RE: The "New Way Forward in Iraq" - Question

RE: The "New Way Forward in Iraq" - Question (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

FirmhandKY -> RE: The "New Way Forward in Iraq" - Question (11/8/2007 8:18:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: Some people want to point to the start of the turn around as happening "before" the surge, and therefore able to condemn the surge as "just another failed policy". The EXPRESS PURPOSE of the "Surge Strategy" was to give the Iraqis time to achieve the 18 Benchmarks I've already listed. That is why the 18 Benchmarks are codified in US Law. THE IRAQIS HAVE NOT MET THE 18 BENCHMARKS. The "Surge Strategy" Failed. Do you consider 3 of 18 some sort of Passing Grade? Only is a Special Ed class, when you have pity for a retard who just can't make the grade. Do you consider Bush a retard who can't make the grade? Is that why you're willing to lower the bar? Perhaps the 18 "questions" weren't the correct questions, or are not weighted correctly? Tell me this FB .... what is the current general trend in Iraq since the surge began? Are the Iraqi's and the US generally making progress to a civilized, secure and non-fractionalized society ... or is it getting worst i.e. less civilized, less secure, and more fractionalized? Firm

OrionTheWolf -> RE: The "New Way Forward in Iraq" - Question (11/8/2007 8:23:03 AM)
Fast reply: I see progress being made since the surge, but not so much as to say it has been successful. I believe that a change in deployment and duty assignments, along with a change in policy concerning the local militias, has caused more progress than additional troops have. In many of the most dangerous areas, what were once locals that were fighting against the US, they are now fighting against the Queda fighters. In many of these areas, some who were called insurgents, are now being trained to police certain areas. This is a long time in coming, and I believe too late. It has always been said that the US Military is not designed or trained for police duties. You can not deny there has been progress, but you cannot deny that the surge has not met the stated goals by more than 75%. Orion

mnottertail -> RE: The "New Way Forward in Iraq" - Question (11/8/2007 8:24:06 AM)
Well, a blurb in the news mentioned offhandedly that there were 46,000 Iraqis that were sent back home packing from Jordan, Syria, Iran and other places, no papers and visas run out and whatnot....did not affirm that more were in the offing........ I will leave that cryptic statement for the masses to gloss over, and some may take a view that there are further storm clouds on the horizon, and there is a slight calm before the storm. The way forward in iraq is plain, forward into the kurdish territories and either east or west by plane from there. Ron

Sinergy -> RE: The "New Way Forward in Iraq" - Question (11/8/2007 9:02:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Synergy, Fair enough, Firm Hanky. Sinergy

farglebargle -> RE: The "New Way Forward in Iraq" - Question (11/8/2007 9:33:41 AM)
quote: Perhaps the 18 "questions" weren't the correct questions, or are not weighted correctly? The United States Congress was QUITE THOROUGH in their deliberations. If you had any criticism, you should have communicated with your Representatives and Senators PRIOR to the legislation being enacted. I don't recall you being on the record as objecting when the legislation was passed. Now that the Surge Strategy has failed, you want to "Move the Goalposts". Hey, Maybe you want to limit them to "T-Ball" and not keep score, to avoid hurting people's feelings when they don't measure up?

farglebargle -> RE: The "New Way Forward in Iraq" - Question (11/8/2007 9:35:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Well, what are the material differences? Well.... why not click on the mp3 file, and follow the printed transcript? I think there are material differences. Do you? No. EVERYTHING I QUOTED IS IN THE RECORDING, VERBATIM. quote: There is also "context" not directly part of either of the two sources you have, but are important to understand what occurred, specifically the constant "workshop" or "forum" callers that Rush receives, and tries to screen out. Enlighten us. What additional context is required to fully understand Rush's comments: "I don't know a single Republican or conservative, Mike, who wants to pull out of Iraq in defeat. " and "Mike, you can't possibly be a Republican." Hey, did I miss your reply to this?

farglebargle -> RE: The "New Way Forward in Iraq" - Question (11/8/2007 9:42:06 AM)
quote: Are the Iraqi's and the US generally making progress to a civilized, secure and non-fractionalized society No. The important qualifier is "non-fractionalized". Well, that and the Totalitarian Ideal of "Security" being any sort of goal. Unless you figured out how to resolve the inherent Sunni/Shia conflict, now going on 13 centuries, then you're simply NEVER going to unify the culture. And that neglects the entire Kurdistan/Iraq question. How can you unify what is essentially two separate nations? The idea that the Iraqis will sit around the hookah, get high, and all sing Kumbaya, ( In Harmony ) is the "Achillies Heel" of Bush's Foreign Policy. And while it continues to be neglected, a political solution of any sort is patently impossible. Now, can they move to a Civilized and FREE nation? I don't know if that' s compatible with Evangelical Islam, but there's a better chance. "Security" is for slaves. Freedom and Liberty contain the inherent risks of OTHER PEOPLE having Freedom and Liberty. If anyone is too much of a pussy to accept those risks, they don't deserve Freedom and Liberty.

NorthernGent -> RE: The "New Way Forward in Iraq" - Question (11/8/2007 9:50:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY I think you may remember a thread that I was heavily involved in several months ago (the one where Northern Gent and I got to refighting the First World War, I think). Refighting?! Walkover, pal. You were last seen stranded in no man's land while I was helping myself to your Generals' cigars and brandy. quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY My main thesis has always been that the winner will be the side that refuses to quit, and that it is the American Congress and the American people that have always been the main focus of the insurgency/Islamicist attacks in Iraq. Firmhand, I'm curious here: what is the prize for the winner?

mnottertail -> RE: The "New Way Forward in Iraq" - Question (11/8/2007 9:52:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY My main thesis has always been that the winner will be the side that refuses to quit, and that it is the American Congress and the American people that have always been the main focus of the insurgency/Islamicist attacks in Iraq. Firmhand, I'm curious here: what is the prize for the winner? LOL, that's been asked more than once, and not just of FH... and never a definitive answer, from anyone. Ron

NorthernGent -> RE: The "New Way Forward in Iraq" - Question (11/8/2007 10:06:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail LOL, that's been asked more than once, and not just of FH... and never a definitive answer, from anyone. Ron Well, I reckon Firmhand is the most likely candidate of the supporters to come forward with a decent argument. I'll guess that the preservation of a value system will feature, but I suppose that takes us into the realms of tyranny, which the supporters claim to be fighting against. Maybe FH will surprise. There's no answer really, just clutching at straws put out there by vested interests.....dictators, WMDs, freedom etc....'just meaningless rhetoric, or maybe FH can turn this thing on its head.

philosophy -> RE: The "New Way Forward in Iraq" - Question (11/8/2007 10:24:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY The surge, on top of that, I think has convinced a large number of insurgents and the Iraqi people that the Americans simply aren't going to be made to disappear, and therefore some sort of accommodation is/was needed. ......isn't it possible that, like all good guerilla fighters, the insurgents have merely packed up or scaled down operations for a while until the surge ends? After all, what with the other demands on the US military and troop recruitment being so low, the current surge is unsustainable in the medium to long term. Casualty numbers dropping, in and of themselves, doesn;t seem to me to be a good indicator of success or failure. i'd argue that issues like the Iraq's government spat with Blackwater is more telling...as it speaks to whether or not that nation can govern itself......and self governence for Iraq is just about the only honourable way out of this situation

farglebargle -> RE: The "New Way Forward in Iraq" - Question (11/8/2007 10:44:57 AM)
And since the Insurgents/Rebels are fighting either an opposing religious sect or the Iraqi Government, isn't the real metric "How many more Dead Iraqis do we have today, versus yesterday?" I mean, CONCEPTUALLY, the US Army is just a Mercenary Force hired by Ahmed Chalabi and his cohorts. A mercenary army CANNOT win against a guerilla insurrection, simply because the mercenary army doesn't have any stake in the REAL political solution to the issues at hand. ( How to devolve Iraq into 18 separate nations would be a good start. )

meatcleaver -> RE: The "New Way Forward in Iraq" - Question (11/8/2007 10:51:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle I mean, CONCEPTUALLY, the US Army is just a Mercenary Force hired by Ahmed Chalabi and his cohorts. A mercenary army CANNOT win against a guerilla insurrection, simply because the mercenary army doesn't have any stake in the REAL political solution to the issues at hand. ( How to devolve Iraq into 18 separate nations would be a good start. ) This is so obvious. It is just a pity warmongering politicians and their sheep refuse to see the obvious.

