’)Too much has been made by the right of the idea that to leave Iraq now would be a sign of weakness to Bin Laden. It’s too late for that. It’s already clear to the world that we are weak already, thanks to our leadership’s failure to plan. The same country that destroyed the Nazi and Japanese war machine is unable to secure a relative backwater like Iraq in the same amount of time. The same country whose military unleashed hell because we knew our cause was just and that our survival hinged on victory had leaders who went into Iraq on the cheap and let our troops get stuck in a civil war.
Justification for the war aside, this thing was winnable, if only President Bush, VP Cheney, Sec. Rumsfeld, and a host of others had not let hubris get in the way and set us up to fail.
3,000 Americans have died for no good reason, with no good strategy behind them and no matter the equivocation of the right-wing, that is a failure and we will all feel the consequences of it (and someone please tell the wingers who keep doing a 1:1 comparison of deaths that it is 2006, not 1944 and if we had the same amount of deaths it would be a heck of a failure of technology, and furthermore they should check out the thousands of injuries we’ve got that would be deaths in the past – and this in no way makes the current deaths somehow okay).
>> For those interested in the history of why we were set up to lose, read "Blind Into Baghdad"
Oliver…we won the war. We won the war with less casualties than we had in one day of fighting on one island in one theatre of WWII.
We have not won the “peace”…and in point of fact, we never claimed we would. It is up to the Iraqi’s to do that…we are protecting their flank while they get that up and running. Now they may NEVER get that right, and then we will have to go. But it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy when we have the liberal bed-wetters claiming we “lost” since the day we set foot in Iraq.
The leftists in this country will make it impossible for a true victory in any war. We are damned if we go in like a conquering army and garrison the country, and like-wise will be damned if we just sort of hang out in safe zones and sortie out after the action has gone down. And since the liberal media in this country makes more money with bad news than with good….guess what the american people will hear about? Remember all those Iraqi’s “burned alive” in the “4 mosques burned down?” Try finding some confirmation of that….
http://floppingaces2.blogspot.com/2006/11/getting-news-from-enemy.html
“…we are protecting their flank…”
I hope you were speaking metaphorically because if you were speaking literally, you’re a total moron.
wait, you’re a total moron anyway.
Yes redefine “the war” in order to make yourselves the winners. Typical of the right-wing history re-writing you and your cohorts pass for rational thinking. The so-called liberal media that participated in administration’s propaganda from 2002-5 is the same one reporting the news today, their information should always be taken with a grain of salt. But the idea that you’re seriously arguing that everything is honky-dory in Iraq and people aren’t being blown the hell up day in and day out is the height of cranial damage.
Because some guy with a website said something that made you nod your head doesn’t make it true. Get out of the echo chamber sometime. It’s nice out here.
This war was not winnable. It never was. Not with the current mob at the helm. They were also the only ones stupid enough to try it. No sane man would have considered such an obviously unwinnable situation. For examples, please see Bush, George H.W.
And I just LOVE Pedrugger’s declaration that the Iraqis simply “haven’t gotten it right”. See, their nation devolving into chaos after we came in and blew their infrastructure to hell was entirely, solely, their fault. Well, their fault and the fault of the leftists in this country. Because after all, who could be more responsible than those who were saying we never should have gone in the first place? After all, we predicted this obvious farce was going to go down exactly as it had.
Always blameless, these pants-shitting warmongers. Funny how that happens.
They’re nothing but piss-sodden little crybabies who, now that all their dreams of a glorious GOP lead future have gone up in a shock-and-awe style conflagration of civil war, toture, and baby-fucking, have gone on to declare it’s everyone’s fault but their own.
Nice to see they haven’t learned a damn thing from all they’ve wrought.
dr pedro | Nov 26, 2006 7:40:17 PM
“We have not won the “peace”…and in point of fact, we never claimed we would.”
“We are damned if we go in like a conquering army and garrison the country …”
pedugger, frameone’s right. You’re a total moron. A few weeks ago, the American people sent a loud, clear message to The Decider about these bullshit Republican ‘invasion’ talking points.
No one buys it except you and Dugger.
Wow, I have no idea which part of Pedro’s little stream of consciousness was wrongest, but:
1) There’s a case for claiming that the war isn’t even over.
2) If you don’t “win the peace”, you don’t get to say you “won the war”.
3) If you start a war, you better way intend to win the peace, unless you’re a totally irresponsible homicidal maniac. You can’t just invade someone else’s country, say “WE HAVE LIBERATED YOU FROM OPRESSION” and then expect them to pick up the mess you created by themselves. I can’t believe you’re really that callous. Fuck that. With great warmongering comes great responsibility.
Brilliant post, Jody, well said!
1) By the end of 1,347 days, we had defeated Germany by practically bombing them back to the stone age and conquering nearly every inch of their territory. In the Pacific, we had driven the Japanese back to their home islands and were strangling them in a ruthless blockade, firebombing them to ashes, and nuked two of their cities — with the threat of more to come. (An empty threat, as we had no more nuclear bombs, but they didn’t know that.)
2) We occupied Baghdad and drove out the last remnants of the Baathist regime in 21 days flat.
3) The occupation of Germany lasted for 4 years. We authorized the creation of the government of West Germany in 1949. East Germany wasn’t truly free until it reunited with West Germany in 1990. Japan was considered an occupied nation until 1952.
4) We STILL have troops in Germany and Japan to this day.
J.
Oliver do you just not read well, or can’t you help your little bursts of yellow journalism.
No where did I say things were hunky dory, no.where.
And jesus jody, and I guess “S” too, if you consider “baby-fucking” brilliant. Of course, in typical leftists fashion…just make shit up, hell it sounds good and that’s what propaganda is all about right?
Nimrod, for a guy who lives there, your history of europe is a little rusty. We invaded a whole bunch of countries after pulling the brits/french/swedes/finns/italians asses out of the proverbial nazi fires, and they seemed to have picked up the “mess” nicely….quickly too.
And oliver, if you have a real rebuttal to the claim that the media is being used as a tool of the insurgents, now would be a good time to use it. You see, facts make better arguments than blind assertions about truth.
pedugger, do you remember Brian Doyle?
No “S”,
Do you remember the molecular weight of molybdenum?
There, now that the non-sequitors are out of the way….
Jay,
Let me add one more:
5) We invaded Korea in 1950, lost more than 33,000 soldiers between 1950-53, and still have troops guarding the ceasefire line to this day.
So what the hell is your point (and you too, Dr. Pedro)? Does any of this take away from the fact the Iraq War (or, as you and Dr. Pedro call it, the Glorious Iraq Asskicking Followed by The Great Backstabbing by the Incompetent Iraqis and Dirty Liberals and Leftist Media) has so far been a colossal mistake and a total failure?
“We STILL have troops in Germany and Japan to this day.”
And how many of those troops were killed by IEDs last month?
Jesus you guys are idiots.
They may be idiots, but they certainly manage to post first to new threads. Either they have nothing to do or they are paid to rant trollishly on liberal blogs.
S | Nov 26, 2006 9:59:07 PM
“pedugger, do you remember Brian Doyle?
dr pedro | Nov 26, 2006 10:15:51 PM
“No S …Do you remember the molecular weight of molybdenum?”
Brian Doyle used to be the Deputy Press Secretary at the all hallowed Department of Homeland Security. He was arrested for soliciting teenage girls on the Internet for shits and giggles. If anything, it’s the Republicans who dabble in “baby fucking”.
Hardly propogandized “making shit up”.
Oh, and the molecular weight of molybdenum is 95.94.
yea gene, and unlike vietnam until recently at least, south korea has been a vibrant growing economy.
Vietnam on the other hand…and of course lets not forget the other result of our leaving southeast asia, the killing fields of cambodia.
Do you think the american leftists take credit for the millions of dead cambodians..?
Yes, we should have stayed in Vietnam. I can see it now… “just six more months”.
We should have stayed in Viet Nam! What a disgrace that 2.5 million innocents died for no reason. The least we could have done is won the war for the sake of their names.
There are still tribes in Laos being chased by the Viet Nam government for siding with the US.
If we had won maybe 1 million innocents wouldn’t have been razed by those innocent commies.
But if we leave Iraq it should be far different. Once we leave, once the cameras leave. There won’t be any killing.
At least CNN won’t cover it, and it will be a lot easier to look through your rose colored glasses again.
Good God, Dr. Pedro, get your facts straight. The Cambodian killing fields did not result from US withdrawal. Pol Pot came in to power precisely because we destablized eastern Cambodia while bombing the Ho Chi Minh trail. We destroyed the old government and paved the way for Pol Pot’s forces to rally the disaffected peasantry. Perhaps you aren’t aware of this, but it was the Communist Vietnamese army that invaded Cambodia in 1979 and kicked out Pol Pot’s regime. The question you have to ask yourself is if the Thieu regime had held on in South Vietnam another four years, would they have been able to invade Cambodia and end the Khmer Rouge genocide?
Jeff | Nov 26, 2006 11:03:56 PM
“What a disgrace that 2.5 million innocents died for no reason.”
So, what are your thoughts regarding the ongoing death of thousands of Iraqis as a result of the disorganized American invasion?
We should have stayed in Viet Nam!
Ten years and 50,000 U.S. deaths aren’t enough? How many more do you think should have died?
This may be totally irrelevant to Vietnam and WWII, but bin Laden wants us in Iraq.
