"liberals desperately want our troops to suffer defeat there" Thats BS on a big scale right up there with "cut and run". I havn't talked to anyone, from radical republicans to radical democrats, who wants to see American soldiers harmed in Iraq. Have you? Having the opnion that Bush screwed up in starting the Iraq war = wanting to see injury and death to our troops is not logical thinking.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
My New, Simplified Plan For Iraq
- Thread starter AAAintheBeltway
- Start date
That number is HIGHLY debatable; neither can you ignore the casualties that resulted as a result of his war with Iran.Quote from vhehn:
as far as the people sadam killed i realize that was bad but 600000 have been killed since the war started. even sadam would not have killed that many.
Do you still feel the Troubles in Northern Ireland warranted a Saddam to iron-fist things into order?
u guys are in this shit cause u basically shat on everybody else at the security council & beyond and decided to go it alone one time too many... the arabs won't let u win, whatever it takes... and we won't help yr ass until u bend over and stay bent big time... shame for the kids your sending over there... but hey, doesn't seem to bother rummie, so, why shld it bother us??
Quote from bigarrow:
"liberals desperately want our troops to suffer defeat there" Thats BS on a big scale right up there with "cut and run". I havn't talked to anyone, from radical republicans to radical democrats, who wants to see American soldiers harmed in Iraq. Have you? Having the opnion that Bush screwed up in starting the Iraq war = wanting to see injury and death to our troops is not logical thinking.
Oh yeah, John Murtha, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, they really want to see Iraq turn out to be a big success for Bush. Get real.
As for "supporting the troops", Democrat Whip Dick Durbin compared them to gulag guards, Kerry said they are terrorizing Iraqi civilians, Murtha publicly convicted them of war crimes before they were even tried.
I'm not saying they want individual troops to get injured or killed, but they clearly are invested in Iraq being a big failure for Bush and the republicans.
Quote from bigarrow:
"liberals desperately want our troops to suffer defeat there" Thats BS on a big scale right up there with "cut and run". I haven't talked to anyone, from radical republicans to radical democrats, who wants to see American soldiers harmed in Iraq. Have you? Having the opinion that Bush screwed up in starting the Iraq war = wanting to see injury and death to our troops is not logical thinking.
There are plenty of "Americans" that hate this country, and they were given a very, very loud megaphone over the past four years. There were plenty who made it clear it was their hope for the US to lose, and their shrieking worked only to lessen our resolve.
A self-governed, democratic, peaceful, and prosperous Iraq wasn't the vision of a new Hilter, like the left so often tried to convince us.
Kuwait, Dubai, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc ... The US STILL has many allies in the Middle East.
It was/is a VERY AMBITIOUS plan to liberate Iraq.
It isn't that they are invested in Iraq being a big failure, Iraq IS a big failure. Pointing out our president's mistakes and wanting failure are two completly different things. Typical double speak to blame the critics for Bush's mistakes, instead of holding Bush accountable. I don't think anyone outside the administration and a few kool-aid drinkers can argue that Iraq isn't a big failure. And you have to know Bush and the crew know they screwed up but don't have the balls or morals to admit it. Its time for honest republicans to throw the bums out.
what a fcking genius.
Don't quit your day job.
bt
Don't quit your day job.
bt
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
I heard today that the U.S. military command has basically admitted that their plan to stablize Iraq by moving troops into Baghdad in an effort to stop the violence there has been a big failure. Violence has increased, and our troops were basically engaged in rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. They would go into an area and stabilize it, but violence would flare elsewhere. All the while our troops were both exposed to hostile fire and also subject to complaints they were using excessive force.
I predicted this plan would fail, and in an attempt to assist our apparently clueless planners at the Pentagon, I even posted my own plan. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=73682&highlight=my+plan+for+iraq
Now that they have wasted several months in pursuing the fruitless Baghdad plan, I find it necessary to amend my plan. It is now more simplified but far more bold.
1. As a first step we must recognize that the democracy experiment is going nowhere. The Iraqi government is riddled with corruption, and various insurgent factions have infiltrated key ministries. In the current state of lawlessness, establishing security must be the first order of business.
2. Accordingly, Baghdad must be put under military control. A U. S. General should be put in command, but an effort should be made to locate former general officers from Saddam's military and give them the greenlight to control various sectors of Baghdad. They would be given significant freedom to establish their commands, with troops coming from the current Iraqi army and former Iraqi soldiers. No doubt many would come from the ranks of the insurgencies, but that is not totally a bad thing. Instead of creating chaotic violence, they would be part of a force that answers to us. In addition, every insurgent who joined would be one less out planting IED's.
In effect, the Iraqi commanders would be like warlords who would answer to us. Over time, the more efficient would grow in stature and the less efficient would be replaced, either by the U.S. commander or by their own troops. Obviously, their first order of business would be to eliminate the various private militias. We would provide air and artillery support.
The benefits of this structure would be obvious. They are in a far better position than we are to develop intelligence, and to act ruthlessly to eliminate insurgents. The Iraqi commanders would have an enormous incentive to suceed, since they would be in a position to act as mini-dictators and control all activites, licit and illicit, in their areas.
3. U.S. troops should be redeployed to border security with Syria and Iran and to protect the critical oil field infrastructure. Such redeployment would cut off or severely curtail the resupply of insurgents from Iran and Syria. Our troops massed on their borders would also focus the attention of those two countries on the risks of continued troublemaking, and in addition give us opportunities to supply insurgent movements in those ocuntries.
4. Because of the massive corruption in the Iraqi Ministry of Petroleum, it would have to be disbanded and U. S. contractors would operate the oil business, with proceeds directed to meeting our expenses, rebuilding infrastruture and supplying the Iraqi commanders. Uncooperative Iraqi commanders would be starved of funds, their commands weakened and made vulnerable to takeover by rival commands. The benefits of cooperation would be obvious.
5. The current Iraqi government could be retained as a figurehead, but they would have no power. They would over time devolve into the typical civil government in middle eastern countries, responsible for low level municipal functions.
I believe this plan would accomplish our major objectives, which should be to minimize U. S. casualties, prevent the creation of a failed state in Iraq that would serve as a terrorist haven and prevent the resumption of WMD programs. The Iraqi people would welcome it, first because they would see an immediate increase in security and second because they are conditioned to respond to strong military style leadership. It would marginalize the radical clerics and greatly reduce their ability to foment unrest.
What else other than stupidity can you expect from klansmen?