If you have a point, particularly one that has something to do with this thread, please make it.
What should we really do with Iraq...?
- Thread starter Joeychgo
- Start date
If you have a point, particularly one that has something to do with this thread, please make it.
Its another demonstration of how we are mismanaging IRAQ. So it has to do with this thread...
Well, if the oil is mismanaged, or a black market emerges, then we should hurry up and surrender..?
Flawless logic there, Joey. (/sarcasm)
In case you didn't know, oil theft is common throughout the world. Nigeria is the best example of this that I can think of. The theft of said oil really has no reflection of anything having to do with our involvement in Iraq. The only problem is that that money generated is probably being used to fund the terrorists.
I didnt say we should "surrender" --
And "Between 100,000 and 300,000 barrels a day" is not "some" oil.
I think my position in the regard to Iraq is now something like this. No, we shouldnt surrender. But I doubt we will "Win" with Bush in charge. That doesnt mean a Dem would do the right thing either. Here is why.
Ultimately, I think GW has used up all the general public's patience for IRAQ, and you will not be able to turn public opinion in favor of doing much else with Iraq besides leaving.
Dont blame the dems here, or the "liberal" media.... Blame GW and his administration. Not alot has gone well in Iraq. This is a fact. GW has only his own administration to blame for that. If we were having decent success in Iraq, the dems and the "liberal" media would have nothing to harp on.
And "Between 100,000 and 300,000 barrels a day" is not "some" oil.
I think my position in the regard to Iraq is now something like this. No, we shouldnt surrender. But I doubt we will "Win" with Bush in charge. That doesnt mean a Dem would do the right thing either. Here is why.
Ultimately, I think GW has used up all the general public's patience for IRAQ, and you will not be able to turn public opinion in favor of doing much else with Iraq besides leaving.
Dont blame the dems here, or the "liberal" media.... Blame GW and his administration. Not alot has gone well in Iraq. This is a fact. GW has only his own administration to blame for that. If we were having decent success in Iraq, the dems and the "liberal" media would have nothing to harp on.
100,000 of 2,000,000 barrels a day.
That's a 5% loss.
That shouldn't be excused. But when placed in the perspective of the region, the foreign oil industry, and everything else, it's hardly shocking.
And no, the media would still find something to "harp" on, regardless the positives that were taking place. How many days did Abu Ghraib spend on the front page of the NY Times? Don't ever put it past the modern media to find ways to make America the bad guys.
Ultimately, you still can not articulate your point. That's because it's not logical or supportable. It's emotional and foolish. You fail to realize just how ambitious and "idealistic" the Iraqi policy really has been. And since things appear to be difficult, you just want to throw up a white flag and leave. You want to cry uncle, lay blame, and then run home and hide.
The real world doesn't work like that.
You personalize this war like George W. Bush sat at his desk and drew up the plans himself. That's not how it worked. We can see a military that is currently experiencing a dramatic learning curve with 30 years of bureaucratic generals who employed outdated military theory.
Again, you fail to acknowledge that THERE HAVE BEEN CHANGES regarding both leadership and strategy. You wanted change, we're experiencing change. And you need to provide the military a reasonable amount of time to demonstrate whether the changed policy is yielding any results.
You also refuse to acknowledge the longer term consequences associated with a U.S. retreat and defeat in Iraq.
You're implication is that Bush isn't motivated to win in Iraq. If you think we should send in an even larger surge, then you should be vocally hostile towards the cut and run, defeatist, Democrats who are telegraphing defeat and weakness to our enemies around the world.
This is a foolish notion, and it fails to recognize just how challenging the situation in Iraq actually is. Iraq is a test for our country. What we do will have consequences you're clearly unable to even imagine. Defeat in Iraq will absolutely leader to even greater loss of life in the future. There is no doubt. If we are defeated, if we loose our will and retreat, it will eventually leader to greater loss of life in the future. On a scale and degree of brutality you don't want to think about.
That's a 5% loss.