Bi Laden wants us in Iraq?
Do you know where the capital of the caliphate is?
We are preventing him from creating the Caliphate. If he wanted us in iraq he would probably not have ramped up violence before the midterm elections. heck, if he wanted us there, there would be no violence.
I was listening to a 1944 radio broadcast lastnight, a discussion of the deplorable condtions our troops were held in by our enemies in that war… the ring of condemnation that any man should be so mistreated.
we lost more than the war, my friend
“Do you know where the capital of the caliphate is?”
Uranus?
I’m going to make this clear:
You should never have got involved in Vietnam. If you wanted to waste a generation so badly you could have done it at home.
I absolutely love how, out of everything I posted, Pedrugger opts to focus on the term ‘baby-fucking’.
No rebuke of the right’s whining that it’s everyone else’s fault, as the collective posted upthread.
No arguing of my obvious point that only a nut would have invaded in the first place.
And CERTAINLY no rebuke of my chastising them for blaming this whole mess on the Iraqis. Just references to other, more professionally handled occupations from countries that actually attacked us.
It’s almost as if they can’t dispute these facts.
“Oliver…we won the war.”
So, now, maybe, we should be talking about how the Republicans lost Iraq? Their Pres, their House, their Senate. Sounds like a meme to me.
Does anyone here actually know what the Caliphate is? Because it is actually quite important. Just Google it and see. Baghdad is the capital. If the Islamic fundamentalists, Bin Laden, Ahmadinejad and co. want their caliphate they need to win Iraq. That is why they are fighting so hard. If they win Iraq, do you know where they attack next to claim as their land? Spain.
Iraq is vital to stopping these tyrants with a single goal.
Jeff, is The Decider an immediate family member?
Jeff, put down the mouse and step away from the internet.
Elrod, Pol Pot came to power because he wanted to come to power. He was a hard core, French educated communist with typical smug communist “I know better than anybody else” ideas. And like most communists and extreme leftists, we was willing to commit mass murder in the interest of bettering humanity.
And BTW all, we did win the war.
“The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it.” George Orwell “
“Pol Pot came to power because he wanted to come to power.”
Brilliant.
Dugger | Nov 27, 2006 10:31:13 AM
“typical smug communist “I know better than anybody else” ideas.”
Ergo, pedugger is a communist?
Okay, humor me here. Presume that I agree that “winning” the war or the peace or whatthehellever’s left to win over there is critical and possible. How the hell do we win it? What are our goals in terms of shit our army can actually accomplish? I ask because right now it seems that all we’re over there doing, in the most charitable way to describe it, is “defending the citizenry as they piece together a democracy” and we dont seem to be doing that very well. I’m not even counting the Abu Ghraib shit where we are actively damaging the citizenry (curse those bad apples), but I dont think we’re doing a very good job of keeping them from exploding. Also they dont seem to want a free and open democracy very much, they arent really fighting for it. They seem, in fact, to be fighting us for trying to force them into it against their collective will. So if all thats left is to wait for something to happen that won’t, then honestly, what the hell are we still doing over there if we’ve won already?
I wouldn’t say we have won. But we are winning. In 1943 in looked like the Germans were gaining ground.
In 1941, it looked like their Blitzkrieg was unstoppable. Yet the most powerful and resolute Army mankind had seen in since Napoleon got crushed.
We will saty the course and win
Bush sure did create a cluster fuck.
“We will saty the course and win…”
Please do explain what both these terms mean: “stay the course” and “win.”
Jeff, I echo frameone’s questions. In particular, please define EXACTLY what “win” means in Iraq.
Thank you.
If the Islamic fundamentalists, Bin Laden, Ahmadinejad and co. want their caliphate
Hold it right there, Sparky.
“Bin Laden, Ahmadinejad, and co.”? Now you’re declaring that they’re all in this together?
How about a little more backup than just your say so, OK? And no, crackpots like Mylorie won’t cut it.
Jeff I am starting to wonder whether or not the leftists in america will actually allow this country to win a war.
In almost knee-jerk fashion they come out against any action made by the US. They jump on any possible mistep, and as we have seen, even the enemies disinformation is taken as gospel by american leftists. There is a deep hatred or guilt about being an american, and in a country that is divided 50/50, we may truly be unable to win any war.
Imagine what the war would look like now if the headlines read out the number of insurgents killed and the 5th paragraph was the number of americans? Do you think the american population would have a different view of the war today? Do you think the INSURGENTS would have a different view of american resolve?
The lefties mock it, but we are trying to win a war while fighting the leftist propagandists here at home, and it may not be a winnable battle…
dr pedro | Nov 27, 2006 12:19:16 PM
” … in a country that is divided 50/50, we may truly be unable to win any war.”
