Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 54
  1. #21  
    I probably wouldn't be saying much, if anything. Not while we have troops in the field. If only the "patriots" on the Left had such restraint we would be a lot better off in this country right now. I'm not saying it would be perfect, but the very public display of how fractured the nation is has made things easier for the enemy over here. Surely even you must agree to that?
    Last edited by 1911sforever; 11/17/2006 at 04:10 AM.
  2.    #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever View Post
    ...the very public display of how fractured the nation is has made things easier for the enemy over here. Surely even you must agree to that?
    Is that really so? Would the Sunni insurgents, the Shiite militia or the Al Qaida terrorists really be less aggressive if, say, there were only Bushists in the US, without a prospect of the US leaving? I don't think so, why would that be so?

    If the insurgents would count on the US leaving, they would stop fighting and wait until they can act more freely. Doesn't look like that to me.

    The US don't have enough troops to control Iraq, and the Iraqis are not making enough progress towards control, that is the case with or without Bush or with or without a Democratic congress.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    The plan for Iraq after Saddam was based on pure optimism (if at all).
    I think the disaster was a direct result of several serious mistakes. The war could have been over quickly if they kept the Baathists and the army in place.

    A prime example of the Bush administration's mix of arrogance and ignorance. I mean, who would have thought that the Sunni and the Shiites don't get along well, or that Iran would support the Shiite militia, or that Syria would not do all they could to prevent infiltration of terrorists into Iraq, etc.?
    Abu Ghraib fueled anti-US sentiment and spurred recruiting of terrorists, who bombed the Shiite mosque, triggering the Shiite-Sunni conflict. None of that was inevitable.

    Your comments remind me of a recent blog post on hindsight bias. Things that you already know just seem so obvious.

    http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2006...ight_bias.html

    I wonder what you would be saying if the Iraq war had been started and conducted this way by a liberal president.
    I would be attributing the problems to specific mistakes made.
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    Is that really so? Would the Sunni insurgents, the Shiite militia or the Al Qaida terrorists really be less aggressive if, say, there were only Bushists in the US, without a prospect of the US leaving? I don't think so, why would that be so?
    There was worldwide outrage at what was perceived to be an illegal invasion of Iraq. That outrage helped fuel the insurgency.

    Who led the public campaign to convince people that Bush not only started an illegal war, but also lied in making the case for war? Liberals in America. The "Bush lied" mantra started with Michael Moore, and was eventually picked up by bloggers, Democratic congressmen, and terrorists.
  5. #25  
    A serious question that deserves serious answers - not that you can expect any such thing from the rightwing nutjobs here on TC who still spout bilge that WMDs did exist or that Saddam was tied to AQ.

    The WMD and AQ stories were lies fed by the Administration so that they could execute on the neocon wet dream of installing a western-style democracy in the mideast whilst having strategic control of the oil supplies.
    While the neocons insist that the current situation is a result of poor execution and not wrong vision - it's quite apparent now that Iraq will never become Switzerland.

    It will be interesting to see what solutions are being proposed by Baker et al. - at least they will be realistic and not based on the drug-induced fantasy of Rumsfield and his cronies.

    A few possible ideas:
    • Do not deploy (in fact even withdraw) US/coalition troops where there is major sectarian civil war going on. It is no longer our fight - we may have triggered it, but there is no point in getting caught in the crossfire between these groups who've been fighting each other for centuries.
    • Identify and deploy even more US troops to train Iraqi troops and police in areas where terrorists (especially foreign terrorists) are holed up. Rather than spreading our troops all over Iraq - let us concentrate them (and even bring in more troops if necessary) in areas where we can have the greatest impact.
    • Do not focus on rebuilding Iraq in the image of a western democracy - just get them to the point where they are capable of some basic infrastructure and enforcement.
    • If sectarian conflicts do not end up ripping the country apart then seriously consider the option of divying up the country along ethnic lines - or at least creating autonomous regions of power. Look at what happened in the Baltic states - sure they went through violent upheavals - but now it has been reduced to squabbling.
    The US troops can withdraw from each region as it achieves some minimum stability (basic infrastructure and/or law enforcement) - some regions may take longer than others - but at least it is a clear objective for drawing down. And it would be based on reality, not on some fantasy concept of "democracy".

    Will this leave Iraq in a worse shape that before we went in? Unfortunately yes, but at least it's realistic and it would be far worse if we withdrew immediately.

    Will this mean that we have to wait a while before our troops can come home, or even that we may have to send in more troops? Again, unfortunately yes - but it's a matter or intelligent self-preservation at this point.

    As for Iran and Syria - here is a novel idea - we (or rather Bush) could actually consider (gasp!) engaging in direct dialogue with them. While nobody has any illusions about the intentions or duplicity of the Iranian or Syrian leadership - some direct talk may help satisfy their craving for attention. We may even be able to convince them it would be more profitable to work with us than with terrorism. Most of the political leadership in these countries are opportunists hiding behind the veil of anti-western idealogy.
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  6. #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever View Post
    People that haven't organized anything more complicated than a dinner party for 20 will talk for hours about how to run a war. The same people that ran out of napkins will screech about inadequate numbers of armored vehicles. Bellyachers about the cost of providing logistics will drop $100 on an overnight delivery of 4 extra sets of china. They understand how difficult it is to plan for a party of 20, but have no concept or sympathy for planning a party of 150,000, with the added factor of univited guests trying to commit lethal violence.
    Ah - I suppose that is why Rumsfield and Wolfowitz never listened to Batiste or Shinseki.
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35 View Post
    Ah - I suppose that is why Rumsfield and Wolfowitz never listened to Batiste or Shinseki.
    Or Powell.
  8. #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35 View Post
    A serious question that deserves serious answers - not that you can expect any such thing from the rightwing nutjobs here on TC who still spout bilge that WMDs did exist or that Saddam was tied to AQ.