That shouldn't be excused. But when placed in the perspective of the region, the foreign oil industry, and everything else, it's hardly shocking.
And no, the media would still find something to "harp" on, regardless the positives that were taking place. How many days did Abu Ghraib spend on the front page of the NY Times? Don't ever put it past the modern media to find ways to make America the bad guys.
Ultimately, you still can not articulate your point. That's because it's not logical or supportable. It's emotional and foolish. You fail to realize just how ambitious and "idealistic" the Iraqi policy really has been. And since things appear to be difficult, you just want to throw up a white flag and leave. You want to cry uncle, lay blame, and then run home and hide.
The real world doesn't work like that.
You personalize this war like George W. Bush sat at his desk and drew up the plans himself. That's not how it worked. We can see a military that is currently experiencing a dramatic learning curve with 30 years of bureaucratic generals who employed outdated military theory.
Again, you fail to acknowledge that THERE HAVE BEEN CHANGES regarding both leadership and strategy. You wanted change, we're experiencing change. And you need to provide the military a reasonable amount of time to demonstrate whether the changed policy is yielding any results.
You also refuse to acknowledge the longer term consequences associated with a U.S. retreat and defeat in Iraq.
You're implication is that Bush isn't motivated to win in Iraq. If you think we should send in an even larger surge, then you should be vocally hostile towards the cut and run, defeatist, Democrats who are telegraphing defeat and weakness to our enemies around the world.
This is a foolish notion, and it fails to recognize just how challenging the situation in Iraq actually is. Iraq is a test for our country. What we do will have consequences you're clearly unable to even imagine. Defeat in Iraq will absolutely leader to even greater loss of life in the future. There is no doubt. If we are defeated, if we loose our will and retreat, it will eventually leader to greater loss of life in the future. On a scale and degree of brutality you don't want to think about.
"Between 100,000 and 300,000 barrels a day" = 5% - 15%
Not true - Again, I didnt call for a retreat.
If thats what you though, then let me clarify. He may have the motivation, im not commenting on that. He isnt a good enough leader IMO. He has been wrong about this war from the start, even before then. 70% of the American people dont have the confidence in him it takes to push this war.
The democrats are only doing what the people, their constitutients, want them to do -- which is their job.
There may have been changes - but I still see no positive progress. The part YOU dont get, is that GW has had a number of opportunities where the the American people gave him the benefit of the doubt and he didnt come through.
But let me as you this. What is a reasonable amount of time to wait to see if it is working? AND -- if its not - then what?
I say again ----- Dont blame the dems here, or the "liberal" media.... Blame GW and his administration. Not alot has gone well in Iraq. This is a fact. GW has only his own administration to blame for that. If we were having decent success in Iraq, the dems and the "liberal" media would have nothing to harp on.
Not true - Again, I didnt call for a retreat.
If thats what you though, then let me clarify. He may have the motivation, im not commenting on that. He isnt a good enough leader IMO. He has been wrong about this war from the start, even before then. 70% of the American people dont have the confidence in him it takes to push this war.
The democrats are only doing what the people, their constitutients, want them to do -- which is their job.
There may have been changes - but I still see no positive progress. The part YOU dont get, is that GW has had a number of opportunities where the the American people gave him the benefit of the doubt and he didnt come through.
But let me as you this. What is a reasonable amount of time to wait to see if it is working? AND -- if its not - then what?
I say again ----- Dont blame the dems here, or the "liberal" media.... Blame GW and his administration. Not alot has gone well in Iraq. This is a fact. GW has only his own administration to blame for that. If we were having decent success in Iraq, the dems and the "liberal" media would have nothing to harp on.
The challenge through this whole conversation is, that like so many people, you're not actually "calling" for anything specific. You just sound defeatists and try to find new ways to blame people without regard to the outcome.
Perhaps he didn't receive the "Hindsight is 20/20 when engaging in previously unattempted military operations" manual you may have read.