And how did we evolve to the 50/50 division since 2003, pedugger?
“The lefties mock it, but we are trying to win a war …”
We are trying to win? You really could have fooled me.
Pedro, let me ask you what we asked Jeff, what does “win” mean in the context of Iraq?
Peed’, you started off this thread claiming it was already won. Now you’re saying that the bad, bad leftists are preventing a win.
Did you forget or are you just making it up as you go?
Pedro, let me ask you what we asked Jeff, what does “win” mean in the context of Iraq?
I suspect what you must at this point, that the constant dodging of the question has more to do with victory being impossible in a fundamental sense than anything else. Although its possible that he’s trying to find a way to blame this fundamental failure of PNAC/NeoCon military philosophy on the “Lefties” some stupid how or other.
Although I am getting to like the increasingly demonic description of the “Lefties” (surely our diet of live puppy meat and the tears of infants will come to light soon enough) and love the characterization that we jump on any “possible misstep.” Imprisoning civilians without any charge or access to fair legal procedures and raping them with nightsticks is a “possible misstep” and we jump on it as proof that we are teh 3vul. Oh, but imagine how wonderful it would be if so much effort weren’t focused on battling the Lying Librul Propagandomat 3000 and how the war would be won in seconds if, instead of reporting on the toll that the Glorious War Everlasting is taking on our citizenry and theirs, we focused only on marks of success. How wonderful the… goddam it I cant even keep a good sarcastic snark going. Whats the damn point? Pedro’s so full of shit he probably thinks I actually AM agreeing with him. And knowing him he’d use me agreeing with him to prove how foolish I must be, and by extension, the majority of americans who voted democrat definately are.
the lefty need for over the top exageration continues unabated.
Jody continues in her ding-a-ling ways by saying…
“It’s almost as if they can’t dispute these facts.” And the “facts” she claims are “baby-f’ing’…’nuff said there.
then rex starts in with puppy diets…I mean why not just stick with facts?
The best point made by our resident socialists is the question of what a “win” looks like. In my mind, a win is a stable, democratic Iraq with the ability to protect itself. The real question is, how long do we give them to achieve that goal, and what is the cost if we leave before it is achieved.
“…how long do we give them to achieve that goal, and what is the cost if we leave before it is achieved.”
So how long do we give them to achieve that goal, pedro?
dr pedro | Nov 27, 2006 1:44:58 PM
“And the “facts” she claims are “baby-f’ing’…’nuff said there.”
Unless you consider the Deputy Press Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security who was arrested for
soliciting sex from a minor.
To pedugger, a “fact”.
The “war” in Iraq is over, it has long been over. To crush the Regulary Iraqi Army was not a difficult task. However, the action afterward is what is difficult. Besides the fact that there is a pipeline of post Soviet and Iranian weapons and munitions running in here, you also deal with ever-changing rules of engagement as well. THe lefties and the righties piss and moan and practice what they say to get re-elected and in the meantime Iraq remains the “O.K. Corral”. The United States needs to be ready to accept a form of Iraqi self-governance that we may not be comfortable with. Democracy means popular votes, not Wal-Mart and Starbucks. We are trying to unite a country where the psychology of importance is Self, Family, Clan, Tribe, Sect, Religion, and THEN Iraq. All of you sophisticated folks here that hurl invectives at one another over political ideology don’t realize that any two Americans from opposite coasts in this country have more in common than Two Iraqis that live only a few miles from one another.
Rex,
Sort it out. There is war and post war pacification. IMO, war is a fight between at least two country’s major combat forces. Ergo, we won the war. However, war does not necessarily cure or fix inherent domestic strife within the losing country and in places like the Mideast, that can be very violent, enduring and is the product of centuries of hatred.
Is this semantics? I don’t think so. Our soldiers and the American people, in effect, fought a war as they understood a war to be. Our soldiers were brave and won that fight. Critics can rightly assert that we have not pacified the countryside and that there is no real light at the end of the tunnel in that regard. And they could freely opine that pacification is not even possible. And (right or wrong) those would be logical criticisms of fighting the war in the first place.
Right now, war critics see an advantage in one side of the semantical equation and they see a political advantage to our losing (Republican led war fails!) Its both an unfortunate and fortunate position to be in. Politically, loss of the war helps the left’s ‘just’ cause and ‘gets’ the hated Bush. But most critics don’t really want the associated likely negative aspects of ‘losing’ a war in the Mideast and the other possible ramifications of our leaving on a rigid schedule.
It doesn’t make for good debating fodder, but I’ll say it again: there is no good, easy answer – my side or yours. I would stay the course and would expect that position to be roundly criticized. Same as yours (withdraw and be criticized).
Hey Quaker, I never said we won. I’m not sure who did, but not me. Go back and check.
