Bush refuses to set timetable....

[Dr. Zhivodka]

Ok...if the best case is more than we current have why not allow it to happen? Lets even pursue it with much vigor.

This fucking Iraqi mess has LONG been a lost cause. We've long since handed Iraq to Iran on silver platter. Why sit around any longer with our dicks in our hand? I'm trader, for life of me I can't understand why anyone would live a trade that's dead and dying and costing you money and resources and prestige by the minute. It's by far the stupidest thing I can imagine.

Look, everyone and their mother knows this is a lost cause. If even someone like you doesn't believe we're accomplishing anything in Iraq then what in god's name is justification of staying? That Iran assumes control of Iraq by proxy? THAT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED! Get over it.

The most rational position any right-winger could take is to hit the bid and get the fuck out yesterday. Then regroup and reformulate a strategy based on reality not some trumped up bogus documents and neocon bullshit.

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

The essence of good leadership is avoiding getting into intractable situations, like we are in now in Iraq. The best case scenario and the White House's announced goal is to see that the current Iraqi government can function without internal interference. That would entrench a pro-Iran, shia government that is riddled with corruption and is deeply involved in death squads. That is the best case scenario. The worst is some combination of somalia/afghanistan, only with huge oil revenues.

I don't feel we are accomplishing anything worth losing US troops for, and I have real issues with the strategies they seem to be pursuing. Just pulling out and leaving a vacuum doesn't make a lot of sense either.

 

[Sam321]

America has many deaths per day, well beyond 1000. Heart attacks. Accidents. Robberies. Etc.

I’ll tell you what: You keep believing what the propagandist f*cks at Reuters and AP tell you, and I will keep realizing what the Iraqi people are not doing. Where are the mass protests? I’m waiting for this civil war.

Incidentally, if 80 Iraqis were in fact dying from sectarian violence on a daily basis, why are the Iraqi's sitting idol? They are not Americans. If 1000 Americans died based on sectarian violence, the situation would certainly get worse. No one would tolerate it. So I ask: why hasn't it gotten worse in Iraq? Are the numbers wrong or is it something about their culture?

But it hasn’t been worse. Once again, where’s this Iraqi Civil War? 26 million people. Many people die for a lot of reasons from a population of that size.

FAR MORE people want to undermine American moral to make her cut and run so Iran, Russia, and China get a piece of the world’s 2nd largest oil reserve.

By the way, the DIA and CIA are FILLED with post WWII baby-boomers who believe in the false-ideology of a One World Nation led by the United States if and only if America stops and talks and concedes with rising competition from competing cultures and nations. Thank God these people were grunts when Reagan defeated the Cold War.

Quote from Dr. Zhivodka:

411 douchebag.....even the Pentagon and DIA and CIA call the Sunni, Shia'a conflict in Iraq a Civil War.

They're averging 80 deaths per day. On a per capita basis...that's about 1000 deaths per day in USA.

Ya think you would move past your right wing-dick-sucking-feel-good-news-outlets if America was experiencing 1000 deaths per day in civil war?

 

[Pa(b)st Prime]

In 2005 150 Brazilians per DAY died from homicide. 55,000 on the year! And in murder per-capita Brazil isn't even the most dangerous country in SA.

http://www.brownpride.us/forum/brazil-murder-rate-similar-war-zone-data-shows-t1820.html?

The "free" population of the U.S. in 1860 was 27,489,561 almost identical to Iraq. The Civil War produced about 970,000 casualties.

So no Doc, not exactly Gettysburg.

But to an old school isolationist who thinks Wilson, FDR and LBJ were treasonous, the most important figure is 3,246.

 

[acronym]

Thats wonderfully warm and fuzzy pabst, and sam, except for one thing.

Your trying to whitewash an essentially military venture, by comparing it to indiginous, or natural crime stats, which is completely retarded;
The crims conducting such crimes, are not attempting to change government, or policy, or , much less enforce any government policy, quite the opposite.


The fascination with body count is still in force, it seems.

How exactly, have urban combat operations improved, sam?
If you dont think theres a civil war, well, good for you, because it doesnt matter, your veiwpoint only reinforces the reality of the vietnam comparison.

They dont have to win, not a single battle, as long as they are there at the end, when the essence of military occupation desolves, they win.
A truck bombing or two a week would do that, and there managing more than that.