First of all, the job of government is NOT to do exactly what people want. You have far less information available to you or understanding of international situation than the leadership. You elect them to make difficult decisions and lead. Not follow the shifting opinion polls.
Have you looked for any progress? And if you're speaking of progress resulting from the strategy/leadership change, you haven't given it enough. And even before it was fully implemented, guys like you were attempted to have it defunded.
That's like saying my car is still running rough despite the fact that I ordered new spark plugs.
Apparently, they're saying that by Fall would should have a better answer.
Again, you have TWO choices. That's all.
1. Support the ongoing struggle for victory.
2. Support our defeat overseas and all the consequences that go with it.
Blame them for what? Undermining support? The day to day erosion and attacks on the administration and the war effort? The Democrats have invested their political futures on our defeat overseas.
As stated, the liberal media will always find something to harp about. As mentioned, how many days did the Abu-Ghraib story run on the front page of the Times?
And you can recognize that there were tactical errors made during the occupation. It's unfortunate. But there isn't a playbook available for this kind of operations. The experience in Iraq is shaking up the military leadership, exposing the problems within, and hopefully improving it.
AGAIN, if we can't stomach the cost of victory in Iraq, we're in BIG trouble in the future. We're going to face considerably greater challenges in the coming years. Iraq is unpleasant, but the alternatives will be much, much worse.
A defeated and weakened America doesn't make the world safer. It leaders to greater death.
Guys like you, Joey, are well intentioned, but you simply do not understand what you're advocating. You're providing emotional reactions to serious problems. If you think we need to send in even more troops, a stronger force, and fight a more aggressive military campaign, then support that. Argue that. But you're advocating a humiliating defeat that will weaken our country, embolden terrorism, throw a region into chaos, free up terrorist assets and money, and simply put the entire world at greater risk. The end results will be more people dead.
I always did call for substantially more troops. As did others. From day one when the war was being discussed, people were asking about an exit plan. There never was one. At least, not a good one.
You have to understand something. GW put us in this position, not me. I can call for and support anything - but reality is that GW has pretty much used up his credibility and likely couldnt get anything now. His 'surge' of 20k troops is little more then an excercise in futility I believe. 100k might have made an impact.
Again, I always have. Even Monstermark will tell you that has been my position from day one. MANY more troops. You go in heavy and decisive, --- overkill. You take no chances.
I never understood this war. I always hoped and assumed that there was some hidden agenda on GW's part. Like the desire to intimidate Iran so they would capitulate on Nuclear weapons or something. But I see no evidence of that whatsoever.
GW did this when he entered the war in the first place. So the question is - what do we do now? Its not that im defeatist, but im a realist. We dont have what we need to get the job done, and GW no longer has the clout to do what it will take to get the job done. SO where does that leave us while the Iraqi parliment is planning a 2 month vacation?
Give me something that makes SENSE! Leaving doesnt make sense to me, staying as we are now doesnt make sense to me.... and you know what? I belive the majority of the American public feels the same way. Its not defeatism, its frustration. Hell, for half a trillion dollars I bet Saddam would have been our lifelong ally -- what has our investment in dollars and military lives got us so far? A situation worse then we found it.
There's no "exit plan?" No. What you mean is, there is no TIME TABLE. Huge difference between the two. There is absolutely a strategic goal.
First off, elaborate what "position" we've been put in? A public with a short attention span? A hostile, anti-American media? Or a populace that doesn't even understand the dynamics of what we are dealing with?
"His" surge was not authored by "him" at all. You keep, mistakenly, associating military decisions to Bush. He's a president, a civilian. Military decisions and strategy are devised by military leaders. So, let's get rid of this image of Bush sitting down with a map and compass constructing troop movements.
Bush is invested in victory in Iraq. On a personal level, he has staked his Presidency on this. If Petraeus tells him that a surge and strategy change is needed, he provides the resources. He doesn't undermine them. He wants success.
In contrast, the Democrats are invested in our failure, regardless the consequences to our country. They are actively with holding funding, with holding resources, and projecting weakness and vulnerability. Their futures are linked to our defeat.
O.k. but you're thrown your support in with the Democrats, who were COMPLETELY opposed to that strong approach, and actively sought to limit the projection of strength our military made from the beginning.
That's apparent.
Then you need to look a bit harder.
But it's difficult to project strength when you have a liberal 5th column within the country undermining our military efforts, ensuring defeat. If our country can't stay focused enough to win a military endevour (in military terms) of modest cost and loss of life, what will we do against a China, Russia, or Iran?
Iraqi vacation aside. You're not a realist, you're a defeatist.
You wanted more troops. Change of strategy. Change of leadership.
We've seen that happen. Yet, before it's even fully implemented, you cry defeat. If Paetraeus needs more troops, Bush will immediately authorize them. And yes, IT WILL BE MORE DIFFICULT NOW, because simple minded people have thrown their support behind the defeatist Democrats who are invested in our failure and have aligned themself with the enemy.
The situation will be worse ONLY if we allow ourself to be defeated. If we leave it up to guys like you, or our Democrat leadership, we can be assured of that.
If the country has the resolve and clarity to be victorious, then the situation will be much better and probably worth the investment. (Probably because there are no certainties, ever)
This thread is moronic. I've addressed every point you've made, yet you fail to acknowledge any or the arguments or facts I present and simply repeat what you feel. You don't address the consequences. You don't address the political realities. You don't address what will happen to the world if the power of the U.S. is perceived to have been undermined by a bunch of terrorist with car bombs. You don't address anything. You have concerns, you don't understand the world, and you seem to think we'll be o.k. if we just retreat behind our borders and pull the covers over our head.
That won't work.
No - he is the COMMANDER IN CHIEF
Im not crying defeat - but look at the results. Can you say things have improved in the last few months since the change in leadership and strategy? Has GW been to the podium to say: "Things are getting better" ?? Nope. If things were better, I have little doubt he would be out there on an aircraft carrier somewhere talking about it.
I do understand the world. I understand that when we invaded Iraq we hit a hornets nest with a stick. When the hornets swarmed the wasp nest next to the hornets also got active and the wasps and hornets are fighting. GW didnt send us with enough insecticide and we keep getting stung. In the meantime, GW wants us to just stand there and keep swatting while most of the country thinks we should run so we stop getting stung.
Now - YOU need to go back and do some reading....
Which is a position only held by a civilian.
Yes, actually there have been improvements. And the enemy has intensified their efforts.
No, you're demonstrating how little you understand.
I think you're analogy is bad, but the mere fact you're equating it to a hornets nest implies you think this is a contained or isolated problem. That it's even confined to just one yard. That's not the case.
But in keeping with your imagery, when you bust up a hornets nest, you can't run away. They chase you. And if you hide, they wait.
I've never stopped.
You linked to stories specifying violence. I've never implied that there was a shortage of violence in Iraq. Again, you clearly demonstrate how you simply DO NOT UNDERSTAND what we're talking about.
I AGREE!!!! However - You forgot something - We didnt bring enough insecticide. THAT is the problem.
We cant run - your right. But as things stand now we dont have the tools necessary to win either. So what the hell do we do?
Im not defeatist - I dont want us to leave Iraq - but I want us too win - not just 'buy time' with the lives of our soldiers and at the expense of our credibility.
IMO -- The US should have a very simple policy. If we engage in military action against you, we will throw everything but the kitchen sink at you from day one.
THAT is the one main thing I have a problem with.
In Gulf I -- we said -- we're not going to play around. We're sending massive amounts of everything to ENSURE victory. We are sending much more then we think we need to ENSURE victory swift and decisive.
This sends the msot imporant message of all to the nations of the world - dont F*U*C*K with us.
SO I fully support sending more troops - but in GREATER numbers. Our message today should be "Enough of this crap - Now we come down like a ton of bricks" --
Nice site - I didnt know about that one.