That kind of pulls your argument apart.
Remember what happened to anti-war Kerry? Well besides turning into troop hating Kerry, not much. Truth be told, being diametrically opposed to the war is silly and most people won’t be bothered to listen to it… however you have a nice, “George Bush screwed us all” help group here.
Jeff | Nov 27, 2006 1:59:47 PM
“you have a nice “George Bush screwed us all” help group here.”
Jeff, with respect, I think you might be mistaken. The American people voted, by a fucking landslide, to send The Decider a pretty loud and clear message: “We’re not buying your bullshit talking points anymore.”
ASIDE from that, we’re concentrating on Caliphate.
“Jeff, with respect, I think you might be mistaken. The American people voted, by a fucking landslide, to send The Decider a pretty loud and clear message: “We’re not buying your bullshit talking points anymore.”
ASIDE from that, we’re concentrating on Caliphate.”
Well, the votes are in. The question remains, “Are they going to be any better in January than their predecessors”? They acted like petulant children for the last 6 years claiming stolen elections and complaining about who was in the majority. Simply criticizing. I would have used six years to formulate a viable plan, an alternative and I would have taken it to the people. That way I wouldn’t have spent the first days after the election squabbling with my party members like kids arguing over a remote.
“I would have used six years to formulate a viable plan, an alternative and I would have taken it to the people.”
I really do wish the people who critize the dems could get their stories straight. One says that Dems are the party of withdrawal and the other says they don’t have a plan.
Do they have a plan or don’t they?
And now that major broadcasters like NBC are finally admitting Iraq is in the midst of civil war 3 years later, what, again, what was the Republicans plan?
“I really do wish the people who critize the dems could get their stories straight. One says that Dems are the party of withdrawal and the other says they don’t have a plan.”
I don’t know Frameone, you tell me. I am not simply criticizing the Democrats, I am criticizing everyone who says a lot, but does nothing. Did I contradict myself? Did I say that the Democrats were a party of withdrawal? No. I did not. Have I heard a distinct plan coming from the Democrats after all of the criticisms they launched? No. Your turn.
Dkelsmith, what was the Republican plan?
“Dkelsmith, what was the Republican plan?”
Great question! The answer truly is. “Hell I don’t know!” But what is more important is what are we going to do now. The Democrats have criticized the other side of the aisle for bungling this whole thing, so I would assume that they can come up with something.
The broadstrokes of a Democratic plan can be found in this answer from Nancy Pelosi during a PBS interview:
Here’sa press release from Pelosi’s website:
The democratic plan involves a responsible redployment of forces outside of Iraq in order to facilitate a more effective political and diplomatic effort. Redployment forces the Iraqi national government, such as it is, to step up to resolve its internal problems.
Now if you want to argue the feasibility of that idea, fine. But don’t ask whether or not the dems have a plan if you haven’t done even the most basic research to find out what that plan is. That’s a tad disingenuous don’t you think?
@ Frameone,
“A responsible redeployment outside of Iraq, at the same time disarming the militia, amending the constitution, so that more people feel a part of the new government, and, again, building diplomatic relationships in the area to bring stability and reconstruction to Iraq is really a path we have to go down.”
Yeah man, that is the end state…the question is…how do you DO THAT. You can responsibly redeploy as you stated and that will force the Iraqi Army or Iraqi Police to step up? Yeah right…don’t get me wrong, the ones that aren’t crooked risk their lives by even working with coalition, but these guys quit in the middle of fights and run. They have issue with going to areas outside of their tribal lands to fight, and you have issues with Sunni’s and Shia being in charge of one another. The idea is great, but how do you actually DO the shit?
To back up a little I am a registered Democrat, and I voted for Dems in my district (via absentee). I just expect a little more solidarity from them. Sorry I was so “disingenuous” by not doing the basic “research” but I am actually in an MWR. I went on a mounted patrol today, and a dismounted yesteday…in the Baghdad area….so…by all means….forgive me for not doing more “research”. I don’t purport to be some political pundit, nor do I use faggoty phrases like “tad disingenuous” when I think someone is full of it. But, since you know so much and you are armed with the Pelosi website plan, why don’t you come over here and show us how easy this can be.
Its funny, dkel is an active military member, me and dugger are ex-military and we all think we won the war…the local keyboard commandos keep telling us we didn’t…
as far as the democrats plan…what a load of horsesh#t.
