PDA

View Full Version : Why can't we just cut bait and leave Iraq?


BigRedChief
07-22-2007, 05:40 PM
Just declare victory. Our goal was to remove Saddam and we did that. We say........It's a civil war now and none of our business.

Democracy will not work in Iraq. It won't be given a chance. We can't make them like us. The majority of the people in the Middle East hate us. Fuk em.

If the conservative master of foreign policy and current political god of the conservatiuve right, Regan can get us into a civil war in Lebanon. He then gets a bunch of marines killed trying to do the right thing. If Regan was smart enough to cut bait and bring the troops home why cant Bush?

|Zach|
07-22-2007, 05:42 PM
Just give it some more time...

|Zach|
07-22-2007, 05:42 PM
Just give it some more time...
Really, trust us.

Cochise
07-22-2007, 05:43 PM
Because we'll end up going back in another 10 years if we let the place descend into anarchy and Al Queda gets to install a government.

No one cares about impending genocide or other trivial matters, I understand, but that's one pretty good reason.

BigRedChief
07-22-2007, 05:54 PM
Because we'll end up going back in another 10 years if we let the place descend into anarchy and Al Queda gets to install a government.

No one cares about impending genocide or other trivial matters, I understand, but that's one pretty good reason.
So what? Are we suppose to risk American lives to keep the peace in every country in the world thats falling apart?

What about a country that might have an Al-Quaeda connection? How much Saudi money do you think makes it into the bank accounts of Al-Queda? They are suppose to be our friends.

It's a civil war. A religious civil war. It's not going to be beneficial for the U.S. to pick a side.

Felch83
07-22-2007, 05:54 PM
I am all fine with just nuken em.

banyon
07-22-2007, 07:13 PM
Because we'll end up going back in another 10 years if we let the place descend into anarchy and Al Queda gets to install a government.

Al Qaeda is not well liked in Iraq. When we leave, they will too.

No one cares about impending genocide or other trivial matters, I understand, but that's one pretty good reason.

Or current genocide in Sudan. But there's no oil there.

Bowser
07-22-2007, 07:32 PM
Because we'll end up going back in another 10 years if we let the place descend into anarchy and Al Queda gets to install a government.

No one cares about impending genocide or other trivial matters, I understand, but that's one pretty good reason.

Sounds like a regurgitated party line to me.

Ugly Duck
07-22-2007, 07:47 PM
Just declare victory. Our goal was to remove Saddam and we did that. We say........It's a civil war now and none of our business.

Democracy will not work in Iraq. It won't be given a chance. We can't make them like us. The majority of the people in the Middle East hate us. Fuk em.

If the conservative master of foreign policy and current political god of the conservatiuve right, Regan can get us into a civil war in Lebanon. He then gets a bunch of marines killed trying to do the right thing. If Regan was smart enough to cut bait and bring the troops home why cant Bush?

Good post. And kudos go out to our soldiers for doing everything that they set out to do. Insured that we were not threatened by WMDs. Brought about regime change. Installed democracy. Trained the Iraqi soldiers & police. Its time we supported them by recognizing their victory.

Unfortunately, our new goal is out of their hands. Now they are expected to give the Iraqi leaders "time to implement political reconciliation." And that is dependent upon the will of the Iraqi leaders, not the performance of our troops. If Iraqis do not have the will to reconcile, there is nothing our troops can do to force them to be nice to each other. The new definition of "victory" is one that our fine fighting men have no control over. Now they are stuck in the middle of a civil war waiting, waiting for the Iraqis to stop killing each other and reconcile. Reagan would not leave them stranded and vulnerable like that. Time to pin some fuggin medals on those guyz & bring 'em home.

alanm
07-22-2007, 08:17 PM
What is the upside of surrendering to Al Qaeda?

noa
07-22-2007, 08:21 PM
What is the upside of surrendering to Al Qaeda?

77 virgins?

Logical
07-22-2007, 08:22 PM
Because we'll end up going back in another 10 years if we let the place descend into anarchy and Al Queda gets to install a government.

No one cares about impending genocide or other trivial matters, I understand, but that's one pretty good reason.Yes just like we had to go back into Vietnam. Damn that was horrible.

banyon
07-22-2007, 08:22 PM
What is the upside of surrendering to Al Qaeda?

Why do you want to murder our troops?

bkkcoh
07-22-2007, 08:25 PM
What is the upside of surrendering to Al Qaeda?

Nothing like emboldening them. Do you think they would actually leave us alone if we left Iraq? Do you think AQ would not attack the target on their list, Britain, France, other western countries? Remember OBL making the statements regarding the Americans in Mogadishu. We can't let that happen. I don't seriously think that the civilized can't co-exist with a group that wants to eliminate the groups of people that don't view the world in the same way they do. Yes, this is a like hypocritical, but western civilization would leave them alone if they didn't have the war against us.


...

If the conservative master of foreign policy and current political god of the conservatiuve right, Regan can get us into a civil war in Lebanon. He then gets a bunch of marines killed trying to do the right thing. If Regan was smart enough to cut bait and bring the troops home why cant Bush?

Some people might say that the issues with the Americans in the middle east started with Carter in Iran and Reagan in Lebanon. If those 2 actions would have ended with different outcomes, there might not be the issues with the ME.

Logical
07-22-2007, 08:26 PM
Good post. And kudos go out to our soldiers for doing everything that they set out to do. Insured that we were not threatened by WMDs. Brought about regime change. Installed democracy. Trained the Iraqi soldiers & police. Its time we supported them by recognizing their victory.

Unfortunately, our new goal is out of their hands. Now they are expected to give the Iraqi leaders "time to implement political reconciliation." And that is dependent upon the will of the Iraqi leaders, not the performance of our troops. If Iraqis do not have the will to reconcile, there is nothing our troops can do to force them to be nice to each other. The new definition of "victory" is one that our fine fighting men have no control over. Now they are stuck in the middle of a civil war waiting, waiting for the Iraqis to stop killing each other and reconcile. Reagan would not leave them stranded and vulnerable like that. Time to pin some fuggin medals on those guyz & bring 'em home.Excellent post by both of you.

BigRedChief
07-22-2007, 08:36 PM
What is the upside of surrendering to Al Qaeda?
So you really truly think we are fighting Al-Qaeda in Iraq? That the insurgents all are members of Al-Qaeda?

Bowser
07-22-2007, 08:37 PM
What is the upside of surrendering to Al Qaeda?

OK, is this sarcasm? I'm hoping so.

patteeu
07-22-2007, 08:48 PM
So what? Are we suppose to risk American lives to keep the peace in every country in the world thats falling apart?

What about a country that might have an Al-Quaeda connection? How much Saudi money do you think makes it into the bank accounts of Al-Queda? They are suppose to be our friends.

It's a civil war. A religious civil war. It's not going to be beneficial for the U.S. to pick a side.

For heaven's sake, if you guys who are so worried about lives being wasted would put your efforts into implementing smoking bans*, you'd save a lot more wasted lives. Hundreds of thousands of people die every year due to smoking-related illnesses. Both smokers and soldiers understand the risk they are taking when they volunteer to take them. The difference between soldiers and smokers is that we are only losing about 1000 soldiers per year but we're losing hundreds of thousands of smokers. It might be a different story if our military was manned by draftees but it's not. Get some perspective, please.


----------
* Not that I support smoking bans or anything, but for those who feel the need to save others from themselves, it seems that forcing smokers to stop smoking would pay more dividends in terms of lives saved than forcing soldiers to stop fighting.

Bowser
07-22-2007, 08:49 PM
For heaven's sake, if you guys who are so worried about lives being wasted would put your efforts into implementing smoking bans*, you'd save a lot more wasted lives. Hundreds of thousands of people die every year due to smoking-related illnesses. Both smokers and soldiers understand the risk they are taking when they volunteer to take them. The difference between soldiers and smokers is that we are only losing about 1000 soldiers per year but we're losing hundreds of thousands of smokers. It might be a different story if our military was manned by draftees but it's not. Get some perspective, please.


Wow.

patteeu
07-22-2007, 08:51 PM
So you really truly think we are fighting Al-Qaeda in Iraq? That the insurgents all are members of Al-Qaeda?

I'll respond to a dumb question with another dumb question. So you really truly think that we aren't fighting al Qaeda in Iraq? That none of the insurgents are members of al Qaeda?

banyon
07-22-2007, 09:01 PM
For heaven's sake, if you guys who are so worried about lives being wasted would put your efforts into implementing smoking bans*, you'd save a lot more wasted lives. Hundreds of thousands of people die every year due to smoking-related illnesses. Both smokers and soldiers understand the risk they are taking when they volunteer to take them. The difference between soldiers and smokers is that we are only losing about 1000 soldiers per year but we're losing hundreds of thousands of smokers. It might be a different story if our military was manned by draftees but it's not. Get some perspective, please.

Indeed.

http://bodyart.com/images/911_times_two_Flag_draped_Coffins.jpg

bkkcoh
07-22-2007, 09:29 PM
For heaven's sake, if you guys who are so worried about lives being wasted would put your efforts into implementing smoking bans*, you'd save a lot more wasted lives. Hundreds of thousands of people die every year due to smoking-related illnesses. Both smokers and soldiers understand the risk they are taking when they volunteer to take them. The difference between soldiers and smokers is that we are only losing about 1000 soldiers per year but we're losing hundreds of thousands of smokers. It might be a different story if our military was manned by draftees but it's not. Get some perspective, please.


----------
* Not that I support smoking bans or anything, but for those who feel the need to save others from themselves, it seems that forcing smokers to stop smoking would pay more dividends in terms of lives saved than forcing soldiers to stop fighting.


Don't forget the number of people that die on the roads each year. In Ohio, last year, there were 1200+, multiply that by 50 and the is a lot of people. 42,000+ dies in 2004 on the highways in the US...

patteeu
07-22-2007, 09:49 PM
Indeed.

http://bodyart.com/images/911_times_two_Flag_draped_Coffins.jpg

Your message is too subtle for me. I hope you're not saying that I'm the one with a perspective problem here. There are more Americans who die each year from smoking-related larynx cancer than who die fighting in Iraq. Ditto for smoking-related esophageal cancer. Let's not even get started on smoking-related lung cancer, emphysema, or heart disease. And they don't even get flag-draped coffins.

patteeu
07-22-2007, 09:50 PM
Don't forget the number of people that die on the roads each year. In Ohio, last year, there were 1200+, multiply that by 50 and the is a lot of people. 42,000+ dies in 2004 on the highways in the US...

Yep.

banyon
07-22-2007, 09:59 PM
Your message is too subtle for me. I hope you're not saying that I'm the one with a perspective problem here. There are more Americans who die each year from smoking-related larynx cancer than who die fighting in Iraq. Ditto for smoking-related esophageal cancer. Let's not even get started on smoking-related lung cancer, emphysema, or heart disease. And they don't even get flag-draped coffins.

Your faux modesty aside, I am replying that your suggestion that even 1 American soldier's life is expendable as long as it doesn't cross some numerical threshhold is beneath you.

Your comparisons also don't take into account at all the number of casualties, which is almost to 30,000. The forward operating medical units have changed what used to be fatalities into just life-altering (and tax costly) injuries.

patteeu
07-22-2007, 10:21 PM
Your faux modesty aside, I am replying that your suggestion that even 1 American soldier's life is expendable as long as it doesn't cross some numerical threshhold is beneath you.

Your comparisons also don't take into account at all the number of casualties, which is almost to 30,000. The forward operating medical units have changed what used to be fatalities into just life-altering (and tax costly) injuries.

I'm afraid that it's a reality that when you go to war, some people end up giving their lives to the cause. It's unfortunate, but it's also unfortunate that some demogogues choose to cynically use these deaths to end the war without caring any more for those who died than I do.

The threshold at which I would say that we should withdraw from Iraq in failure is when deaths, injuries, and a lack of success in recruiting are actually ready to break the military, whether that situation happens with 3,500 dead or 350,000. Until then, we should stick it out until we achieve our objectives and grow the military to handle contingencies.

banyon
07-22-2007, 10:26 PM
I'm afraid that it's a reality that when you go to war, some people end up giving their lives to the cause. It's unfortunate, but it's also unfortunate that some demogogues choose to cynically use these deaths to end the war without caring any more for those who died than I do.

The threshold at which I would say that we should withdraw from Iraq in failure is when deaths, injuries, and a lack of success in recruiting are actually ready to break the military, whether that situation happens with 3,500 dead or 350,000. Until then, we should stick it out until we achieve our objectives and grow the military to handle contingencies.

That's pretty much our disagreement. I don't believe that Iraq is a cause worth having our troops die for, most of the American people have come to realize this, and then there's you and the holdouts.

BucEyedPea
07-22-2007, 10:27 PM
Some people might say that the issues with the Americans in the middle east started with Carter in Iran and Reagan in Lebanon. If those 2 actions would have ended with different outcomes, there might not be the issues with the ME.
They didn't start with Carter. Carter admin was just in power when the Shah was overthrown which was a reaction to our putting the Shah in power, overthrowing their elected govt in the 1950's and working with our CIA to use torture on dissidents. But that didn't cause AQ. AQ and Persian Shia' Iran are enemies too.

And it didn't start with Reagan either. That was related to the Lebanon war. Reagan was absolutely right in pulling out of that civil war. The result was the attacks died down. When we put troops on their lands or get involved in their wars they attack us it starts up again. There is a correlation.

It was actually PGW1, in particular Bush Sr leaving permanent bases on Muslim Holy lands in SA that terror is date coincident to AQ coming to follow us home. Like the former chief of OBL counterrorism unit in the CIA, a 2 year veteran, says ( along with other former CIA) OBL states what his grievances are and they should be believed....it's first and foremost troops on their land, all else is secondary.

So it is the same today in Iraq, under another Bush, our presence and refusal to leave is fueling the insurgency and which is just homegrown AQ, not the original one that attacked us. Foreigners make up the smallest number. Their enemy is US occupation and Shia's. Most likely they'll turn on Shia's once we leave in a full blown civil war, but we should no longer be targets. We stay, then they may just come over here like some did to Great Britain. We attack Iran, Hezbollah will follow too.

Wake up and look at our FP especially under the Bushes. Let's get out NOW!
And get every single land troop off their lands as it was before PGWI.
The Carter/Iranian and Reagan/Lebanon issues were a LONG time ago and separate issues from OBL which was formed to drive out occupiers as in Afghanistan and SA. Even Wolfowitz, a chief architect of this war, says the same.

Target the right causes and the situation should get better.
Target the wrong causes it will get worse like it has.

Ugly Duck
07-22-2007, 10:32 PM
The threshold at which I would say that we should withdraw from Iraq in failure is when.....

Too late... our troops have already accomplished their goals & are victorious. The rest is up to the Iraqis - they're the only ones who can reconcile their differences.

penchief
07-22-2007, 10:37 PM
Because we'll end up going back in another 10 years if we let the place descend into anarchy and Al Queda gets to install a government.

No one cares about impending genocide or other trivial matters, I understand, but that's one pretty good reason.

Never would have been a worry had the fuchnuts in the White House not tried to ram a square peg into a round hole. Too bad for us. But administration defenders would rather attack those who want to use reason as a means to extract ourselves from the greatest policy blunder this country has ever committed. They'd rather attack those who want a different approach than distance themselves from an ideology that has us hopelessly mired in a no-win situation and is a perpetual drain on our future prosperity.

It doesn't have to be all or nothing. I don't know why Bush/Cheney and those who support them make it seem that way. We never should have initiated this ill-advised venture without the support of the world community in the first place. And the backing of the international community is the only way that we can redeem ourselves now, IMO.

We need to do what we should have done from the start. Lets negotiate with our partners in Europe and those in the Middle East that have a stake in regional stability. Let's bring their economic, military, and diplomatic assets into the process.

Let's swallow our pride, admit our violations, and try to reassure the international community that this administration's policies are an abberation and not a sign of things to come. Let's try to turn our mistake into an opportunity.

We can still salvage the situation. We can limit the future expense that will be incurred by this country and our children. We can't make it like it never happened but we can convince the world that our intentions are good from this point on and not merely self-serving or driven by power and greed.

Taco John
07-22-2007, 10:37 PM
I hope you're not saying that I'm the one with a perspective problem here.

ROFL

Logical
07-22-2007, 10:45 PM
For heaven's sake, if you guys who are so worried about lives being wasted would put your efforts into implementing smoking bans*, you'd save a lot more wasted lives. Hundreds of thousands of people die every year due to smoking-related illnesses. Both smokers and soldiers understand the risk they are taking when they volunteer to take them. The difference between soldiers and smokers is that we are only losing about 1000 soldiers per year but we're losing hundreds of thousands of smokers. It might be a different story if our military was manned by draftees but it's not. Get some perspective, please.


----------
* Not that I support smoking bans or anything, but for those who feel the need to save others from themselves, it seems that forcing smokers to stop smoking would pay more dividends in terms of lives saved than forcing soldiers to stop fighting.

This is a horrible analogy in my opinion, but I am not suprised you would resort to it. P.S. I would have no problem if tobacco sales were stopped.

Ugly Duck
07-22-2007, 10:50 PM
ROFL

I caught that too....

Braincase
07-23-2007, 06:36 AM
Why can't we just cut bait and leave Iraq?


Because we haven't got all the oil out of there yet!

patteeu
07-23-2007, 07:20 AM
This is a horrible analogy in my opinion, but I am not suprised you would resort to it.

How so? In both cases people are dying after choosing to do something that they had every reason to believe was dangerous (even if they may have believed at the time that the bad effects wouldn't happen to them).

stevieray
07-23-2007, 07:36 AM
That's pretty much our disagreement. I don't believe that Iraq is a cause worth having our troops die for, most of the American people have come to realize this, and then there's you and the holdouts.

fotunately, that's not up to you.

I'd bet you damn sure think soldiers dying is worth your right to have an opinion about it.

stevieray
07-23-2007, 07:56 AM
Never would have been a worry had the fuchnuts in the White House not tried to ram a square peg into a round hole. Too bad for us. But administration defenders would rather attack those who want to use reason as a means to extract ourselves from the greatest policy blunder this country has ever committed. They'd rather attack those who want a different approach than distance themselves from an ideology that has us hopelessly mired in a no-win situation and is a perpetual drain on our future prosperity.

It doesn't have to be all or nothing. I don't know why Bush/Cheney and those who support them make it seem that way. We never should have initiated this ill-advised venture without the support of the world community in the first place. And the backing of the international community is the only way that we can redeem ourselves now, IMO.

We need to do what we should have done from the start. Lets negotiate with our partners in Europe and those in the Middle East that have a stake in regional stability. Let's bring their economic, military, and diplomatic assets into the process.

Let's swallow our pride, admit our violations, and try to reassure the international community that this administration's policies are an abberation and not a sign of things to come. Let's try to turn our mistake into an opportunity.

We can still salvage the situation. We can limit the future expense that will be incurred by this country and our children. We can't make it like it never happened but we can convince the world that our intentions are good from this point on and not merely self-serving or driven by power and greed.

seek professional help.

Felch83
07-23-2007, 09:57 AM
I am all for just leaving. They dont want us there...fine so beat it.

bkkcoh
07-23-2007, 10:20 AM
...

Wake up and look at our FP especially under the Bushes. Let's get out NOW!

And get every single land troop off their lands as it was before PGWI.
The Carter/Iranian and Reagan/Lebanon issues were a LONG time ago and separate issues from OBL which was formed to drive out occupiers as in Afghanistan and SA. Even Wolfowitz, a chief architect of this war, says the same.

Target the right causes and the situation should get better.
Target the wrong causes it will get worse like it has.

So do you thinks it would stop if we left the ME? Is that what you are saying?

I was just saying that if we had given the proper response, they wouldn't be so brash now. Because they know what we have done in previous examples.

What are the right causes?

BucEyedPea
07-23-2007, 10:43 AM
So do you thinks it would stop if we left the ME? Is that what you are saying?

I was just saying that if we had given the proper response, they wouldn't be so brash now. Because they know what we have done in previous examples.

What are the right causes?
There's been a lot of debate already covered on this without reposting it all.
But the cause is "blowback" for a flawed foreign policy in the ME.
That's a CIA term and the 9/11 Commission Report covered it too.
Our occupation in Iraq is what fueled the insurgency which is growing.
I already cited some of it in the post you partially quoted here.
Take a look under the Ron Paul threads, if you want more.

StcChief
07-23-2007, 11:36 AM
I am all fine with just nuken em.
I few stategically placed cruise missiles, F15/B1 runs should do plenty to get them either to fight or yield.

banyon
07-23-2007, 11:43 AM
fotunately, that's not up to you.

I'd bet you damn sure think soldiers dying is worth your right to have an opinion about it.

Fortunately it's not up to you either and the light is at the end of the tunnel for this fiasco because our representatives still have some modest accountability to their constituents.

I'm not sure how I should reply to your second statement. Iraq has virtually nothing to do with my ability to have an opinion about an issue of U.S. policy.

BigRedChief
07-23-2007, 01:22 PM
Trying to measure the value of an American life is never going to work.

If this was all about saving lifes then you would have a point about tobacco, alcohol, obesity and auto accidents. But most of those decisions are individual decisions not governmment decisions. Thats why the corelation doesn't fit, IMHO.

We also can't get involved in every country that is slaughtering their own people. Whether they have oil or not. We can support them, give them tools, food, money etc

But to put Americans on the ground in between two fighting forces to keep the peace is not a good global policy. It might be the moral act of a righteous nation but it will not be percieved as a just act by others. But as the Yanks dictating global policy.

alanm
07-23-2007, 01:32 PM
Yes just like we had to go back into Vietnam. Damn that was horrible.
I bet there would be a few Cambodians and S. Vietnamese who would like to debate you on that.

Radar Chief
07-23-2007, 01:43 PM
Fortunately it's not up to you either and the light is at the end of the tunnel for this fiasco because our representatives still have some modest accountability to their constituents.

What makes you think that means “it’s almost over”?

Calcountry
07-23-2007, 02:24 PM
So what? Are we suppose to risk American lives to keep the peace in every country in the world thats falling apart?

What about a country that might have an Al-Quaeda connection? How much Saudi money do you think makes it into the bank accounts of Al-Queda? They are suppose to be our friends.

It's a civil war. A religious civil war. It's not going to be beneficial for the U.S. to pick a side.It's a small world.

Calcountry
07-23-2007, 02:32 PM
Good post. And kudos go out to our soldiers for doing everything that they set out to do. Insured that we were not threatened by WMDs. Brought about regime change. Installed democracy. Trained the Iraqi soldiers & police. Its time we supported them by recognizing their victory.

Unfortunately, our new goal is out of their hands. Now they are expected to give the Iraqi leaders "time to implement political reconciliation." And that is dependent upon the will of the Iraqi leaders, not the performance of our troops. If Iraqis do not have the will to reconcile, there is nothing our troops can do to force them to be nice to each other. The new definition of "victory" is one that our fine fighting men have no control over. Now they are stuck in the middle of a civil war waiting, waiting for the Iraqis to stop killing each other and reconcile. Reagan would not leave them stranded and vulnerable like that. Time to pin some fuggin medals on those guyz & bring 'em home.Or, sadly, redeploy them to Afghanisan/Pakistan.

Taco John
07-23-2007, 03:07 PM
How so? In both cases people are dying after choosing to do something that they had every reason to believe was dangerous (even if they may have believed at the time that the bad effects wouldn't happen to them).


Who cares if we squander the military? They made the choice to join so fugg'em.

/patteau

Cochise
07-23-2007, 03:41 PM
I'm convinced that the idea that Congressional Democrats really want us out of there yesterday is ridiculous. I don't think they have an intent to do anything other than grandstand and use the war to raise election funds for the next cycle.

They don't have the guts to vote to wrestle Iraq policy from the executive branch. It's Bush's problem right now, they don't want their names anywhere near it. If they cut off funding and we retreated leaving a vacuum, they would have to answer to some for creating a state sponsor of terrorism. They'd blame it on Bush, and about half the country would side with them. But what we have now is even better for their prospects.

They need the war. They need it to do exactly what it's doing now - be difficult, be unpopular, but not unpopular enough for them to have the votes to cut off funding. At that point they'd have to explain to the anti-war crowd why they haven't done it.

They aren't stupid. They realize what's going to happen if we just retreat, and don't want their names attached to that.

banyon
07-23-2007, 04:38 PM
I bet there would be a few Cambodians and S. Vietnamese who would like to debate you on that.

Yes, the bleeding heart Conservative "the poor Vietnamese" argument.

Probably didn't give a crap when we were napalming their villages or probably don't give a crap now when there is full-scale genocide in the Sudan, as long as it temporarily serves some meagre point of debate.

Answer these 2 questions:

1) Do you believe that foreign policy should be conducted primarily to foster the national security interests of the U.S.?

2) In what way has our national security been jeopardized by the loss of those Cambodians and/or Vietnamese citizens who killed each other?

banyon
07-23-2007, 04:44 PM
What makes you think that means “it’s almost over”?

Do you think such an unpopular war will continue to gain support after the 08 election? No way in hell. Once the Dem stooge is in, they will begin the drawdown, which will likely be complete within a year. Likely the Repubs will help in 08 too because it is so unpopular, they will have to appear to support draw down to hang on to their seats.

BigMeatballDave
07-23-2007, 04:44 PM
Just declare victory. Our goal was to remove Saddam and we did that. We say........It's a civil war now and none of our business.

Democracy will not work in Iraq. It won't be given a chance. We can't make them like us. The majority of the people in the Middle East hate us. Fuk em.

If the conservative master of foreign policy and current political god of the conservatiuve right, Regan can get us into a civil war in Lebanon. He then gets a bunch of marines killed trying to do the right thing. If Regan was smart enough to cut bait and bring the troops home why cant Bush?I feel the same way. I mentioned this to my dad the other day. I could feel it was going to lead to an argument, so I changed the suject. Its a lost cause, and he doesn't see it. He says it will get worse if we leave. I had to bite my tongue. He may be right, but atleast our troops would not be in harms way. They need to fight it out for themselves now. There is no more we can do.

BigMeatballDave
07-23-2007, 04:54 PM
For heaven's sake, if you guys who are so worried about lives being wasted would put your efforts into implementing smoking bans*, you'd save a lot more wasted lives. Hundreds of thousands of people die every year due to smoking-related illnesses. Both smokers and soldiers understand the risk they are taking when they volunteer to take them. The difference between soldiers and smokers is that we are only losing about 1000 soldiers per year but we're losing hundreds of thousands of smokers. It might be a different story if our military was manned by draftees but it's not. Get some perspective, please.

Nope, thats not apples and oranges...

BigMeatballDave
07-23-2007, 04:59 PM
For anyone who is hanging on to this war, give it up. Its over. Saddam was captured and executed, there were no WMDs. Its time to bring our fine men and women home. Iraq needs to handle their problems...

BigMeatballDave
07-23-2007, 05:03 PM
Until then, we should stick it out until we achieve our objectives and grow the military to handle contingencies.This is just insane...

Hydrae
07-23-2007, 05:32 PM
How so? In both cases people are dying after choosing to do something that they had every reason to believe was dangerous (even if they may have believed at the time that the bad effects wouldn't happen to them).


When the troops can quit at any time this will be a decent analogy. I can quit smoking tomorrow, those guys and gals do not have that option.

Try again

a1na2
07-23-2007, 08:30 PM
For anyone who is hanging on to this war, give it up. Its over. Saddam was captured and executed, there were no WMDs. Its time to bring our fine men and women home. Iraq needs to handle their problems...

Would that be the problems from before we invaded or the problems that were created by our invasion? WE need to clean up our own mess and not leave it for Al Queda. I do not think that us leaving will guarantee that Al Queda will also leave Iraq. That is just ludicrous. Where else do they have to do what they might need to continue their jihad against the western world?

banyon
07-23-2007, 08:36 PM
Would that be the problems from before we invaded or the problems that were created by our invasion? WE need to clean up our own mess and not leave it for Al Queda. I do not think that us leaving will guarantee that Al Queda will also leave Iraq. That is just ludicrous. Where else do they have to do what they might need to continue their jihad against the western world?

Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan, Sudan, Somalia, pretty much a lot of countries that are more important than Iraq sans the oil.

Iowanian
07-23-2007, 09:56 PM
Its a goat fug with no good sollution at this point.

Given what I've been told by guys with sand in their socks many times, no matter what we do, it will be a massive bloodbath when we pull out. It will be a massive bloodbath with overtones of a power vacuum being filled from alQ, Iran, and the Wahabbi nutjobs out of Saudi/Syria.

The fact that those lunatics will saw the heads off of children, will be "our fault" regardless of what we do at this point.....and in the end, Iraq will end up in 3 distinct areas....Sunni in the central, Shia with the oil fields of the south, and the Kurds in the north, who will then likely war with Turkey.

There just isn't a good way to "Miracle" civility into a culture that still wipes their asses with their hands and will bake a child and serve him to his family to win votes.

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/bless-the-beasts-and-children.htm

Whats wrong?
"man he identified as an al Qaeda operative. Just how (or if) the scout really knew the man had beheaded children was unknown to the soldiers of C-52, but they took the suspected al Qaeda to the police, who knew the man. C-52 soldiers told me the Iraqi police were inflamed, and that one policeman in particular was crazed with intent to kill the man who they said had the blood of Iraqi children on his hands. According to the story told to me on 30 June, it took almost 45 minutes for the C-52 soldiers to calm down the policeman who had drawn his pistol to execute the al Qaeda man. That same policeman nearly lost his mind when[/b] an American soldier then gave the al Qaeda man a drink of cold water."[/b]

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/bless-the-beasts-and-children-part-2.htm

PunkinDrublic
07-23-2007, 10:01 PM
You'd think the right wingers who support this occupation would have the humility to shut the fug up after being proven wrong time and time again.