On a side note - I love this: Iran Bans Jazeera From News Conference
Wow - Irans is even too screwed up for al Jazeera -- ROFL
You have two choices. Again, staying within the confines of your imagery.
One guy says "I've brought in another company to take care of the hornets. The first guy said we could use smoke to calm the hornets. And while you might think we should have 10 guys spraying the nest with poison, the new leadership thinks we only need 3. But if it doesn't work, he'll ask for more people."
The other guys say, "we can't do it. The hornets hate us. We need to run away. And if the hornets make a nest in our garage, we should just avoid that as well."
First off, WE CHANGED LEADERSHIP. STRATEGY. TROOP LEVELS. Clearly we HAVE the tools to win, it's simply a matter of how they are utilized. And how the hell do you know if we can win or not with the current strategy. It's making progress (NO, IT WILL NOT BE REPORTED IN THE MEDIA).
WE CHANGED LEADERSHIP. STRATEGY. INCREASED TROOP LEVELS. Initial reports are positive, but we haven't had enough time to see the full results. I just linked to Gen. McCaffrey's highly critical report of Iraq.
That's overly simplistic. But what should be policy is that military will have the full support of the public and government until the stated goal is achieved.
Again, you're overly simplistic. But, since you don't care to actually learn what the changes associated with Gates and Patreus are, you'll find that it is a much firmer approach.
Now, next time the NY TIMES starts prosecuting our troops in the field for being "brutal" keep this in mind.
They should be brutal. We should be feared. Period.
Right - Exactly - leave no ambiguity. Enemies now and in the future will know that we are going to come down HARD. Period. Yes, simple. I like simple. Nothing wrong with simple.
You keep saying this. We have changed strategy and leadership several times, and the increase in troop levels really is minor - I think less then a 15% increase. So im looking for RESULTS.
Now, before you say it -- tell me this. IF - in September/October, we havent seen significant improvement of things there - then what do we do in your opinon?
Right - Exactly - leave no ambiguity. Enemies now and in the future will know that we are going to come down HARD. Period. Yes, simple. I like simple. Nothing wrong with simple.
You keep saying this. We have changed strategy and leadership several times, and the increase in troop levels really is minor - I think less then a 15% increase. So im looking for RESULTS.
Now, before you say it -- tell me this. IF - in September/October, we havent seen significant improvement of things there - then what do we do in your opinon?
Really, I'm only aware of the Secretary of Defense being changed once. So, you're claim is incorrect. There hasn't been such a major change in strategy. There have always been evolving tactics, but we're now seeing a change in the philosophy and military theory being employed. It's a huge change.
And why do you think that you have a better idea what is needed in Iraq, compared to the General who is now incharge and already seeing improvement? Do you know something that Petreaus doesn't know?
If you're looking for results, you have to give a reasonable amount of time for those results to be seen. And even in this short period of time, we ARE seeing results. I provided you a link. McCaffrey is not a friend of the Bush administration. That report is not a glowing report on Iraq. But it does recognize POSITIVE results and it does state that victory is still very possible.
Ask General Petreaus, not me. The same thing that Bush will do. But I'll tell you what we DO NOT do. Follow the Democrats in their race to embrace defeat.
Let me remind you:
SO you want it both ways now? You want to insulate the President from military decisions as a civilian, but then justify the Sec of Defense, also a civilian?
Thats why I ahve a hard time taking some of what you say (and GW says) seriously. You say -- give it a chance to work -- when it doesnt - well, we'll see..
When is it appropriate for people to say "Enough is enough" ?
Can the Iraq 'Surge' Be Salvaged?
As Violence Seems to Outpace Progress, Officials Talk of Next Steps
By GREG JAFFE and YOCHI J. DREAZEN
Wall Street Journal
WASHINGTON -- When the Bush administration decided to send tens of thousands of additional troops to Iraq, the strategy rested on an unspoken trade-off: U.S. troops would risk greater casualties to tamp down violence and buy the Baghdad government time to make the political compromises needed to reconcile the country's warring factions.