    The WMD and AQ stories were lies fed by the Administration so that they could execute on the neocon wet dream of installing a western-style democracy in the mideast whilst having strategic control of the oil supplies.
    While the neocons insist that the current situation is a result of poor execution and not wrong vision - it's quite apparent now that Iraq will never become Switzerland.

    It will be interesting to see what solutions are being proposed by Baker et al. - at least they will be realistic and not based on the drug-induced fantasy of Rumsfield and his cronies.

    Here is a little hint about basic people skills: Personal attacks and insults are a very effective way to ensure that you utterly and consistently fail to convince your audience to even listen to your points of view (no matter how valid), let alone change anyone's opinion.
  9. #29  
    Chillig,
    I thought you were avoiding me...

    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35 View Post
    A serious question that deserves serious answers - not that you can expect any such thing from the rightwing nutjobs here on TC who still spout bilge that WMDs did exist or that Saddam was tied to AQ.
    I see you haven't changed.

    If I said anything that you think is incorrect, I strongly encourage you to quote me, and cite a source contradicting me. My sources are the 9/11 Commission Report and the Senate Intelligence report on Iraq (not the hundreds of headlines that misquoted the Senate report).

    It will be interesting to see what solutions are being proposed by Baker et al. - at least they will be realistic and not based on the drug-induced fantasy of Rumsfield and his cronies.
    You're saying that Rumsfeld's decisions were influenced by drugs? That's a serious allegation. I'm sure you wouldn't be just making things up. Please share your source on that. Thanks.

    [*]Do not focus on rebuilding Iraq in the image of a western democracy - just get them to the point where they are capable of some basic infrastructure and enforcement.
    ...
    The US troops can withdraw from each region as it achieves some minimum stability (basic infrastructure and/or law enforcement) - some regions may take longer than others - but at least it is a clear objective for drawing down. And it would be based on reality, not on some fantasy concept of "democracy".
    What aspect of a "fantasy" democracy do you suggest they give up on? That is, what specifically is the difference between what you call a "western democracy" and what you would settle for in Iraq? I'm not disagreeing here; I'm genuinely curious what you think.

    Will this leave Iraq in a worse shape that before we went in? Unfortunately yes, but at least it's realistic and it would be far worse if we withdrew immediately.
    Good to see that not all liberals want to withdraw regardless of the consequences.
  10. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    You imply that $Billions were stolen. As I understand it, the problem was that many disbursements, amounting to $Billions, were not properly monitored. The implication was that a lot of money could have been diverted into people's pockets, but not necessarily billions of dollars.
    I think this is what he was referring to.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/me...30/iraq.audit/
  11. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post

    That's if we pull out before we're done, which seems very likely at this point. One alternative is to stick around for a decade as the government stabilizes and hunt down and exterminate every last al Qaeda member. No, I don't think that's realistic
    What would be a good way of removing their motivation, then?
  12. #32  
    I think he already did indicate what would remove the motivation. it was actually in the same post you were replying to.
  13. #33  
    actually, it was in the part of his post that you quoted and replied to. might just re-read what you quoted.
  14. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #34  
    SB are you getting snipey with me in, not one, but 2 posts? LOL
  15. #35  
    OK. Sorry. But it just seems funny to me when I read your post that he (in my opinion) answered your question before you asked it (and you quoted his answer in your questioning post). Oh well.
  16. #36  
    OK, you have to forgive me (I'm on a treo), but I had to re-read myself (and yet again) to realize I wasn't done!
  17. #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG View Post
    I think this is what he was referring to.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/me...30/iraq.audit/
    That's what I was referring to also.

    Quote Originally Posted by NRG View Post
    What would be a good way of removing their motivation, then?
    I don't know what you're asking.
  18. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by sblanter View Post
    OK. Sorry. But it just seems funny to me when I read your post that he (in my opinion) answered your question before you asked it (and you quoted his answer in your questioning post). Oh well.
    But, I felt and so did he that it was an unrealstic goal.
  19. #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG View Post
    But, I felt and so did he that it was an unrealstic goal.
    Sorry I wasn't clear. I think it's not realistic to expect that to happen. I do think we should stay.
  20. #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    Is that really so? Would the Sunni insurgents, the Shiite militia or the Al Qaida terrorists really be less aggressive if, say, there were only Bushists in the US, without a prospect of the US leaving? I don't think so, why would that be so?

    If the insurgents would count on the US leaving, they would stop fighting and wait until they can act more freely. Doesn't look like that to me.

    The US don't have enough troops to control Iraq, and the Iraqis are not making enough progress towards control, that is the case with or without Bush or with or without a Democratic congress.
    The organizations you mention, the militias, AQIZ, etc. don't operate in a void. They need support from the local population. That same population watches the debate in this country and hears our politicians describe American soldiers as terrorists, speak of impeaching the president and defunding the war. And they remember our empty promise of support in
    1991. They are the "hearts and minds", and when they see us weak, when they suspect that we are not committed, who do you think they support? That is what has made this task so difficult, not the violence of the insurgents.
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions