RE: Iraq Withdraw

RE: Iraq Withdraw (Full Version)

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

Message

philosophy -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/8/2006 1:59:32 PM)
"We don't HAVE to loose ... we CAN win. There IS a way." "I don't really know, but I certainly know what it doesn't look like." .......can you spell blind faith? You assert categorically that a way exists to win in Iraq but then freely admit that you have no idea how this is accomplished. Thus, clearly, you base the earlier statement on blind faith.......

caitlyn -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/8/2006 2:04:31 PM)
No, I base not knowing the answer, on me not knowing the answer. But, because I don't know it, doesn't mean the answer doesn't exist.

philosophy -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/8/2006 2:09:43 PM)
"No, I base not knowing the answer, on me not knowing the answer. " "we CAN win. There IS a way" .........oh Caitlyn......can you really not see the conflict between your two staements here. You type the words 'can' and 'is' in capitals to strengthen your point. Then you instantly flip on the subject when called to justify it. You say you don't what the answer is, but insist in the strongest possible terms that there is one. On what do you base that stone cold certainty? "But, because I don't know it, doesn't mean the answer doesn't exist. " ......perhaps, but neither does it mean there is an answer. Once again, on what possible data do you base your argument, or is it, as i have already suggested, based on blind faith?

caitlyn -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/8/2006 2:23:20 PM)
I'm starting to think that you want to fuck me, or something.

NeedToUseYou -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/8/2006 2:27:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou I don't understand this new concept of war, everyone talks about winning hearts and minds. War has never been about hearts and minds, it's about beating your enemy into the ground until he is dead or will do anything so you give him a piece of bread. I'm not a history scholar but I don't recall any war that has been fought like this before the 50's and later. The US in my opinion should never go to war if the concern is winning hearts and minds. War is for killing and destroying your enemy in total. If we aren't going to do that then we shouldn't of fired a shot. I've heard many Americans say something similar to this and this is America's weakness. War can only be part of any foreign policy, if it is seen as the whole solution it will fail. One shouldn't get fixated on the total crushing of the enemy, apart from WWII, when did it last happen? It didn't happen in WWI and anyway you have to be fighting a state or conventional enemy to have this sort of victory. Iraq is occupied and there is no conventional army to fight so crushing the enemy is impossible short of something akin to genocide. Bush should have been talking to Syria and Iran long ago but he refused and I'm wondering if this is something to do with the American protestant culture of no compromise. Blair said right at the beginning that without finding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem there won't be a long term solution in the middle east which has me wondering why he agreed to join the war in the first place. In one of his more lucid and less messianic moments he said that the middle east has a series of nationalist and territorial conflicts that need solving. Which again baffles me as to why he so merrily went along with Bush's policy which so many people said would fail from the outset. Bush needs to change policy on a whole series of issues in the middle east, Lebanon, the Israeli-Palestinian problem, Syria which was reforming before Bush's attitude towards Syria forced them back into retrenchment and Iran. If he did something about these, he might not have to change policy in Iraq that much because he would have Iraqi neighbours whose interest it would be to seal their borders and not arm the insurgents. I guess my point is we are so concerned with civilian deaths and perceptions that we put ourselves at risk. Currently our primary concern seems to be reduction of civilian deaths at the cost of increasing our risk. I don't think wars have be fought like this before. If a terrorist was suspected to be in a civilian home we will send in troops to investigate and possibly get shot or blown up. I'd say a total war scenario would be you just blow the house up. It doesn't win hearts and minds but it scares the fuck out of the enemy and reduces our casualties. Who is going to let a terrorist in their home or operate in their business when they know if we even got a hint that a terrorist was there it would be blown up. I certainly wouldn't invest a dollar in infrastructure until there was at least a marginal peace. I don't understand rebuilding a nation that is still in the middle of war, that makes no sense either. It just creates more targets to protect. That's just me. We agree though even if we disagree on the point of war. I personally would very very rarely go to war, because it would be total and brutal. If that isn't the goal then diplomacy/sanctions ect. should be the response.