The north vietnamese could rely on a neverending stream of indoctrinated insurgents, straight out of school (primary) if they needed, for limited warfare-so can iraqis, backed by syrian/iranian interests.


How you could NOT think its entirely comparable, given it is clearly from the same playbook, and working exactly the same?

You have read the works of general Giap, yeah?

 

[Avid_Consumer]

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

In 2005 150 Brazilians per DAY died from homicide. 55,000 on the year! And in murder per-capita Brazil isn't even the most dangerous country in SA.

http://www.brownpride.us/forum/brazil-murder-rate-similar-war-zone-data-shows-t1820.html?

The "free" population of the U.S. in 1860 was 27,489,561 almost identical to Iraq. The Civil War produced about 970,000 casualties.

So no Doc, not exactly Gettysburg.

But to an old school isolationist who thinks Wilson, FDR and LBJ were treasonous, the most important figure is 3,246.

why compare the number of coalition casualties in iraq to the US civil war bodycount

a lot of iraqis have died
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

All of this is interesting, but it begs the question of what should our policy be. In vietnam, we made the insane policy decision to engage in a jungle war of attrition with a foe that had no concerns about how many troops it lost.

There are two very clear parallels to iraq. One, we made the insane policy decision in Iraq to engage in house to house urban warfare with a foe who didn't care how many people it lost. Two, as in vietnam, congressional democrats are determined to block any measures that could lead to victory and are openly trying to assist our enemies.

What should we do? In my mind, we have defined our mission exactly backwards. It should not be our role to provide domestic policing and security for Iraqi cities. That is a role for the Iraqi authorities. They are the ones who should be interacting with iraqis, not us. Our role should be to protect the Iranian and Syrian borders and to safeguard oil installations. Neither of those roles puts our troops in the daily line of fire. Having American forces massed on their borders would be a very effective way of getting the attention of syria and Iran.

 

[Dr. Zhivodka]

"....democrats are determined to block any measures that could lead to victory and are openly trying to assist our enemies."

Just when I thought you may be showing the slightest bit of rationality. Bam...this meaningless talking point.

Okay, Let me ask you the same question I've asked hundreds of people to which I've yet to receive an answer: What does victory in Iraq look like? How do you define it? How do you achieve it? Please be specific....this is a sincere question.

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

All of this is interesting, but it begs the question of what should our policy be. In vietnam, we made the insane policy decision to engage in a jungle war of attrition with a foe that had no concerns about how many troops it lost.

There are two very clear parallels to iraq. One, we made the insane policy decision in Iraq to engage in house to house urban warfare with a foe who didn't care how many people it lost. Two, as in vietnam, congressional democrats are determined to block any measures that could lead to victory and are openly trying to assist our enemies.

What should we do? In my mind, we have defined our mission exactly backwards. It should not be our role to provide domestic policing and security for Iraqi cities. That is a role for the Iraqi authorities. They are the ones who should be interacting with iraqis, not us. Our role should be to protect the Iranian and Syrian borders and to safeguard oil installations. Neither of those roles puts our troops in the daily line of fire. Having American forces massed on their borders would be a very effective way of getting the attention of syria and Iran.

 

[Dr. Zhivodka]

WTF are you talking about? heart attacks....robberies? Good god man stick with the plot!

It really must be horrible to go through life so terrified of ...uh....oh I don't know everything...the media, Islam, Nancy Pelosi, Tofu, anything not appearing on Fox News, evil clowns...

Quote from Sam321:

America has many deaths per day, well beyond 1000. Heart attacks. Accidents. Robberies. Etc.

I’ll tell you what: You keep believing what the propagandist f*cks at Reuters and AP tell you, and I will keep realizing what the Iraqi people are not doing. Where are the mass protests? I’m waiting for this civil war.

Incidentally, if 80 Iraqis were in fact dying from sectarian violence on a daily basis, why are the Iraqi's sitting idol? They are not Americans. If 1000 Americans died based on sectarian violence, the situation would certainly get worse. No one would tolerate it. So I ask: why hasn't it gotten worse in Iraq? Are the numbers wrong or is it something about their culture?

But it hasn’t been worse. Once again, where’s this Iraqi Civil War? 26 million people. Many people die for a lot of reasons from a population of that size.

FAR MORE people want to undermine American moral to make her cut and run so Iran, Russia, and China get a piece of the world’s 2nd largest oil reserve.

