in it's...in essence....pretty true.

Bush's rhetoric has penned him in. He's made the bed, now he'll have to lie in it.

No way the opponents of war or Bush-haters allow it to fly though. :shake:

CHIEF4EVER
07-16-2007, 09:04 PM
Nice spin. But it is still spin, even in it's...in essence....pretty true.

Bush's rhetoric has penned him in. He's made the bed, now he'll have to lie in it.

No way the opponents of war or Bush-haters allow it to fly though. :shake:

Are you referring to the suggestion I made as to how to bow out gracefully?

Mr. Kotter
07-16-2007, 09:07 PM
Are you referring to the suggestion I made as to how to bow out gracefully?

Yeah. The thread starter.

CHIEF4EVER
07-16-2007, 09:11 PM
Yeah. The thread starter. If everyone or most everyone gets what they want, why not?

Mr. Kotter
07-16-2007, 09:30 PM
If everyone or most everyone gets what they want, why not?

Personally, I'm convinced this is what will happen...kind of a expedited "Vietnamization" of Iraq, due to the urgency brought by 2008 elections and the lack of popular support for the war.

The "why not"...is because.... it will be hard for Bush to declare any kind of political, or military, victory....in light of his rhetoric.

Once again, I think it IS the way to go, given how things have played out. I just don't think the WH is ready to take the political hit that will come with it.

dirk digler
07-16-2007, 09:34 PM
Personally, I'm convinced this is what will happen...kind of a expedited "Vietnamization" of Iraq, due to the urgency brought by 2008 elections and the lack of popular support for the war.

The "why not"...is because.... it will be hard for Bush to declare any kind of political, or military, victory....in light of his rhetoric.

Once again, I think it IS the way to go, given how things have played out. I just don't think the WH is ready to take the political hit that will come with it.

I don't think the WH gives a flying **** what kind of political hit they take for anything they do. I think Bush is sincere when he says he doesn't worry or care about polls or public opinion.

Too bad for the Republicans because he is going to drag that party down with him and they are going to get slaughtered in 08.

BTW CHIEF4EVER I totally agree with your post. If they aren't willing to stand up and fight then **** em.

Mr. Kotter
07-16-2007, 09:40 PM
I don't think the WH gives a flying **** what kind of political hit they take for anything they do. I think Bush is sincere when he says he doesn't worry or care about polls or public opinion.

Too bad for the Republicans because he is going to drag that party down with him and they are going to get slaughtered in 08.

BTW CHIEF4EVER I totally agree with your post. If they aren't willing to stand up and fight then **** em.

If it comes to that, the Republican party....will lube him up and bend him over, with self-warming KY "cherry flavored" lube....and they will make him squeal like a pig. I'm sure that warms a corner of your heart.... ;)

Seriously, they will begin to over-ride his vetoes....and he will, TRULY, become an Emporer with No Clothes, at that point. They'll be covering their OWN asses, out of political survival. You watch. At that point, if he rebuffs the inevitable trip to the WH by Republican leadership warning him of their mutiny....he will deserve what he gets.

:shake:

You watch. It will play out, pretty much as I have described. I'd bet on it.

dirk digler
07-16-2007, 09:53 PM
If it comes to that, the Republican party....will lube him up and bend him over, with self-warming KY "cherry flavored" lube....and they will make him squeal like a pig. I'm sure that warms a corner of your heart.... ;)

Seriously, they will begin to over-ride his vetoes....and he will, TRULY, become an Emporer with No Clothes, at that point. They'll be covering their OWN asses, out of political survival. You watch. At that point, if he rebuffs the inevitable trip to the WH by Republican leadership warning him of their mutiny....he will deserve what he gets.

:shake:

You watch. It will play out, pretty much as I have described. I'd bet on it.

Well so far they are pretty much sticking with him which I can't quite figure out. I mean all they have to do is look at McCain who's campaign is on life support for supporting Bush on immigration and Iraq.

Dems are absolutely killing Republicans in raising money.

They better wise up fast if they want to compete.

Mr. Kotter
07-16-2007, 10:04 PM
Well so far they are pretty much sticking with him which I can't quite figure out. I mean all they have to do is look at McCain who's campaign is on life support for supporting Bush on immigration and Iraq.

Dems are absolutely killing Republicans in raising money.

They better wise up fast if they want to compete.

Dems killing Reps in raising money? Heh. The Reps could SHIT the difference....TOMORROW....if they really wanted to/needed to....or had a candidate they could coalesce around (obligatory Fred Thompson reference... ;) )...so that means little or nothing, at this point IMO. They are "holding their fire".....waiting for the 'whites of the eyes' of the enemy (Hillary, or Obama.)

They'll wise up, just in time. Watch. :)

penchief
07-17-2007, 05:53 PM
Dems killing Reps in raising money? Heh. The Reps could SHIT the difference....TOMORROW

No shit. Couldn't agree more.

They'll wise up, just in time. Watch. :)

I have no doubt. The ruling class is not a bunch of dummies. They'll hedge their bet the best way they can.