PunkinDrublic
07-23-2007, 10:09 PM
Who cares if we squander the military? They made the choice to join so fugg'em.

/patteau

Exactly! ****ing neocons think that just because we have an all volunteer military, that it's justifiable to treat them like disposable human beings. That's why their empty yellow ribbon support the troops sloganeering has absolutlely no credibility.

Iowanian
07-23-2007, 10:13 PM
After I spend time thinking of the assholes who probably deserve what happens, I hear stories of those who are trying to make it a better place....and the children who have improved.....

These same people will reap the wrath when we pull out. Thats the unfortunate part, that makes part of me understand keeping our guys....and some of my friends there.

Iowanian
07-23-2007, 10:14 PM
Its too bad that *some* in our public don't have the stomoch to allow our military to do the things that need to be done to win a war like this....

You'd think the right wingers who support this occupation would have the humility to shut the fug up after being proven wrong time and time again.

ChiefaRoo
07-23-2007, 10:17 PM
Its too bad that *some* in our public don't have the stomoch to allow our military to do the things that need to be done to win a war like this....

Yep.

|Zach|
07-23-2007, 10:18 PM
Its too bad that *some* in our public don't have the stomoch to allow our military to do the things that need to be done to win a war like this....
What does our public or our military have to do with the Iraqi's not taking responsibility for their own freedoms? I think we have the greatest military in the world with the greatest citizens in the world. It isn't our public's fault (or *some in our public) that Iraqi law makers are taking vacations while our troops fight and die for their freedom.

PunkinDrublic
07-23-2007, 10:19 PM
Its too bad that *some* in our public don't have the stomoch to allow our military to do the things that need to be done to win a war like this....

What does winning entail?

Logical
07-23-2007, 10:19 PM
Exactly! ****ing neocons think that just because we have an all volunteer military, that it's justifiable to treat them like disposable human beings. That's why their empty yellow ribbon support the troops sloganeering has absolutlely no credibility.

Probably true of the hardcore neocons. I am not sure they can all wear that label.

Iowanian
07-23-2007, 10:26 PM
What does winning entail?

I don't really know at this point.

I'm positive that the left doesn't have the desire to allow the sheer brutality and destruction that would have needed to occur to get the attention of *people* that will stuff a 10 year old boy in a oven.

I'd like to be out of there as well....but I'd sure hate for it to result in something that causes us to be back there in a decade, because some extremist asshole gets enough oil money to do something really, really nasty on American soil. I'd also hate for the people who really are trying to climb out of that mire of shit to feel like we've abandoned them and left them to the wolves.

It doesn't matter....Whatever we do will be wrong at this point.

I'm disappointed that the Iraqi people don't appear to have more ambition to build something better, and by the wrath the innocent will recieve when we leave, especially those who have worked to make it better.

There is no good answer imo.

Carry on with the foot stamping and arm flailing though....its done so much good the past few years and definitely shows that the left has it all figured out, and have given so many legitimate options...

PunkinDrublic
07-23-2007, 10:27 PM
Probably true of the hardcore neocons. I am not sure they can all wear that label.

True but like the pussified Democrats, Republicans in government are guilty of being Bush's enablers. You don't stop a thug bully like Bush by eventually giving into his demands. He'll walk all over you every time.

Iowanian
07-23-2007, 10:30 PM
What does our public or our military have to do with the Iraqi's not taking responsibility for their own freedoms? I think we have the greatest military in the world with the greatest citizens in the world. It isn't our public's fault (or *some in our public) that Iraqi law makers are taking vacations while our troops fight and die for their freedom.

Honest Question.

Do you think the American public had the ability to watch what COULD have been done early on, live on CNN?

I don't.

Our guys are expected to give ice water to captives who have cut the heads off of children or killed their friends. Our soldiers get in trouble for exercising extreme brutality...our bouncing a terrorists head off of a door jam.

Alot of mistakes have been made...thats for sure. I think too much has been asked of our troops and military leaders. "Kick ass, but don't break any windows".

go bowe
07-23-2007, 10:30 PM
Its too bad that *some* in our public don't have the stomoch to allow our military to do the things that need to be done to win a war like this....what things need to be done to win a war like this?

do you have anything specific in mind?

PunkinDrublic
07-23-2007, 10:35 PM
I don't really know at this point.

I'm positive that the left doesn't have the desire to allow the sheer brutality and destruction that would have needed to occur to get the attention of *people* that will stuff a 10 year old boy in a oven.

I'd like to be out of there as well....but I'd sure hate for it to result in something that causes us to be back there in a decade, because some extremist asshole gets enough oil money to do something really, really nasty on American soil. I'd also hate for the people who really are trying to climb out of that mire of shit to feel like we've abandoned them and left them to the wolves.

It doesn't matter....Whatever we do will be wrong at this point.

I'm disappointed that the Iraqi people don't appear to have more ambition to build something better, and by the wrath the innocent will recieve when we leave, especially those who have worked to make it better.

There is no good answer imo.

Carry on with the foot stamping and arm flailing though....its done so much good the past few years and definitely shows that the left has it all figured out, and have given so many legitimate options...

This has happened they're called Saudis.

So even though you have no winning objective to this occupation you support this occupation because you're under the delusion that we're there for humanitarian purposes. You want to call the left out on the carpet for not having a plan but then by your own admission you can't even come up with what are objectives are. Pot meet kettle. Like it or not, bringing our troops home or even staying in the region itself is an option. You're right though I don't have the stomach for bad leadership and incompatant people running our government.

Iowanian
07-23-2007, 10:35 PM
I can tell you what I've been told....

I can tell you that most of the guys I know feel like they've been given unreasonable rules of Engagement.....

I can tell you that bomb planting terrorist assholes caught red handed by some I know's unit were caught in the same road, doing the same shit 6 months later because they were let go due to some silly clause and an iraqi court.......instead of our guys being aloud to just smoke the prick the first time.

Alot of terrorists are alive today, because they couldn't be bombed due to hiding in mosques....for 1 example.

I've been told that the only thing alot of our enemies truely understand is extreme strength and brutality....and that what our public views as kindness and courtesy, is viewed by our enemies as weakness.

I know that our enemies will TARGET an American humvee giving candy to 20 Children with a suicide bomber......but if a civilian is killed in a firefight with the same assholes who made the bomb, its all over world TV that those nasty americans murdered a baby.

I don't think it really matters what we do, in a culture that has warred for centuries, and if they weren't fighting us....would be hacking each other up somewhere.....oh wait....it happens in Bagdad today anway.

|Zach|
07-23-2007, 10:38 PM
Honest Question.

Do you think the American public had the ability to watch what COULD have been done early on, live on CNN?

I don't.

Our guys are expected to give ice water to captives who have cut the heads off of children or killed their friends. Our soldiers get in trouble for exercising extreme brutality...our bouncing a terrorists head off of a door jam.

Alot of mistakes have been made...thats for sure. I think too much has been asked of our troops and military leaders. "Kick ass, but don't break any windows".
If this country was sold with truth a war that justified a strong agressive front.

You are going pretty far out of your way to shake your finger at a public that was lead to believe this war wouldn't be everything it has come to be.

I still can't believe you think having more of them dead means victory in this instance.

|Zach|
07-23-2007, 10:39 PM
I don't think it really matters what we do, in a culture that has warred for centuries, and if they weren't fighting us....would be hacking each other up somewhere.....oh wait....it happens in Bagdad today anway.
Thats the thing though...more extreme force from us? A few more guys get killed. 1 guy died...10 more take his place as soon as we leave.

This isn't the fault of our troops or public.

We needed to be smarter. Swinging around a broadsword every which way just hoping it makes things better isn't a plan.

Iowanian
07-23-2007, 10:41 PM
Its not my intention to shake a finger at anyone.

I think you know I'm a legitimate supporter of the troops and would prefer that not another one was hurt. My brother's unit is there for the 3rd time, living in a dirt floor barn, with showers every 7 days....for another year + tour. (though my brother is out now, it doesn't change that fact for some of his good friends who are there again-again-again). 2 friends in the past week and a half have told me they'll also be going, and in 1 case, back again.

I don't know the answer and I'm frustrated with the war like everyone else....I'm just not sure that bailing out yesterday is the right answer in the big picture, though I do have my moments of that thought.


Will the people who want OUT yesterday, be able to tollerate the fallout and bloodbath that ensue when we leave? Make no mistake.....it will be aweful.

ChiefaRoo
07-23-2007, 10:45 PM
If we can get the Iraqis strong enough to stand up then that is victory. If they don't there will be a bloodbath as the power vacuum left by the US is being filled. We have to make sure the oil is secure regardless.

Iowanian
07-23-2007, 10:46 PM
At this point, I don't completely disagree.....but giving the guys fighting there today, the room and ability to actually go to the places they know that assholes are hiding and kill them would be a good start.

I'm more refering to early in the campain.....both in Iraq, and Afganistan.

Turning the other cheek with terrorism hasn't exactly seemed to result in them refraining from attacking Americans either.


Thats the thing though...more extreme force from us? A few more guys get killed. 1 guy died...10 more take his place as soon as we leave.

This isn't the fault of our troops or public.

We needed to be smarter. Swinging around a broadsword every which way just hoping it makes things better isn't a plan.

|Zach|
07-23-2007, 10:46 PM
Will the people who want OUT yesterday, be able to tollerate the fallout and bloodbath that ensue when we leave? Make no mistake.....it will be aweful.
I think the people that want us out are there but are in the minority...fringe. I think a lot of people want a reasonable phased withdrawal.

At the end of the day these troops are fighting for someone else's freedoms who are not interested in standing up and trying to it themselves. Someone else's civil war.

|Zach|
07-23-2007, 10:47 PM
If we can get the Iraqis strong enough to stand up then that is victory..
Hopefully they will get your message when they are on vacation.

Iowanian
07-23-2007, 10:50 PM
I too wish the Iraqis....at least more of them would stand up and work on their own messes.

In the mean time....I've got plenty of things to deal with of my own home and family, and I'll do what I can and send more boxes to the guys dealing with the decisions of politicians in Air conditioning and 1200 count cotton sheets.

ChiefaRoo
07-23-2007, 10:51 PM
Hopefully they will get your message when they are on vacation.

Hopefully. I don't have a lot of faith in ANY politician anywhere but I do believe in our Soldiers and the Generals who lead them. If you believe there is some good Iraqi military leadership and people who want to live in safety without fear of AQ then there is a chance. The key is isolating AQ. Hopefully this will happen. We need more time to get this thing done and as long as the Generals are the one saying give us more time then I'll support that.

|Zach|
07-23-2007, 10:51 PM
I too wish the Iraqis....at least more of them would stand up and work on their own messes.

In the mean time....I've got plenty of things to deal with of my own home and family, and I'll do what I can and send more boxes to the guys dealing with the decisions of politicians in Air conditioning and 1200 count cotton sheets.
I think thats certainly the way to go about this mess.

|Zach|
07-23-2007, 10:56 PM
Hopefully. I don't have a lot of faith in ANY politician anywhere but I do believe in our Soldiers and the Generals who lead them. If you believe there is some good Iraqi military leadership and people who want to live in in safety without fear of AQ then there is a chance. The key is isolating AQ. Hopefully this will happen. We need more time to get this thing done and as long as the Generals are the one saying give us more time then I'll support that.
Hopefully they agree with the way Bush wants to go about this thing. That is if they want to stay Generals.

Why do we have soooo many less troops then Petraeus own handbook for how our military should go about a situation just like this. This President isn't listening to the military.

What can our military do at this point though?

There are people with plans that want to keep our troops safe. Keep them from losing their lives for the freedom of others. Your plan is to keep your fingers crossed. Its like that spoiled teenager...why would he go out and get a job when the parents bring him money every week. There is no need.

go bowe
07-23-2007, 11:03 PM
parents bringing money every week?

i'm available for adoption...

ChiefaRoo
07-23-2007, 11:05 PM
Hopefully they agree with the way Bush wants to go about this thing. That is if they want to stay Generals.

Why do we have soooo many less troops then Petraeus own handbook for how our military should go about a situation just like this. This President isn't listening to the military.

What can our military do at this point though?

There are people with plans that want to keep our troops safe. Keep them from losing their lives for the freedom of others. You plan is to keep your fingers crossed. Its like that spoiled teenager...why would he go out and get a job when the parents bring him money every week. There is no need.

You don't know that Bush isn't listening. In fact what you are saying is irresponsible. I don't believe any General worth his salt would stay in the job, due to his honor code, if he felt the Troops were being abused. The Generals won't speak out against the political leadership in public (nor should they) but behind closed doors they speak frankly and openly.

|Zach|
07-23-2007, 11:07 PM
You don't know that Bush isn't listening. In fact what you are saying is irresponsible. I don't believe any General worth his salt would stay in the job, due to his honor code, if he felt the Troops were being abused. The Generals won't speak out against the political leadership in public (nor should they) but behind closed doors they speak frankly and openly.
Why do we have so fewer troops...many many fewer troops than the strategic handbook that the General himself wrote would be needed for a situation as this.

ChiefaRoo
07-23-2007, 11:09 PM
Why do we have so fewer troops...many many fewer troops than the strategic handbook that the General himself wrote would be needed for a situation as this.

Probably because we don't have enough. That being said troop counts aren't what are going to win this. It's getting the Iraqis to stand up on their own.

We need to expand the Army and the Marines.

|Zach|
07-23-2007, 11:11 PM
It's getting the Iraqis to stand up on their own.


Your plan for Iraq.

http://www.mi-ti.nl/images/fingers.jpg

|Zach|
07-23-2007, 11:12 PM
General Petraeus, who wrote the counter insurgency field manual, prescribes that "a ratio of 25 soldiers per 1,000 residents -- or 120,000 people for security forces in Baghdad alone. But even after the 21,500 additional American troops are deployed, Petraeus will still have a security force of only 85,000 in Baghdad, and that will include Iraqi security forces, whose preparedness and allegiance are questionable." (1) That's 35,000 short of what Patreaus has prescribed for Baghdad alone, and that's not counting what he says we need around the provinces.

We're not even giving Patraeus what his own field manual requires in order to secure Baghdad, let alone the entire country (including the Al Anbar province where Al Queda is said to be).

ChiefaRoo
07-23-2007, 11:26 PM
Your plan for Iraq.

http://www.mi-ti.nl/images/fingers.jpg

It's not an ideal situation. That doesn't mean we give up. The simple fact is the Iraqis have to take control eventually. None of us civilians here at home have any idea if that is going to happen nationwide or not. I've heard some good news coming out of Iraq the past few weeks with some people who helped AQ in the past switching sides because AQ has overplayed their hand and has been to brutal in killing civis.

Winning battles and troop on troop wars is easy for the US. Nation building is a muthu fooker but we're still in it so give it time.

Logical
07-23-2007, 11:28 PM
Probably because we don't have enough. That being said troop counts aren't what are going to win this. It's getting the Iraqis to stand up on their own.

We need to expand the Army and the Marines.Do the Iraqi's even have Marines? I think you have me confused.

|Zach|
07-23-2007, 11:29 PM
The simple fact is the Iraqis have to take control eventually.
What makes you think that?

They have a blank check from the US. Our troops, our money, our resources for their freedom. And as long as you keep those fingers crossed that won't change.

What about this situation makes you think they have to take control. They are on vacation man.

ChiefaRoo
07-23-2007, 11:38 PM
Do the Iraqi's even have Marines? I think you have me confused.

Expand our Army and Marines is what I meant. You should know this Log. I posted it the other night and you responded to that very post. I don't know the exact make up of the Iraqi military.

ChiefaRoo
07-23-2007, 11:41 PM
What makes you think that?

They have a blank check from the US. Our troops, our money, our resources for their freedom. And as long as you keep those fingers crossed that won't change.

What about this situation makes you think they have to take control. They are on vacation man.

I don't think they have a blank check. We are putting a lot of pressure on them via the administration and the congress. They know it's up to them. We need to give this thing more time. Personally, I feel the Dems (at least Hillary) understands this but because it's political season they are going to use the get out card as a political strategy against the Republican nomination.

|Zach|
07-23-2007, 11:42 PM
I don't think they have a blank check. We are putting a lot of pressure on them via the administration and the congress. They know it's up to them. We need to give this thing more time. Personally, I feel the Dems (at least Hillary) understands this but because it's political season they are going to use the get out card as a political strategy against the Republican nomination.
Pressure in what form?

Specifics please.

I know it would be fun for you for this conversation to get off track so you can blow up a bunch of hot air about how much you don't like liberals but that last part of your post had nothing to do about anything.

ChiefaRoo
07-23-2007, 11:52 PM
Pressure in what form?

Specifics please.

I know it would be fun for you for this conversation to get off track so you can blow up a bunch of hot air about how much you don't like liberals but that last part of your post had nothing to do about anything.

Think about it Zach. It's on the news everyday. The rhetoric coming out of the Dem. House and Senate Leadership is all about getting out now. (although I do believe it's overblown). Secondly, even the Republicans are saying Iraq has to get it together. There are a lot of Iraqis risking their lives by being on the side of the US and the Govt. here. If it all falls apart they die or flee the country never to return to their homeland. I'd say that's some pretty good incentive right there.

stevieray
07-23-2007, 11:59 PM
Keep them from losing their lives for the freedom of others.



How many died in the Civil War for the freedom of the slaves?

How many have died so you and I can be free today?

Freedom has always came with a price, and it always will...

|Zach|
07-24-2007, 12:03 AM
How many died in the Civil War for the freedom of the slaves?

How many have died so you and I can be free today?

Freedom has always came with a price, and it always will...
So let me guess you won't rest until the whole world is free.

I value those who have given for my freedom and those who have served in our military.

This war is not for our freedom. And the people whose freedom it is for. Are not taking the responsibility for it themselves.

They are on vacation.

stevieray
07-24-2007, 12:19 AM
So let me guess you won't rest until the whole world is free.

I value those who have given for my freedom and those who have served in our military.

This war is not for our freedom. And the people whose freedom it is for. Are not taking the responsibility for it themselves.

They are on vacation.

first it was just freedom of others, now it's only our freedom that counts? didn't those before us die for freedom of others from all over world?

And how long did it take us after the EP to finally get off vacation and establish Civil Rights for African Americans?

banyon
07-24-2007, 12:21 AM
How many died in the Civil War for the freedom of the slaves?

Not many. The overwhelming majority (including Lincoln) were waging war to preserve the Union. Emancipation was a late game strategy.

How many have died so you and I can be free today?

Freedom has always came with a price, and it always will...

Lots have died for that reason. And for the second time, I challenge you to show how Iraq's failure or success will impact our freedom here in any significant way.

stevieray
07-24-2007, 12:25 AM
Not many. The overwhelming majority (including Lincoln) were waging war to preserve the Union. Emancipation was a late game strategy.



Lots have died for that reason. And for the second time, I challenge you to show how Iraq's failure or success will impact our freedom here in any significant way.


and lots of americans have died for the freedom of people in other countries as well.

and what was the issue that was causing the Union to split? I've never seen a black rebel soldier, have you?

It's not about our freedom, but the sacrifice made for freedom itself.

|Zach|
07-24-2007, 12:28 AM
first it was just freedom of others, now it's only our freedom that counts? didn't those before us die for freedom of others from all over world?

And how long did it take us after the EP to finally get off vacation and establish Civil Rights for African Americans?
Is it the US's job to preserve freedome all over the world? I thought you were a conservitive. At least thats what I got from all the vague posts you make that talk about everything but the issue at hand. It is really easy to jump in and out of vague analogies. Lots of wiggle room...ways to back off statements. You don't have to own your own words.

So lets talk about the actual issue. Which you hate but we might as well be in the here and now right?

Why is it ok to you that our solders are fighting and dieing in this war for the freedom of a people that have shown they are not willing to do the heavy lifting as long as the US does it for them. Do you disagree that is the situation we are in right now?

|Zach|
07-24-2007, 12:29 AM
I challenge you to show how Iraq's failure or success will impact our freedom here in any significant way.
He won't. He can't. He will talk in vague terms that mean nothing so he doesn't have to defend them. And when he is sick of that he will project some statement about you as a person as the BB know it all psychologist.

|Zach|
07-24-2007, 12:31 AM
We have laid the groundwork for democracy and freedom. It has been noble and magnificent. We can't MAKE them want it though.

banyon
07-24-2007, 12:36 AM
and lots of americans have died for the freedom of people in other countries as well.

and what was the issue that was causing the Union to split? I've never seen a black rebel soldier, have you?

They could vote at the time?

It's not about our freedom, but the sacrifice made for freedom itself.

Where are your threads about Sudan, East Timor, Sri Lanka, China, Somalia, Guantanamo Bay, the CIA secret prisons abroad?

O Champion of Freedom Stevieray, please save us from the debbil democraps!


Let's face it, for the third time, please detail how our failure or success at home in iraq will affect us here. Speaking in vagaries about freedom doesn't explain how America has been diminished by lessening freedoms in the aforementioned countries. How is Iraq one iota different?

Logical
07-24-2007, 12:45 AM
They could vote at the time?



Where are your threads about Sudan, East Timor, Sri Lanka, China, Somalia, Guantanamo Bay, the CIA secret prisons abroad?

O Champion of Freedom Stevieray, please save us from the debbil democraps!


Let's face it, for the third time, please detail how our failure or success at home in iraq will affect us here. Speaking in vagaries about freedom doesn't explain how America has been diminished by lessening freedoms in the aforementioned countries. How is Iraq one iota different?

Oil my friend, black gold, Texas tea.

Just kidding but only sort of.

|Zach|
07-24-2007, 02:55 AM
Hilarious.

patteeu
07-24-2007, 07:39 AM
When the troops can quit at any time this will be a decent analogy. I can quit smoking tomorrow, those guys and gals do not have that option.

Try again

Quitting smoking doesn't eliminate your risk for smoking related disease. Try again.

patteeu
07-24-2007, 07:45 AM
Trying to measure the value of an American life is never going to work.

If this was all about saving lifes then you would have a point about tobacco, alcohol, obesity and auto accidents. But most of those decisions are individual decisions not governmment decisions. Thats why the corelation doesn't fit, IMHO.

We also can't get involved in every country that is slaughtering their own people. Whether they have oil or not. We can support them, give them tools, food, money etc

But to put Americans on the ground in between two fighting forces to keep the peace is not a good global policy. It might be the moral act of a righteous nation but it will not be percieved as a just act by others. But as the Yanks dictating global policy.

First of all, in a volunteer military, individuals make decisions about whether or not to join and assume the risk that they will be killed in combat. Second, if you want to argue against this war because it's "not a good global policy" then fine, we can argue about that. Just don't sprinkle your arguments with demagoguery about risking American lives.

stevieray
07-24-2007, 07:55 AM
Is it the US's job to preserve freedome all over the world? I thought you were a conservitive. At least thats what I got from all the vague posts you make that talk about everything but the issue at hand. It is really easy to jump in and out of vague analogies. Lots of wiggle room...ways to back off statements. You don't have to own your own words.

So lets talk about the actual issue. Which you hate but we might as well be in the here and now right?

Why is it ok to you that our solders are fighting and dieing in this war for the freedom of a people that have shown they are not willing to do the heavy lifting as long as the US does it for them. Do you disagree that is the situation we are in right now?

I guess when you don't want to answer the questions, you are reduced to insults and calling the EP vague.

Shocking.

Someone doing the heavy lifting? Someone helping each other out? like you needing roommates to survive? What a concept.

patteeu
07-24-2007, 07:56 AM
General Petraeus, who wrote the counter insurgency field manual, prescribes that "a ratio of 25 soldiers per 1,000 residents -- or 120,000 people for security forces in Baghdad alone. But even after the 21,500 additional American troops are deployed, Petraeus will still have a security force of only 85,000 in Baghdad, and that will include Iraqi security forces, whose preparedness and allegiance are questionable." (1) That's 35,000 short of what Patreaus has prescribed for Baghdad alone, and that's not counting what he says we need around the provinces.

We're not even giving Patraeus what his own field manual requires in order to secure Baghdad, let alone the entire country (including the Al Anbar province where Al Queda is said to be).

War is not some kind of cookbook exercise where you follow a recipe and, voila, out pops a cake. On the one hand, we have General Petraeus' manual. On the other we have General Petraeus himself. You choose to believe the manual over the man simply because it suits your purpose. Who's not listening to the generals now?

stevieray
07-24-2007, 07:57 AM
He won't. He can't. He will talk in vague terms that mean nothing so he doesn't have to defend them. And when he is sick of that he will project some statement about you as a person as the BB know it all psychologist.


like you're doing in this thread?

stevieray
07-24-2007, 08:02 AM
They could vote at the time?



Where are your threads about Sudan, East Timor, Sri Lanka, China, Somalia, Guantanamo Bay, the CIA secret prisons abroad?

O Champion of Freedom Stevieray, please save us from the debbil democraps!


Let's face it, for the third time, please detail how our failure or success at home in iraq will affect us here. Speaking in vagaries about freedom doesn't explain how America has been diminished by lessening freedoms in the aforementioned countries. How is Iraq one iota different?

Why are you deflecting? I don't remember Congress and the UN saying that those countries were a threat.

then you mock freedom, and make it party related? weak.

you ask how our success or failure will affect us, then a claim we are already diminished....

stevieray
07-24-2007, 08:06 AM
First of all, in a volunteer military,

and there it is..the one thing Dems can't ever manipulate.

and my point as well, it's those who are willing to die that pay the price for freedom, wherever it may be.

It's ironic watching americans going after people for backing freedom.

Ugly Duck
07-24-2007, 08:23 AM
What makes you think that?

They have a blank check from the US. Our troops, our money, our resources for their freedom. And as long as you keep those fingers crossed that won't change.

What about this situation makes you think they have to take control. They are on vacation man.

Zach cuts deep & finds an artery....

BucEyedPea
07-24-2007, 08:34 AM
and there it is..the one thing Dems can't ever manipulate.

and my point as well, it's those who are willing to die that pay the price for freedom, wherever it may be.

It's ironic watching americans going after people for backing freedom.
ROFL :rolleyes:

BucEyedPea
07-24-2007, 08:36 AM
War is not some kind of cookbook exercise where you follow a recipe and, voila, out pops a cake. On the one hand, we have General Petraeus' manual. On the other we have General Petraeus himself. You choose to believe the manual over the man simply because it suits your purpose. Who's not listening to the generals now?
What wars have you ever fought in to know?

BigRedChief
07-24-2007, 09:36 AM
First of all, in a volunteer military, individuals make decisions about whether or not to join and assume the risk that they will be killed in combat. Second, if you want to argue against this war because it's "not a good global policy" then fine, we can argue about that. Just don't sprinkle your arguments with demagoguery about risking American lives.
The Iraq people have not shown that they are worthy of American lives being sacrificed for them.

I just don't see a reason why we should sacrifice more American lives just to to keep Iraq spiraling downward into a civil war.

Redrum_69
07-24-2007, 09:38 AM
"WMD"

"OIL..."

"Terrorists..."

"Bin Laden..."

Radar Chief
07-24-2007, 09:57 AM
What wars have you ever fought in to know?

Speaking strictly for myself, not Pat, but I assume I’ve been through one more than you have.
Does that validate my opinion and/or invalidate yours?

BucEyedPea
07-24-2007, 09:58 AM
I wasn't addressing you.

Radar Chief
07-24-2007, 10:05 AM
I wasn't addressing you.

I realized that.

Speaking strictly for myself, not Pat, but I assume I’ve been through one more than you have.
Does that validate my opinion and/or invalidate yours?

I think you get my point though, everyone here is working off what they’ve read, people they’ve talked with, what they see on the news. You included.

BucEyedPea
07-24-2007, 10:09 AM
You don't understand, that this has nothing to do with pat's view on the war.
It has to do with him claiming to know what the correct recipe* is for conducting war without ever having been in one. Please see what I posted to for context.

And I mean a real war, not a pansy UN police action like PGWI, with one side clearly having overwhelming force and capability. Heck! I'd even accept Vietnam and Korea as more like real wars....really dirty stuff fighting guerrillas.


* what is it with you guys and "cake?" :hmmm:

ct
07-24-2007, 10:20 AM
Good post. And kudos go out to our soldiers for doing everything that they set out to do. Insured that we were not threatened by WMDs. Brought about regime change. Installed democracy. Trained the Iraqi soldiers & police. Its time we supported them by recognizing their victory.

Unfortunately, our new goal is out of their hands. Now they are expected to give the Iraqi leaders "time to implement political reconciliation." And that is dependent upon the will of the Iraqi leaders, not the performance of our troops. If Iraqis do not have the will to reconcile, there is nothing our troops can do to force them to be nice to each other. The new definition of "victory" is one that our fine fighting men have no control over. Now they are stuck in the middle of a civil war waiting, waiting for the Iraqis to stop killing each other and reconcile. Reagan would not leave them stranded and vulnerable like that. Time to pin some fuggin medals on those guyz & bring 'em home.

:clap:

Bravo!!

Radar Chief
07-24-2007, 10:26 AM
You don't understand,

I understand fully, and you should really stop posting that particular “projection”.


that this has nothing to do with pat's view on the war.
It has to do with him claiming to know what the correct recipe* is for conducting war without ever having been in one. Please see what I posted to for context.

Nowhere in what you quoted did Pat claim to “know the correct recipe”. In fact, he’s plainly stating that no one here does, that the person with probably the best perspective on this is Gen. Patraeus. And sadly he doesn’t post here.

And I mean a real war, not a pansy UN police action like PGWI, with one side clearly having overwhelming force and capability. Heck! I'd even accept Vietnam and Korea as more like real wars....really dirty stuff fighting guerrillas.


· what is it with you guys and "cake?" :hmmm:

When you tell me what war you’ve fought in, I might listen to your opinion as to what’s “real” and what isn’t.