NeedToUseYou -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/8/2006 2:33:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn I'm starting to think that you want to fuck me, or something. duh!

philosophy -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/8/2006 2:38:19 PM)
"I'm starting to think that you want to fuck me, or something. " ...........cute, now answer the question.

meatcleaver -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/8/2006 2:42:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn I'm starting to think that you want to fuck me, or something. Hmm I probably do. But I think you are right that the situation in Iraq is salvageable but I don't think Bush is up to it. President Bashar of Syria said he is willing to discuss the situation with Bush but Bush flatly refuses talk to Syria. Bush refuses negotiations with Iran and just makes demands which would be humiliating for Iran to comply with without quid pro quo and Bush is completely blind about the injustices metered out against the Palestinians by Israel and backs Israel unconditionally. Bush has made enemies of everyone that can ease the situation in the middle east and has given them reasons to be unhelpful as possible, Bush really needs a conversion on the road to Damascus. It is not beyond intelligent diplomacy to make these players withdraw a distance from the game if Bush makes a genuine effort to solve individual conflicts in the region rather than lumping all the conflicts together and calling them all extremists. The US has to co-exist with these countries, it can't invade them all and look at the problems of invading one country. Bush really needs to bite the bullet, show a little humility and resume diplomacy. Well resume diplomacy is being charitable because Bush has never tried diplomacy.

philosophy -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/8/2006 2:46:35 PM)
"If a terrorist was suspected to be in a civilian home we will send in troops to investigate and possibly get shot or blown up. I'd say a total war scenario would be you just blow the house up. It doesn't win hearts and minds but it scares the fuck out of the enemy and reduces our casualties." (my italics)...only in the short term.....it creates martyrs and generates genuine and, arguably, justifiable hate towards the aggressor. If you want to settle it in one generation avoid civilian casualties.....if you want your grandkids to be fighting their grandkids do as you have suggested......but in the long run it creates more casualties, on both sides.

meatcleaver -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/8/2006 2:51:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou If a terrorist was suspected to be in a civilian home we will send in troops to investigate and possibly get shot or blown up. I'd say a total war scenario would be you just blow the house up. It doesn't win hearts and minds but it scares the fuck out of the enemy and reduces our casualties. Who is going to let a terrorist in their home or operate in their business when they know if we even got a hint that a terrorist was there it would be blown up. I certainly wouldn't invest a dollar in infrastructure until there was at least a marginal peace. I don't understand rebuilding a nation that is still in the middle of war, that makes no sense either. It just creates more targets to protect. Israel already does this and has been doing it for quite sometime and it looks like that particular conflict will go on for another 60 years.

caitlyn -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/8/2006 4:23:16 PM)
Well, that President Bush and the neocons are not up to the salvage, was never really in question. They seem to be going out of their way to prove that they aren't ... or, and you have to be willing to accept this possibility, they just don't see it as something that needs to be salvaged. As cold as this may seem (and it seems colder than cold), it may be that their only goal was to get an army in the Middle East and/or pad the pockets of their big business buddies. Bush and Co., may be sitting back and laughing their ass off right now. Perhaps when they hear all this talk of 'failed policy', they may not consider what they are doing, as failed. Shocker, they may not give a fuck about the hundred guys we are losing each month ... they may be too busy making a mint. They may have even convinced themselves that there would be a 9/11 every month, if they aren't being 'proactive' and/or focusing the attention of all the enemies they created, in Iraq. Do I think this is the case ... well, no. My opinion is that they are fuck-ups, that fucked up. For Philosophy ... I really never know how to answer your questions anymore. Most of the time, I don't even see a real question. All I see is you taking a few words, and making a point you can slam, or an insinuation based on mind reading done over cyber space. I'll do my best though! Lets see ... I don't know how to win the World Cup, but I know it can be done because I have seen teams do it. I don't know how to fly a jet fighter, but I know it can be done, because I have seen them flying overhead. I don't know how to win in a scenario like Iraq, but I know it can be done, because I read a lot of history and know it has been done in the past. Now, if you wish to call that blind faith ... that's your choice, but I don't see it that way. You can either accept that or not ... or stand in line behind those that seem to think I'm being 'Miss Know it All' because I dare to voice my opinion on a message board. That's what we do on message boards ... and a message board without messages, is just bored. That may be an opinon based on blind faith, just so you know. [;)]