“A responsible redeployment outside of Iraq, at the same time disarming the militia, amending the constitution, so that more people feel a part of the new government, and, again, building diplomatic relationships in the area to bring stability and reconstruction to Iraq is really a path we have to go down”
does anyone else see the internal inconsistency of “disarming the militias” while “redeploying” our troops? the whole idea is one big inconsistency.
but you know, I am getting to the point where I say, “let em do it”…and when it is an abject failure, we can turn around and say “see, our way, difficult as it is was better for the world…”
Bush made a number of errors, no question. But you can’t look back with twenty-twenty hindsight and second guess them. You also can’t reasonable sit back and say “well, at least when saddam was in power the trains ran on time…”Saddam had prisons DESIGNED to torture children while their parents watched! He killed hundreds of thousands of people…but the american leftist finds it easy to overlook those minor foibles..
Dkelsmith | Nov 27, 2006 2:29:52 PM
“The answer truly is. “Hell I don’t know!”
“The Democrats have criticized the other side of the aisle for bungling this whole thing …”
The American people voted the Republican talking points out, Dkelsmith.
Now that, by virtue of that vote, the Republicans have acknowledged fucking up Iraq to the point of no recognition, why is it expected the Democrats are solely responsible for galloping in like white knights and handing over the ’simply add water and stir’ solution NOW?
dr pedro | Nov 27, 2006 3:04:29 PM
“as far as the democrats plan…what a load of horsesh#t.”
Suggesting that the millions of American people who voted the Republicans OUT OF THE HOUSE & SENATE are full of horseshit?
“Bush made a number of errors, no question. But you can’t look back with twenty-twenty hindsight and second guess them.”
Donald Rumsfeld’s exit stage left the day after the election demonstrated The Decider Administration second guessing AND admission, pedugger.
Maybe I am not expressing myself clearly. I don’t think that the Democrats are expected to solve this thing in a week. But, now that they are poised to take charge next month, let’s see some more thought put into this. Obviously, sending everyone home at once is not an option. But, what is all of this crap from Rangel, and then there was the stink about Murtha and Pelosi……Jesus Christ! All I am hoping for is that we can get past all of that “should have, could have, would have” and find a plan and work it. But the immediate question is how do we get the Shi’ites and the Sunni’s to quit smoking one another? How do we keep the damn Iranian influence out? How do we get an honest police force and Army, and how do we get the people to trust them. None of that other stuff that is on the dry erase board in Washington is going to work until we do that.
@ Dugger,
Dugger, you and I agree in that regard, but we disagree in other areas. Things are not pretty right now, but there is still hope. I wish people could see how irrelevant that partisan bickering is now. My hope is that afer the vote the ENTIRE governmental leadership will realize that the people want results, and they will do what needs to be done to provide them with out looking at that big 2008 sign on the horizon……Joe deserves that much.
All good questions, Smith, but I fear that the day for making plans is a distant memory. We have witlessly popped the cork on this bottle of horrors and are left with zero good options.
Hey Dr. Pedro,
That @ Dugger should have been for you. Sorry about that. My eyes are crossing now.
@ ALL,
Let’s work this out as Americans and not as people trying to get elected in 2008. Good night.
Hey Quaker, I never said we won. I’m not sure who did, but not me. Go back and check.
That kind of pulls your argument apart.
No, it means you’re responding to remarks that weren’t addressed to you. You are excused.
It’s interesting, Dkelsmith.
May I ask how we reverse this: How do you force democracy down peoples’ throats at gunpoint and persuade them to understand your way of life is better than the theirs?
I travel extensively overseas in my job. The number one question I’m asked is: Why do Americans assume their way is right and our way is wrong?
S’cuse me while I give this, from Smith, a bump:
We are trying to unite a country where the psychology of importance is Self, Family, Clan, Tribe, Sect, Religion, and THEN Iraq.
Well said.
“….forgive me for not doing more ‘research’.”
Don’t get pissy with me. You’re the one who asked the question with such disdain. If you can login to post hereto ask stupid questions, you can also use fucking google first, right?
WE will never be able to get the Iraqis to think beyond sectarian interests in favor of national solidarity. WE will never be able to getan honest police and army force and WE will never be able to make the Iraqis trust them. WE will never be able to get the various factions in Iraq to quite killing one another. If you think WE can, good luck with that. It isn’t going to happen.
The Dem plan is shift emphasis from a military solution that will never work to a diplomatic, political solution that has, at best, an outside chance.
Conservative hate that idea because they can’t think beyond blowing shit up as the solution to everything. Hell., pedro seems to think that publishing insurgent body counts will help win SUPPORT for the war, as if reading that we’re killing thousands of insurgents wouldn’t get people asking more questions about why the violence is getting worse every fucking month.
And by WE in the above post I mean our military presence. In answer to Ss question above you cannot force someone to accept democracy and you especially can’t force them to accept it if you tell them it’s better than their own way of life.
They’ll resist you on principle, for godssakes, and could any American here actually disagree with them if we were in their shoes?
Transforming a broken nation into a democracy is possible but it can’t be done at the point of a gun.