BucEyedPea
07-24-2007, 10:35 AM
I understand fully, and you should really stop posting that particular “projection”.
I wasn't projecting. Just clarifying my post was not taken as intended.

Nowhere in what you quoted did Pat claim to “know the correct recipe”. In fact, he’s plainly stating that no one here does, that the person with probably the best perspective on this is Gen. Patraeus. And sadly he doesn’t post here.

Sounds like a declarative statement to me as if one's been there:

War is not some kind of cookbook exercise where you follow a recipe and, voila, out pops a cake.

When you tell me what war you’ve fought in, I might listen to your opinion as to what’s “real” and what isn’t.
Did we Declare War? No.
Fact: PGWI was a UN police action waged by an international coalition. That's the political side of it.

On the military side....it's pretty obvious observation from the duration of time and casualties on our side it was not the grueling undertaking like The Civil War, WWI, WWII and other police actions like Vietnam and Korea. If it wasn't you'd have a point. However, I don't believe I've ever debated or argued tactical military maneuvvers needed to win a war. I leave that to Adept Havelock whose posts I love on such things.

Why aren't you following your own advice here, is beyond me. What's good for pat should be good for me. I don't think you really believe it.

Now, don't be a pesky interventionist butting in to someone asking a poster a question. He's a big boy, he doesn't need you to answer for him or have his back.

Adept Havelock
07-24-2007, 10:51 AM
I've never seen a black rebel soldier, have you?


You have now, so quit yer bitchin! :p

http://www.forrestsescort.org/blacks.htm

.

Radar Chief
07-24-2007, 11:03 AM
I wasn't projecting. Just clarifying my post was not taken as intended.

Then the problem lies in your post, not my interpretation of it. Good to see you recognize that now, but that didn’t keep you from projecting the problem as being at my end, now did it?

Sounds like a declarative statement to me as if one's been there:

Can you point out in Pat’s own words exactly where he claims to “know the recipe”?

On the military side....it's pretty obvious observation from the duration of time and casualties on our side it was not the grueling undertaking like The Civil War, WWI, WWII and other police actions like Vietnam and Korea. If it wasn't you'd have a point.

Sounds like a declarative statement to me as if one's been there:

Why aren't you following your own advice here, is beyond me. What's good for pat should be good for me. I don't think you really believe it.

:spock: What in the world are you even talking about?

Now, don't be a pesky interventionist butting in to someone asking a poster a question. He's a big boy, he doesn't need you to answer for him or have his back.

Who made you the BB police? Pissed ‘cause someone else is playing in your sand box?
You’re right about one thing, Pat can handle himself.

BucEyedPea
07-24-2007, 11:09 AM
I must say Radarcon, copying other people's lines is the sincerest form of flattery. :thumb: :D

Guess what goes around comes around.

Again, I never said pat, or anyone else couldn't have an opinion about war if they haven't been in a war. You changed my words to suit your antagonism. It was narrowly intended to pat's specific statement.

I have never debated tactical military maneuvers for winning a war....precisely because I know nothing about such things. Apparently, our chickenhawk CIC is in the same camp including appointing a general who will tell him what he wants to hear.

BucEyedPea
07-24-2007, 11:16 AM
TCan you point out in Pat’s own words exactly where he claims to “know the recipe”?
I did....see above. Post #127.

Radar Chief
07-24-2007, 11:18 AM
I must say Radarcon, copying other people's lines is the sincerest form of flattery. :thumb: :D

Guess what goes around comes around.

And the NeoCon Demagogue finally catches on. ;)

Again, I never said pat, or anyone else couldn't have an opinion about war if they haven't been in a war. You changed my words to suit your antagonism. It was narrowly intended to pat's specific statement.

I never changed a single word you posted, and only worked off their literal meaning.

I have never debated tactical military maneuvers for winning a war....precisely because I know nothing about such things. Apparently, our chickenhawk CIC is in the same camp including appointing a general who will tell him what he wants to hear.

Projection! Projection! Projection [/NeoCon Demagogue]

You should be ashamed. ;)

Radar Chief
07-24-2007, 11:20 AM
I did....see above. Post #127.

Nowhere in what you quoted did Pat claim to “know the correct recipe”. In fact, he’s plainly stating that no one here does, that the person with probably the best perspective on this is Gen. Patraeus. And sadly he doesn’t post here.

patteeu
07-24-2007, 01:05 PM
The Iraq people have not shown that they are worthy of American lives being sacrificed for them.

I just don't see a reason why we should sacrifice more American lives just to to keep Iraq spiraling downward into a civil war.

The great thing about a volunteer military is that we can let those who are actually doing the sacrificing make that judgment. They can either continue to enlist/re-enlist (or, in the case of officers, resign their commissions) or they can choose other pursuits.

But let's not be confused about this. We're in Iraq as a part of our GWoT strategy for our own benefit, first and foremost. That the Iraqi people also stand to benefit from that strategy is incidental. IMO, the debate ought to be about whether or not this is the right strategy to use in the GWoT and it shouldn't be cluttered with emotional sideshows like the idea that our troops are being sacrificed for the benefit of an ungrateful group of Iraqis.

patteeu
07-24-2007, 01:10 PM
You don't understand, that this has nothing to do with pat's view on the war.
It has to do with him claiming to know what the correct recipe* is for conducting war without ever having been in one. Please see what I posted to for context.

And I mean a real war, not a pansy UN police action like PGWI, with one side clearly having overwhelming force and capability. Heck! I'd even accept Vietnam and Korea as more like real wars....really dirty stuff fighting guerrillas.


* what is it with you guys and "cake?" :hmmm:

What correct recipe are you talking about? I explicitly said that there isn't a recipe. I went on to point out that the guy who wrote the book that Zach is relying on, doesn't appear to come to the same conclusions that Zach does.

BigRedChief
07-24-2007, 01:48 PM
IMO, the debate ought to be about whether or not this is the right strategy to use in the GWoT and it shouldn't be cluttered with emotional sideshows like the idea that our troops are being sacrificed for the benefit of an ungrateful group of Iraqis.
Same argument pal. It's the wrong strategy and Americans are being sacrificed for a group of people that hate us. Sure there are some that like us. Want a democracy in Iraq. But the vast majority hate us. We are imperialist infidels.....So I say Fuk em nlm let them kill each other.

|Zach|
07-24-2007, 02:28 PM
I guess when you don't want to answer the questions, you are reduced to insults and calling the EP vague.

Shocking.

Someone doing the heavy lifting? Someone helping each other out? like you needing roommates to survive? What a concept.
My roommates pay the rent each and every month as do I. I don't do the cooking and cleaning and make payments while they are on vacation.

|Zach|
07-24-2007, 02:38 PM
War is not some kind of cookbook exercise where you follow a recipe and, voila, out pops a cake. On the one hand, we have General Petraeus' manual. On the other we have General Petraeus himself. You choose to believe the manual over the man simply because it suits your purpose. Who's not listening to the generals now?
What I am saying is it seems obvious the military isn't getting what they need. That happens when you have a weak leader. If we are going to do this...why not do it right?

|Zach|
07-24-2007, 02:41 PM
like you're doing in this thread?
I just thought I would save others some time and lay our your schtick for this thread. Which you have followed pretty well. You will talk about anything but the issue at hand. You can't talk about the real issues in any substantive manner. It has always been like that for you here. You deny it? Banyon poised some interesting questions...what a surprise you didn't answer them or even attempt too. They were about the topic at hand and specific.

I have been more than happy to talk about the actual thread topic...even if others disagree with some things I say. Which is fine, I value a lot of the takes here that differ from my own. Hey, even Chiefaroo came around and talked about the real thing for a while.

Logical
07-24-2007, 02:57 PM
Same argument pal. It's the wrong strategy and Americans are being sacrificed for a group of people that hate us. Sure there are some that like us. Want a democracy in Iraq. But the vast majority hate us. We are imperialist infidels.....So I say Fuk em nlm let them kill each other.

Amen

Logical
07-24-2007, 02:59 PM
What correct recipe are you talking about? I explicitly said that there isn't a recipe. I went on to point out that the guy who wrote the book that Zach is relying on, doesn't appear to come to the same conclusions that Zach does.

What a suprise, the guy reporting to the White House changes his opinions to suit his masters desires!!!:rolleyes:

Like we all have not seen that before.

go bowe
07-24-2007, 03:00 PM
I realized that.



I think you get my point though, everyone here is working off what they’ve read, people they’ve talked with, what they see on the news. You included.0oh n0se, don't say that so loud...

wrt the content of your post, i totally agree with you...

there are always exceptions, of course...

|Zach|
07-24-2007, 03:03 PM
What a suprise, the guy reporting to the White House changes his opinions to suit his masters desires!!!:rolleyes:

Like we all have not seen that before.
I would be interested in hearing his take on that. What about this situation could possibly make less troops the better way to go about this. What about Iraq could make it the exception for his own strategy laid out for this sort of thing.

Seems obvious the WH is in the way.

Logical
07-24-2007, 03:06 PM
and there it is..the one thing Dems can't ever manipulate.

and my point as well, it's those who are willing to die that pay the price for freedom, wherever it may be.

It's ironic watching americans going after people for backing freedom.

When the volunteers can quit and come back any time they want you will have a point. Until then you are just blowing smoke.

Logical
07-24-2007, 03:08 PM
I would be interested in hearing his take on that. What about this situation could possibly make less troops the better way to go about this. What about Iraq could make it the exception for his own strategy laid out for this sort of thing.

Seems obvious the WH is in the way.

I think the sad thing is that he will never be able to speak his real mind as long as he is in the position he is in. If he does he will be out.

stevieray
07-24-2007, 03:56 PM
I just thought I would save others some time and lay our your schtick for this thread. Which you have followed pretty well. You will talk about anything but the issue at hand. You can't talk about the real issues in any substantive manner. It has always been like that for you here. You deny it? Banyon poised some interesting questions...what a surprise you didn't answer them or even attempt too. They were about the topic at hand and specific.