Sinergy -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/8/2006 5:45:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn I don't know how to win in a scenario like Iraq, but I know it can be done, because I read a lot of history and know it has been done in the past. Now, if you wish to call that blind faith ... that's your choice, but I don't see it that way. Hello A/all, I would like to try to respond in a different manner, caitlyn. When I was in charge of fixing problems with computer systems, I would generally use an approach to reverse engineer the problem. So the first thing I would do is find out what it looked like when it was working. Then I would formulate a plan to go from where it is not working to where it is once again working. So I think my question to you would be "How exactly do you define Victory In Iraq?" I think the biggest problem that Monkeyboy and his ilk faced right out the door is that they were focussed on the process of overthrowing Saddam without an eye to what the goal of post-invasion Iraq was that they hoped to accomplish. Or, as some have postulated, they lived in a delusional state thinking the Iraqi people would welcome us with open arms. But things happen. Adapt. Improvise. Overcome. So the next question becomes "How do we define Victory In Iraq?" The question is a difficult one to face, but near as I can tell from monkeyboys speeches to the rich people in Daddy's rolodex, it seems to be. 1) Government structure in place willing to be lap dog supporters to United States oil interests in the area. This was not happening under Saddam, so we invaded to make it happen. From what I have read, the current leader of Iraq has stated to Monkeyboy that Iraq is not our (the US') bitch. 2) Government structure in place willing to allow a permanent occupying force of US armed personnel in the area. I imagine this is going along swimmingly since the Iraqi government knows their lifespan would be greatly diminished if the US left. So I will agree that this goal is likely to remain realized. 3) Oil facilities retooled and working to provide oil to customers paying in US dollars on the open market. This has not happened at all because of insurgents destroying every attempt at building things, and shooting people trying to build things. The insurgents dont get anything out of retooled oil fields. And technically, neither does the Iraqi government, as they have been told that when the oil fields are working again, they will get to pay for the costs of putting them in power. That seems to me like a pretty workable approach to kill the mood in Iraqi people's desire to rebuild their country. The Bush administration has tried for all these years to make these 3 hopes a reality, and failed. How many more years and how much more money are we going to spend trying to make them a reality before we leave? Psychotic behavior is doing the same thing over and over and over again and hoping for a different outcome. We are not currently winning in Iraq. We are no closer to the goals stated to define victory in Iraq then we were years ago. Without asking you how you plan to get to Victory In Iraq, I am wondering how exactly you define what Victory In Iraq means. Yadda yadda yadda Sinergy

cloudboy -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/8/2006 6:54:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn You will have to excuse some of us, for actually wanting to win in Iraq. Pssst, we already LOST. Its gone. We blew it. The worse case, Balkinazation fears were realized in spades. The American troops over there don't speak Arabic, can't spot "the enemy," and aren't trained to NATION BUILD. The wonks in Washington have their heads stuck clearly up their asses. Bush gambled big and LOST. This isn't Omaha Beach and it isn't the Balkans. Its closer to Vietnam or its closer to the German soldiers on the Russian front. The writing is on the wall. There is no rabbit anyone can pull from the hat. The American choices are bad options A, B, and C. You can't win a war by lying about WMD, torturing the indigenous peoples, disregarding the positions of your key NATO allies, and uncorking the bottle on sectarian divisions who won't get along peacably. If you open your eyes and look at the situation, its a clusterfuck. If you want to reference WWII, look at the Germans and Japanese who arrogantly overreached and who were the agressors. Don't take it from me, listen to what the actual, intelligent, on-the-spot IRAQIs have to say: "It’s not about the man- presidents come and go, governments come and go. It’s the frustration of feeling like the whole country and every single Iraqi inside and outside of Iraq is at the mercy of American politics. It is the rage of feeling like a mere chess piece to be moved back and forth at will. It is the aggravation of having a government so blind and uncaring about their peoples needs that they don’t even feel like it’s necessary to go through the motions or put up an act. And it's the deaths. The thousands of dead and dying, with Bush sitting there smirking and lying about progress and winning in a country where every single Iraqi outside of the Green Zone is losing." From Baghdad Burning