SimplyMichael -> RE: The "New Way Forward in Iraq" - Question (11/8/2007 11:05:16 AM)
Fargle, I really wish you would pull your head out of your ass, your rantings undermine the side you are supposedly on. Chalabi isn't "hiring" anyone. At best he is a creation of the CIA as head of the fictional front Iraqi National Congress. At worst, he is an Iranian double agent. Truth is probably somewhere between those two. While I think Cheney and Bush have their own end game that benefits themselves at the cost of American lives and treasure, the US military isn't being "used" by anyone in the ME. Mercenary armies can fight and win guerrilla wars. Roman's did it all the time, kill everyone and or disperse them like they did with the Jews. Its just a harder sell today to do that after going in to provide "freedom" to them. The problem with Iraq has always been you don't want the majority running the country if you want Iran as an enemy. A statesman today (if there is still such a thing) would win this like Nixon did with China, go there, shake hands, and turn them into friends. It would be easy, Iran would rather have the US as an ally than Russia who has invaded and occupied Iran more than once. Only problem with that is that it wouldn't be as profitable for the big oil companies. Iran helped us defeat the Taliban, they are enemies of Al Queda, we should exploit that but instead Bush works overtime to unite everyone against us rather than divide and conquer. Which is of course why we are "losing" in Iraq. The military knows how to "win" but the administration isn't interested in political solutions because they are not in Iraq to "win" as most of us would use the term. The Bush family are the largest oil brokers in the world, the higher the price of oil goes, the more they make. Chaos is profitable. Is the middle east more or less stable than before Bush took office? Remember, follow the money.

farglebargle -> RE: The "New Way Forward in Iraq" - Question (11/8/2007 11:43:40 AM)
Ok, take a step back, and think about what I said. Keep it in context of "What chance does the US Army have of defeating the rebelling locals?" None. Because, like any mercenary army in the same situation, WE HAVE NO STAKE in the outcome. AT BEST, we cut our losses and come home with a functioning military. Mercenaries are a little more sensitive to that fact, as their troops are their capital. Bush doesn't have that problem.

SimplyMichael -> RE: The "New Way Forward in Iraq" - Question (11/8/2007 11:58:44 AM)
Its too late to come home with a functioning military, the moment they remove the stop loss the Guard is going to evoporate and the military is going to loose a lot of non coms and mid level officers, the core of what makes an army work. Insurgencies are easy to win in theory, problem is that you need to end the underlying motivations and in most cases, preserving the underlying motivations are the very ones that made you put troops there in the first place. If we had gone into Iraq and NOT disbanded the Baath party and instead forced a power/profit sharing deal that required cooperation in order to get money, we would have been better off. Instead Bushco tried to install their puppet, Chalabi and run the place as their own. Didn't work so well and they haven't the brains to get out ahead of the issue OR they want the chaos. The mistakes they have made are to obvious and basic in my mind to be the result of stupidty, even stupid people do something right by mistake. So they want the chaos and seem to be doing a pretty good job. Odd thing though, chaos has drawn Iran in, who would have thought? Oops clumsy me... Saudi Arabia - Bush Clients Iraq - offline Saudi's make more - online Bush clients benefit - no lose proposition Iran - How long has Cheney done business there?

FirmhandKY -> RE: The "New Way Forward in Iraq" - Question (11/8/2007 12:02:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy ......isn't it possible that, like all good guerilla fighters, the insurgents have merely packed up or scaled down operations for a while until the surge ends? After all, what with the other demands on the US military and troop recruitment being so low, the current surge is unsustainable in the medium to long term. Completely valid possible explanation, Philo. However, based on other factors, I don't believe it to be the best explanation for the reduced attacks. quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy Casualty numbers dropping, in and of themselves, doesn;t seem to me to be a good indicator of success or failure. i'd argue that issues like the Iraq's government spat with Blackwater is more telling...as it speaks to whether or not that nation can govern itself......and self governence for Iraq is just about the only honourable way out of this situation Well, I kinda agree, although I'm not sure my interpretation of your words match your intent. The first comment I'd make is that rising casualty figures were certainly used by many protesters and anti-war proponents as sure signs of failure. Seems only fair that the reverse should be a valid argument as well, doesn't it? My second comment is that I agree with your comments about the Iraqi governments spat with Blackwater being a "good thing" (if that is indeed your intent), as it does show some independence of thought and action by the Iraqi government (some backbone, you may say), and that's a good thing, in the long run. Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: The "New Way Forward in Iraq" - Question (11/8/2007 12:04:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Synergy, Fair enough, Firm Hanky. Sinergy [sm=biggrin.gif][sm=biggrin.gif] Good one, Sinergy. And completely proportional. Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: The "New Way Forward in Iraq" - Question (11/8/2007 12:07:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Hey, did I miss your reply to this? No, you haven't. I've not had the time nor energy to do an accurate transcription, especially seeing as it is a very simple process for anyone who disagrees with either of us to click the mp3 link, and read along in your post, and make their own decision. Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: The "New Way Forward in Iraq" - Question (11/8/2007 12:08:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Firmhand, I'm curious here: what is the prize for the winner? Life

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125