But a resurgence of sectarian violence and attacks on U.S. troops, coupled with little to no progress on crucial Iraqi political goals, is already spurring discussion about whether the current strategy can succeed.
More.....
As Violence Seems to Outpace Progress, Officials Talk of Next Steps
By GREG JAFFE and YOCHI J. DREAZEN
Wall Street Journal
WASHINGTON -- When the Bush administration decided to send tens of thousands of additional troops to Iraq, the strategy rested on an unspoken trade-off: U.S. troops would risk greater casualties to tamp down violence and buy the Baghdad government time to make the political compromises needed to reconcile the country's warring factions.
But a resurgence of sectarian violence and attacks on U.S. troops, coupled with little to no progress on crucial Iraqi political goals, is already spurring discussion about whether the current strategy can succeed.
More.....
JohnnyBz00LS
Dedicated LVC Member
Amazing what 2 more data points do to the "trend" earlier claimed by some as "The Surge is Working"............... 
http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showpost.php?p=275132&postcount=6
So much for "plan A". What's "plan B", designate a new Iraq war "czar" so that he can be the next convienient scape goat?? Have Gonzales testify a few more times on what a dim wit he is to distract the country's attention from this fatal failure in Iraq?
http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showpost.php?p=275132&postcount=6
So much for "plan A". What's "plan B", designate a new Iraq war "czar" so that he can be the next convienient scape goat?? Have Gonzales testify a few more times on what a dim wit he is to distract the country's attention from this fatal failure in Iraq?
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
I see the US Military death cheering section is back rooting for the away team.:shifty:
JohnnyBz00LS
Dedicated LVC Member
You sir, are dilusional. No one is "cheering" for more US military deaths. Both Joey and I (as are the MAJORITY of US citizens) are disgusted at BuSh and "his plan" of pissing away US blood just for the purpose of delaying the pull-out until it occurs on someone else's watch. Both Joey and I have been calling for MORE troops to be EFFECTIVE in squashing the "away team", but NOOOooooo, BuSh just wants to bleed our great country dry of it's blood and resources for his political gain. But since you've bought into his ideals hook line and sinker, I don't expect you to see the reality of the situation for what it is. There cannot be "victory" in Iraq with BuSh's wimpy idea of a "surge". We've been saying it for years now, go BIG or go HOME. And since BuSh isn't man enough to go BIG, he might as well go HOME.
Exactly.
Im one of the people who think the SURGE should have been 100k troops or MORE --- To me, its either -- Get the job done right - or dont do it. This halfway crap is not working. This is whats costing our soldiers' lives.
Gulf War I had the right idea. They deliberately sent way more troops then they needed. Why? It ensured victory. What iraq and her people need isnt time. Its force. These people in the middle east ONLY respond to blunt force. Look at the history in the region and look at who has been successful in maintaining governments. THAT is what those people respond to. Blunt force.
Want another prediction? Regardless of what happens now, within 10 years or so, someone will step up and take over Iraq as a dictator. He'll have the backing of the military and we'll be back where we were before. Saddam by another name.
Im one of the people who think the SURGE should have been 100k troops or MORE --- To me, its either -- Get the job done right - or dont do it. This halfway crap is not working. This is whats costing our soldiers' lives.
Gulf War I had the right idea. They deliberately sent way more troops then they needed. Why? It ensured victory. What iraq and her people need isnt time. Its force. These people in the middle east ONLY respond to blunt force. Look at the history in the region and look at who has been successful in maintaining governments. THAT is what those people respond to. Blunt force.
Want another prediction? Regardless of what happens now, within 10 years or so, someone will step up and take over Iraq as a dictator. He'll have the backing of the military and we'll be back where we were before. Saddam by another name.
Marcus
Dedicated LVC Member
I guess I disagree with everybody. The surge should have been in March 2003, when there was still order in the country and we might have stood a chance of maintaining it. At this point in 2007, a million troops wouldn't be able to put things right.