caitlyn -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/8/2006 9:03:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Without asking you how you plan to get to Victory In Iraq, I am wondering how exactly you define what Victory In Iraq means. Define victory ... how about preventing a further blood bath. Sure ... we can go through the exercise of rehashing all the messed up things we did that caused this mess ... they are probably all true, and probably all on point. We can put all the culprits on trial and hang them all, if that will get people through the day. None of that will solve a single problem that exists today in Iraq. Nothing would make me happier than being able to turn back the clock. Wishing that, will not solve a single problem that exists today in Iraq. Innocent people are dying now in Iraq, and it's pretty much our fault. It's an awful thing, to be sure. That doesn't solve a single problem that exists today in Iraq. Maybe the only victory we can get, is doing to best we can to prevent a bloodbath. I would rather we do that than run from a problem we caused. As an aside, I really enjoyed your post, Sinergy. Thank you.

Sinergy -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/8/2006 9:14:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Without asking you how you plan to get to Victory In Iraq, I am wondering how exactly you define what Victory In Iraq means. Define victory ... how about preventing a further blood bath. Sure ... we can go through the exercise of rehashing all the messed up things we did that caused this mess ... they are probably all true, and probably all on point. We can put all the culprits on trial and hang them all, if that will get people through the day. None of that will solve a single problem that exists today in Iraq. Nothing would make me happier than being able to turn back the clock. Wishing that, will not solve a single problem that exists today in Iraq. Innocent people are dying now in Iraq, and it's pretty much our fault. It's an awful thing, to be sure. That doesn't solve a single problem that exists today in Iraq. Maybe the only victory we can get, is doing to best we can to prevent a bloodbath. I would rather we do that than run from a problem we caused. As an aside, I really enjoyed your post, Sinergy. Thank you. Thank you for the compliments. So taking as accepted that victory in Iraq is determined by preventing further bloodshed, the next question becomes how to realize that goal. What would you suggest a good starting point would be? The current approach is not working, and not expected to start working any time soon. As I stated, psychotic behavior is doing the same thing repeatedly hoping for a different outcome. Sinergy

caitlyn -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/8/2006 9:49:50 PM)
Well ... to be quite honest, I don't think I know enough to offer any more than an opinion. I also think I misspoke when I said "prevent a bloodbath." What I should have said, was, prevent a bloodbath of innocent people. We shouldn't attempt to prevent a civil war, if that proves inevitable. The humanitarian zone in southern Iraq, with an emphasis on rebuilding the oil industry, seem to be worth discussing. I can't wait to hear what James Baker's group will have to say.

cloudboy -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/9/2006 7:31:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy As I stated, psychotic behavior is doing the same thing repeatedly hoping for a different outcome. Sinergy Folks always like to compare Saddam Hussein to Hitler, but part of the reason Hitler lost WWII is that he: a. Overreached b. Didn't listen to his generals c. Wouldn't change course d. Tolerated no dissent from his ideological positions --------- At Stalingrad, about 110,000 German soldiers of the Fifth Army surrendered to the Russians because Hitler would not allow them to retreat despite entreaties from his generals. As a result, those men were encircled and cut off from even being able to retreat. Of those that surrendered, only 15,000 would survive. When an administration ignores and distorts the intelligence it receives on the ground, the consequences aren't good. The soldiers and civilians affected by the war usually end up paying the price for such command hubris. As related to IRAQ, this is the best description that I've read: >The President’s Iraq war is lost. Plan A—a unified and democratic Iraq that will be a model in the region—is no longer achievable. The civil war for which the Administration will not consider new responses is already at hand. Because no one in power can admit any of this, the United States is in the position of trying to hold still while the ground shifts violently underfoot. The resistance to thinking about Plans B, C, and D means not only that this country remains stuck while Americans and Iraqis die but that its ability to affect events six or twelve months away is rapidly diminishing.< Tuesday's election finally changed this, as all sensible Americans voted for change. If I had to predict what's ahead, I'd say that the James Baker investigation will play a key role in changing American policy in IRAQ, and that the Republicans will more willingly go along with change now that they will be able to finger point at the Democrats as the reason for losing.

ToGiveDivine -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/9/2006 11:18:17 AM)
FAST REPLY: If we kill everyone in the country, then there would be no one to attack our troops! Wait, some of them would flee to neighboring countries, so we'd have to kill everyone in those countries also ... hmmm, some of them would flee to more neighboring countries ... Damn, I think our troops are gonna be real busy and we're going to get real unpopular ;-)

thompsonx -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/9/2006 12:03:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy As I stated, psychotic behavior is doing the same thing repeatedly hoping for a different outcome. Sinergy Folks always like to compare Saddam Hussein to Hitler, but part of the reason Hitler lost WWII is that he: a. Overreached b. Didn't listen to his generals If he would have listened to his generals he would not have gotten as far as he did. c. Wouldn't change course d. Tolerated no dissent from his ideological positions It would seem to me that the closer parallel would be bush &co. --------- At Stalingrad, about 110,000 German soldiers of the Fifth Army surrendered to the Russians because Hitler would not allow them to retreat despite entreaties from his generals. Actually it was the german 6th army under vonPaulis. They lost more than one and a half million men dead and anot6her 300,000 taken prisoner. The numbers I have seen indicate that only about 5,000 supermen made it back to Germany. As a result, those men were encircled and cut off from even being able to retreat. Of those that surrendered, only 15,000 would survive. When an administration ignores and distorts the intelligence it receives on the ground, the consequences aren't good. The soldiers and civilians affected by the war usually end up paying the price for such command hubris. Absolutely. As related to IRAQ, this is the best description that I've read: >The President’s Iraq war is lost. Plan A—a unified and democratic Iraq that will be a model in the region—is no longer achievable. The civil war for which the Administration will not consider new responses is already at hand. Because no one in power can admit any of this, the United States is in the position of trying to hold still while the ground shifts violently underfoot. The resistance to thinking about Plans B, C, and D means not only that this country remains stuck while Americans and Iraqis die but that its ability to affect events six or twelve months away is rapidly diminishing.< Tuesday's election finally changed this, as all sensible Americans voted for change. If I had to predict what's ahead, I'd say that the James Baker investigation will play a key role in changing American policy in IRAQ, and that the Republicans will more willingly go along with change now that they will be able to finger point at the Democrats as the reason for losing. Nah...same mud different day. We are there to fuck their women and take their dope and it is the goal of both the demopubs and the republicrats. thompson

LordODiscipline -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/9/2006 12:04:10 PM)
I don't agree with pulling out of the country. Despite constant reference to 'Vietnam', this country is not going to stabilize as that region did as hte historys of the areas are as divergent as possible and the players are too numerous to count - vice the one player in the struggle in Vientnam on the close of hostilities. Everyone decrys America for not jumping in and intervening directly in places like Dafur and Rwanda... for not getting in quicker into the former Yugoslav republics... and, yet we are willing to allow genocide to occur in a country in which we are intimately involved in the process for how they arrived where they are at today. Is our hyopcracy not limited - or, are we boundless in the schitzophrenic nature of the pscyhe of the American people? I believe we ought to stay for stabilization... but, that will be something that has to be managed in a way which would exceed the means thus far. *Don't speak for "integrity" in the same breath as speaking up for removal of the troops... THAT is simply silly.* Besides - you do realize that te Hezbollah are not part of the Iraqi splintering - they are an entity mainly based in Lebanon (recently having their rear kicked by the Israelis in an unfortunate miscalculation of how Israel would respond to specific stimulii) amd supported almost entirely by Iran... So, they would (naturally) desire us to move out - as many of the factions are being directly supported by Iran as they see an opportunity for expansion of their country/economy via a plebecite (Think Austria/Anschluss) and therefore are seeking us to leave as quickly as possible... ~J quote:* ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: Hizbullah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah: When We Were Young, I cannot Forget the Sight of American Forces leaving Vietnam, and the Americans Abandoning their Vietnamese Allies, I Anticipate the Same for our Region . I'm on record saying the US should abandon the country and people of Iraq. This link gives you the perspective of how the other side will view that action: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=23245_Hizballah_Leader-_Like_They_Left_Vietnam&only There are plenty of "givens". If you want to talk about the past or say we shouldn't have gone there in the first place. I'll stipulate agreement, because its immaterial to the question of "now what?" I am torn about how to feel about this. I still support withdraw, but there seems to be more on the table within the region than just Iraq. Integrity of a person is hard to reestablish. This situation concerns the integrity of a county, my county. Your comments are appreciated.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875