@ Frameone,
I didn’t ask any questions with “disdain” I want somebody to come up with something that makes sense. And “NO”, I haven’t heard a feasible, WORKABLE plan yet. I don’t think that is too much to ask. Forgive me if I don’t hae a warm fuzzy if Congress changed hands…to tell you the truth, if someone elected a freaking pack of hound dogs to Congress and they could start making changes that were apparent HERE, then I would be all for it. Don’t assume I am asking something with disdain just because you don’t like the question….my perspective of how “WE” are doing over here is a lot different than yours……obviously.
Dkelsmith | Nov 27, 2006 4:07:50 PM
“I haven’t heard a feasible, WORKABLE plan yet. I don’t think that is too much to ask.”
It’s challenging to find a solution to a clusterfuck. It’s why Donald Rumsfeld got his ass kicked the day after the election and it’s why The Decider has delegated the clusterfuck solution to the next president.
If you don’t think it’s too much to ask, let’s hear your “Invasion for Dummies” solution.
But the immediate question is how do we get the Shi’ites and the Sunni’s to quit smoking one another?
If we leave Iraq, likely someone will win.
How do we keep the damn Iranian influence out?
Probably we’re better off if Iran is involved to help stability.
How do we get an honest police force and Army, and how do we get the people to trust them.
Leave Iraq to the Iraqis and allow them to figure it out like every other sovereign nation.
And Dkelsmith, while the Dems won back congress, the ultimate point of these decisions still comes down to the Cmdr. In Chief which at least until 2009 is GWB.
1. Neutralize the Al Sadr influence.
2. Forget about checking with the GOI before makng major moves, especially around Sadr City.
3. Allow forces to enter Mosques on a routine basis since that is where most of the heavy ordnance and weaponry is hidden.
4. Quit making dumb rules of engagement that have people second and third guessing themselves before they pull the trigger to defend themselves.
5. Make it illegal for any weapons to be possessed by ANY person besides an IA or IP.
6. Get it through our heads that they will never live like Americans here. Decide what sort of situation we are willing to accept and work toward it.
The bottom line is, despite all of the raving to the contrary I am not asking “stupid” questions as some would have you believe. I came here once in 91, and I am here now. When I go home this time, I would like to think that I will NEVER have to come back again. I also want to know that my sons or my daughter won’t have to be here if they decide to join the military. My perspective is one of let’s do whatever it is we need to do to get this over with for good. The plan won’t throw itself together with all of the politicians of both parties playing games up there.
Oliver,
“Probably we’re better off if Iran is involved to help stability.”
Oliver…I love you man, I really do. But I hope you are kidding when you say that. I’m not a big political junkie, so you may be talking about something else, but for now all of the Iranians are doing is bringing more munitions and deadlier EFP techniques into theater. On top of the Iranians being more effective killers than the former Fedayeen, they are also going to make the Sunni’s fight even harder.
Decide what sort of situation we are willing to accept and work toward it.
Actually, I think this one has to come first, and has to be considered quite a bit more realistically than our leaders have done in the past. The suggestion that we’re going to leave behind a peaceful, functioning democracy has yet to be wed to a clear-eyed analysis of the likely costs, or even a serious examination of its feasibility.
Dkel, no offense but the time for Pollyanna is over. Iran already has a daily pipeline into Iraq and are exerting their control. The only options left in Iraq are bad and worse.
Neutralize the Al Sadr influence.
How? Kill him? Yeah, I’m sure killing one of Iraq’s most influential clerics will lead to his followers just dissipating. Just like how Al Qaeda in Iraq hasn’t been heard of since we killed their leaders. Or not.
Allow forces to enter Mosques on a routine basis since that is where most of the heavy ordnance and weaponry is hidden.
Yes, because its time we alienated the remaining Iraqis who aren’t already shooting at us.
Quit making dumb rules of engagement that have people second and third guessing themselves before they pull the trigger to defend themselves.
Right. Because we should act like its 1946 and not 2006 and we haven’t advanced at all. See above.
Make it illegal for any weapons to be possessed by ANY person besides an IA or IP.
Guns are illegal in a lot of places and types in America. Somehow the bad guys still get them, and it isn’t a Mad Max-style world like Iraq.
Decide what sort of situation we are willing to accept and work toward it.
We leave. We let the Iraqis work it out and in the process we don’t get Americans killed trying to mediate between tribes that have hated each other forever.
“….my perspective of how “WE” are doing over here is a lot different than yours……obviously.”
Really? Things seem pretty fucked up from where I am. Are you saying it’s better being there?
I tend to agree with Oliver.
Every single one of your policy suggestions would probably make it easier for US troops to operate in Iraq while esnuring that you will face ever increasing violence for as long as you are there.
If you think you are facing a hostile, resentful population now, can you imagine what you’ll be facing after you do what you’ll need to do to disarm the entire Iraqi population, just to take one of your points?