I have been more than happy to talk about the actual thread topic...even if others disagree with some things I say. Which is fine, I value a lot of the takes here that differ from my own. Hey, even Chiefaroo came around and talked about the real thing for a while.

all that hooha and you still haven't answered my questions that are relative... please continue to take this to the personal level because of your inabilty to do so.

most of these "issues" are just the same thing we've alll discussed adnausem since Bush took office, just dressed up from a different angle.

there is no handbook or timeline for this confkict, as there wasn't in any other in the past... you seem to have the Iraquis all figured out when you've never walked in their shoes...hell, you've prolly never wanted in your life, yet you want to talk about sacrifice for others....

you've played this same act with Skip, BD, Kotter, TC and others...most recently chiefaroo, no wonder you are patting yourself on the back. I guess I've underestimated how much these internet "victories" mean to you.

stevieray
07-24-2007, 03:58 PM
When the volunteers can quit and come back any time they want you will have a point. Until then you are just blowing smoke.

if volunteers could quit, there'd be no reason to take the oath. Taking the oath to serve your country is untouchable and nothing lesss than honorable..

|Zach|
07-24-2007, 04:02 PM
all that hooha and you still haven't answered my questions that are relative... please continue to take this to the personal level because of your inabilty to do so.

most of these "issues" are just the same thing we've alll discussed adnausem since Bush took office.

there is no handbook or timeline for this confkict, as there wasn't in any other in the past... you seem to have the Iraquis all figured out when you've never walked in their shoes...hell, you've prolly never wanted in your life, yet you want to talk about sacrifice for others....
I have answered a lot of your questions...even though you don't like those answers. But why would I answer all of them. I am intrerested in talking about the topic at hand. Not your own little word where you grasp at straws and nosedive a thread to be about everything but the actual issue being discussed. You are a lot like Tom Cash in that respect just more subtle.

I have never said there is a handbook for this conflict as a whole. I have said there is a handbook for this particular military situation and it isn't being followed.

Again, my questions...banyons questions...all about what we were talking about.

But you are not interested in discussing the real issues.

You can't.

stevieray
07-24-2007, 04:09 PM
I have answered a lot of your questions...even though you don't like those answers. But why would I answer all of them. I am intrerested in talking about the topic at hand. Not your own little word where you grasp at straws and nosedive a thread to be about everything but the actual issue being discussed. You are a lot like - ahem, shut your mouth - in that respect just more subtle.

I have never said there is a handbook for this conflict as a whole. I have said there is a handbook for this particular military situation and it isn't being followed.

Again, my questions...banyons questions...all about what we were talking about.

But you are not interested in discussing the real issues.

You can't.

the only issue is that you don't approve of them taking vacation..it isn't up to you..it's up to the people who make those decisions.

and which question did you answer?

|Zach|
07-24-2007, 04:18 PM
the only issue is that you don't approve of them taking vacation..it isn't up to you..it's up to the people who make those decisions.

and which question did you answer?
I have humored and responded to your weak analogies...but have been uninterested in your - ahem, shut your mouth - posting style. In the meantime you have conventionally skipped over these. Just like you always do with real questions...just like I said you would.

I challenge you to show how Iraq's failure or success will impact our freedom here in any significant way.

Why is it ok to you that our solders are fighting and dieing in this war for the freedom of a people that have shown they are not willing to do the heavy lifting as long as the US does it for them. Do you disagree that is the situation we are in right now?


please detail how our failure or success at home in iraq will affect us here. Speaking in vagaries about freedom doesn't explain how America has been diminished by lessening freedoms in the aforementioned countries. How is Iraq one iota different?


Each one a specific question that would force you to *gasp* speak in terms would actually have to backup or own or put some thought into. Not your style I know.

As far as the only thing I don't approve of being the vacation. It makes me wonder if you have even been reading this thread. At all.

stevieray
07-24-2007, 04:33 PM
I have humored and responded to your weak analogies...but have been uninterested in your - ahem, shut your mouth - posting style. In the meantime you have conventionally skipped over these. Just like you always do with real questions...just like I said you would.



Why is it ok to you that our solders are fighting and dieing in this war for the freedom of a people that have shown they are not willing to do the heavy lifting as long as the US does it for them. Do you disagree that is the situation we are in right now?





Each one a specific question that would force you to *gasp* speak in terms would actually have to backup or own or put some thought into. Not your style I know.

As far as the only thing I don't approve of being the vacation. It makes me wonder if you have even been reading this thread. At all.[/QUOTE]



funny thing about your humoring responses, they didn't supply an answer.

the first question is biased..you project that something is ok(soldiers dying) to me, trying to tell me my what my stance is, followed up by an opinion(unwilling to do the heavywork)..so the question was baited and doesn't require a response.

the implications are pretty simple and have already been stated in previous threads, leaving at this point, among other things, could give Iran the opportunity to control half the world's oil....this isn't breaking news.

my bad on using "only",.

|Zach|
07-24-2007, 04:40 PM
We got some quote clutter...I am just gonna throw out this post.

I gave an opening if you felt my question by its nature was not fair. Asked the question and then asked "Do you agree thats the situation we are in" Seems it would have been an easy opening to throw out your take or your qualms with the way I framed anything. Even though there wasn't really anything misleading about it. Sadly, there are soldiers are in fact dieing.

The implications of all of this are a lot of things. "Simple" is not one of them. Our leaders, military, and citizens seem to have really gotten ourselves in a few pickles thinking any of this is simple.

stevieray
07-24-2007, 04:42 PM
We got some quote clutter...I am just gonna throw out this post.

I gave an opening if you felt my question by its nature was not fair. Asked the question and then asked "Do you agree thats the situation we are in" Seems it would have been an easy opening to throw out your take.

The implications of all of this are a lot of things. "Simple" is not one of them. Our leaders, military, and citizens seem to have really gotten ourselves in a few pickles thinking any of this is simple.

I concur. I shouldn't have assumed that by not responding, you would've received its implication.

a1na2
07-24-2007, 07:56 PM
What does winning entail?

That's a great question. It seems like the current plan isn't accepted by the masses. The problem I see is that it's easy to claim failure of the administration, but that is where the story ends. I don't see anyone coming up with viable possibilities to solve the problem and allow us to win the conflict. This war, like Vietnam, will be lost on the political front with no regard for what could have happened without the political intervention by the opposing party. It doesn't matter who is in office or who controls the house and senate, there will always be bickering as there has been in the past. We just see more of it and hear more voices due to the internet.

What I see is that the lines of demarcation have been drawn and each have taken root on their side with no relief in sight.

Adept Havelock
07-24-2007, 08:54 PM
This war, like Vietnam, will be lost on the political front with no regard for what could have happened without the political intervention by the opposing party.

:rolleyes:
Tom, once again you are full of s**t.

Vietnam was lost because the only way to win was invading Cambodia, Laos, and North Vietnam. Which would have brought in the USSR and PRC. Which almost certainly would have led to Joshua's favorite game.

The loss was because of Geopolitical realities, not a failure of domestic political will. Feel free to keep selling this tired line of crap. I'm sure someone will be ignorant enough to buy it.

Sully
07-24-2007, 09:20 PM
Which would have brought in the USSR and PRC. Which almost certainly would have led to Joshua's favorite game.

Tic Tac Toe?

Logical
07-24-2007, 09:50 PM
if volunteers could quit, there'd be no reason to take the oath. Taking the oath to serve your country is untouchable and nothing lesss than honorable..If they cannot quit at any time they want, they are no longer volunteering, they are in essence indenture servants to the government. If that government is misusing them and causing them to die unneccessarily then that government is wasting their precious lives.

BigRedChief
07-24-2007, 09:58 PM
That's a great question. It seems like the current plan isn't accepted by the masses. The problem I see is that it's easy to claim failure of the administration, but that is where the story ends. I don't see anyone coming up with viable possibilities to solve the problem and allow us to win the conflict. This war, like Vietnam, will be lost on the political front with no regard for what could have happened without the political intervention by the opposing party. It doesn't matter who is in office or who controls the house and senate, there will always be bickering as there has been in the past. We just see more of it and hear more voices due to the internet.

What I see is that the lines of demarcation have been drawn and each have taken root on their side with no relief in sight.The dems don't have a plan because there will never be a good plan developed by anyone. Cut your loss's and move on. Just like Regan did 20 years ago.

stevieray
07-24-2007, 10:22 PM
If they cannot quit at any time they want, they are no longer volunteering, they are in essence indenture servants to the government. If that government is misusing them and causing them to die unneccessarily then that government is wasting their precious lives.
disagree. they willingly and voluntarily join. they aren't being forced.

Logical
07-24-2007, 11:25 PM
disagree. they willingly and voluntarily join. they aren't being forced.

Stevie, some would still willingly signup even now. But I would be suprised if even half would remain in the service if they were given the option of opting out rather than serving in Iraq.

Boyceofsummer
07-25-2007, 04:06 AM
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/072007A.shtml

Radar Chief
07-25-2007, 07:21 AM
Stevie, some would still willingly signup even now. But I would be suprised if even half would remain in the service if they were given the option of opting out rather than serving in Iraq.

If you sign up today, unless you join the Navy, it’s pretty much a forgone conclusion that you will be going to Iraq. The people signing up and re-enlisting know that.

patteeu
07-25-2007, 11:23 AM
If they cannot quit at any time they want, they are no longer volunteering, they are in essence indenture servants to the government. If that government is misusing them and causing them to die unneccessarily then that government is wasting their precious lives.

At this point, 4+ years into the Iraq conflict, what percentage of current soldiers and marines do you think joined prior to our invasion and haven't had at least one opportunity to get out of the service? I'm thinking that's a very small number.

Boyceofsummer
07-25-2007, 12:33 PM
If you sign up today, unless you join the Navy, it’s pretty much a forgone conclusion that you will be going to Iraq. The people signing up and re-enlisting know that.

and was shipped to Afganistan due to the shortage of manpower from other branches.

BigRedChief
07-25-2007, 06:11 PM
If you sign up today, unless you join the Navy, it’s pretty much a forgone conclusion that you will be going to Iraq. The people signing up and re-enlisting know that.
No doubt.