By the way, the DIA and CIA are FILLED with post WWII baby-boomers who believe in the false-ideology of a One World Nation led by the United States if and only if America stops and talks and concedes with rising competition from competing cultures and nations. Thank God these people were grunts when Reagan defeated the Cold War.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from Dr. Zhivodka:

"....democrats are determined to block any measures that could lead to victory and are openly trying to assist our enemies."

Just when I thought you may be showing the slightest bit of rationality. Bam...this meaningless talking point.

Okay, Let me ask you the same question I've asked hundreds of people to which I've yet to receive an answer: What does victory in Iraq look like? How do you define it? How do you achieve it? Please be specific....this is a sincere question.

At this point, victory would be avoiding a failed state on the one hand and another Iran on the other. Victory would mean that insurgent and sectarian violence would become episodic, not daily, occurrences. Iraq would neither host terrorists nor support them. It would not be involved in WMD programs.

How to achieve it depends a lot on how long we are prepared to be involved. If we are going to pull out in a year or so, then we have to attack and destroy the Mahdi army, the iran proxies. That will mean heavy duty combat with a lot of civilian casualties, something the adminsitration has been unwilling to take the heat for. They prefer to let American soldiers get killed in house to house urban warfare.

If we are prepared to stick around, then I say put our troops on the borders with Iran and Syria and let the Iraqis sort out the domestic security.

Before you start criticizing my proposals, understand that I feel like so many mistakes have already been made that we are basically trying to salvage a near hopeless situation. The analogy to cutting losses on a bad trade is not appropriate however. Once you exit the trade, that's it, nothing more can happen. If we pull out of Iraq and it turns into a failed state or an Iran clone, our problems have just begun.

 

[Dr. Zhivodka]

First, let me say I appreciate your response. I've asked others here the same question...they've always ducked an answer in favor of some canned pap they heard somewhere from someone else.


Second, would you not agree that this whole thing is trade that has turned into an investment? Cardinal Sin.

A failed state is what we started with in Iraq. How could anyone imagine that we could make it any different when we displace the Sunni minority with a long oppressed, pissed off and much more radical Shi'a majority? This is a Shi'a majority which of course is fundamentally aligned with its neighbors in Iran and Saudi.

Iraq is Iran now. We've done what the cleric’s who run Iran couldn't do in a ten war. We've handed them Iraq. And we've presented it to them on a silver platter at the expense of our blood and treasure.

Iraq will be dominated by the Shi'a for at least a generation...or until another bloody dictator comes along

The war supporters now find themselves in the completely mind-boggling position of having to support an Administration who has to coddle, dialog and deal with Iran's radical proxy in the Iraqi the parliament just so this powder keg doesn't blow up in Bush's face even more than it already has.

Petraeus has already said there's no military solution to this mess.

The thing that you fear most has long since occurred. There is no “victory,” to be had. This is already a failed state. It has been since we backed Saddam in 1959 in the coup to whack Kassim. Nothing has changed. To think that dumping a few more hundred billion dollars or even just one more life into that shit hole is proper policy is not only stupid…it's obscene.



Just like in a trade that's blown up in your face and you’ve taken heavy losses and you’re shell shocked and confused and you can’t think straight you get the fuck out now. You always think better and make better decisions after you’re out.

The problem is that this little hickey will take a generation and 30 years to heal

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

At this point, victory would be avoiding a failed state on the one hand and another Iran on the other. Victory would mean that insurgent and sectarian violence would become episodic, not daily, occurrences. Iraq would neither host terrorists nor support them. It would not be involved in WMD programs.

How to achieve it depends a lot on how long we are prepared to be involved. If we are going to pull out in a year or so, then we have to attack and destroy the Mahdi army, the iran proxies. That will mean heavy duty combat with a lot of civilian casualties, something the adminsitration has been unwilling to take the heat for. They prefer to let American soldiers get killed in house to house urban warfare.

If we are prepared to stick around, then I say put our troops on the borders with Iran and Syria and let the Iraqis sort out the domestic security.

Before you start criticizing my proposals, understand that I feel like so many mistakes have already been made that we are basically trying to salvage a near hopeless situation. The analogy to cutting losses on a bad trade is not appropriate however. Once you exit the trade, that's it, nothing more can happen. If we pull out of Iraq and it turns into a failed state or an Iran clone, our problems have just begun.