Again, there is no military solution to the problems in Iraq. It’s time to get out.
Yea oliver great response, Dkel, this is your democrat party.
The man is an infantry officer ON THE GROUND in Iraq, and you dismiss his plan with one line, glib answers?
Yea, well, we have ALL heard the the liberals lying about “supporting the troops”, but rarely has the lie been this well documented…
Personally, I agree with Dkel. Unfortunately we thought we would be greeted as bringers of liberty, and so we didn’t go in like a conquering army. But unfortunately the Iraqis only understand force…and to quote dennis miller” …we have a hell of a long fuse, but at the end of it is a big, f’ing bomb!”
dr pedro | Nov 27, 2006 7:36:46 PM
“Unfortunately we thought we would be greeted as bringers of liberty, and so we didn’t go in like a conquering army. But unfortunately the Iraqis only understand force.”
‘bringers of liberty’?
pedugger, everyone who isn’t you wonders when explanations of why the invasion has been a disaster don’t have to be peppered with “unfortunately”.
“But unfortunately the Iraqis only understand force …”
That’s awesome, pedro. Just awesome. We’re going to free those fuckers if we have to kill every last one of them …
Bi Laden wants us in Iraq?
Do you know where the capital of the caliphate is?
Why yes. And we got rid of Saddam Hussein for him, the previous occupier, and our very presence ticks everyone off. And yes, he wants us in Iraq, much like he wants us in Afghanistan. We help his recruiting, and give everyone a short-term goal, which is attacking us.
Exactly like their attitude towards the Soviets in Afghanistan. For someone who keeps talking about the caliphate, your sense of his actual plans is pretty limited.
“But unfortunately the Iraqis only understand force …”
My experience is that those who say that such-and-such (Iraqis, Arabs, Palestinians, Nicaraguans, Soviets, Japanese) only understand force is someone who he himself only understands force.
you know diamond le idiot…your experience is as worthless as tits on a boar…
What IS your understanding of the ultimate motivating factor for the Iraq Dia? Please enlighten us?
typical cowardly liberal bullshit…divert,divert,divert…
dr pedro | Nov 27, 2006 9:38:47 PM
“typical cowardly liberal bullshit…divert,divert,divert…”
In contrast, pedugger, to firing Donald Rumsfeld the day after the election? If that didn’t demonstrate The Decider’s belief in his team, I don’t know what does. LoL!
Look, I know I will always get slammed for this, but why say in a paragraph what you can say in one line? This ain’t english class, no extra grades for flowery stuff. I answered Dkel’s ideas with what I think makes them unworkable. Why is there this idea, especially on the conservative side, that if someone gives an answer you disagree with they didn’t actually answer the question?
Iraq is screwed up, anything more is putting lipstick on a pig. The options aren’t pretty, but I’d like the one where we can still fight terror and have live soldiers like Dkel around.
Peedro, if anyone is diverting, it is you.
“The Iraquis only understand force”?
You have been challenged by more than one poster to explain we can bring the fruits of democracy to a people who “only understand force.”
But instead of answering you give us name-calling and accusations.
Answer or divert. Your choice.
Hey everybody,
I apologize for my demeanor last night. A special apology to Frameone, I know that you all are not the problem with what is going on. This situation is frustrating for everyone. I was physically tired, yet over caffeinated and in a pissy mood. My remarks to Frameone were out of line.
Godspeed, Dkelsmith. I may not agree with everything you say, but you are a class act.
Dkelsmith, no apology is necessary. Not a problem at all. My apologies for being a little overly aggressive with you myself. I can get stuck in one gear around here arguing with the trolls and often fail to recognize sincerity when I see it. Be well, be safe.
Hooray for Smith! Visit again.
yea thanks dkel….I think your honest opinion really exposed the mindset of a lot of the denizens here. The hypocrisy of the american liberal is legion….
Go fuck yourself pedro.
Take note of Peedro’s words. They’ll become memorable the next time he disagrees with Smith.
I don’t blame paul for being a little sensitive, his hypocrisy was the one laid out the most clearly.
No quaker, I can disagree with him just fine, but I do it with facts or opinion not invective like:
“Don’t get pissy with me. You’re the one who asked the question with such disdain. If you can login to post hereto ask stupid questions, you can also use fucking google first, right?”
That is paul’s version of supporting the troops. “Yea paul right after I get the freaking dust out of my shorts, let me sit down an access the massive T1 pipe I have in my makeshift quarters here in baghdad and google up some stuff for paul the ex-film grad student living the good life in LA-LA land…”
Natter on, friend. We take note.
lzsmpbv rilz nfgjskwq gldcj jbfoq dxvwjprnq ihjmwrdf