Should we leave Iraq unfinished?

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Wow... tough crowd you got here.
Lets just get the bong out and read rolling stone magazine for our perspective on history. It'd be easier. I suppose Arabs will be Arabs... they just like to fight... screw it.

Furnishings - too funny.

I am used to the ceptic comments

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rmsmith 1]

Not one word of AIPAC in this thread.

Ever wonder why we don't ignore the Middle East like we do most of Africa? Israel.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

I am sorry you are so wrong. I know it is easy to take the path you are on. Great leaders lead, the rest bitch and follow.,....

Lousy leaders lead as well. Looking at your posts it appears that you think that a great leader...:
A) Holds to his convictions, no matter how ill conceived, and won't stray from them under any circumstances no matter how obvious and dreadful the outcome.
B) Pisses off the left.

That about right?
I'm guessing here, but it's not necessarily in that order is it?

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

I am sorry you are so wrong. I know it is easy to take the path you are on. Great leaders lead, the rest bitch and follow.,....

Lousy leaders lead as well. Looking at your posts it appears that you think that a great leader...:
A) Holds to his convictions, no matter how ill conceived, and won't stray from them under any circumstances no matter how obvious and dreadful the outcome.
B) Pisses off the left.

That about right?
I'm guessing here, but it's not necessarily in that order is it?

I don't know about point A but B really hits the target

As for A, well, let me use this example. Sen Wellstond from MN comes to mind. I did not like anything he supported for the most part. He was left of left. But what I really respected him for was when he campained he put his true self out there. He was left, you knew it, he said it and then when he got elected he did what he said. No poles, no bs. I repected him for his honesty not his positions.

Bush has been similar (not as steadfast as Wellstone) but similar. He has taken the same off target shit as Regan, Quale, Bush one and any other Rep public figure. Stupid, somebody else does his thinking, it is all about money and on and on and on. And he has stuck to it. I still think we are doing the right thing. I think also we have done some things wrong while we are doing it.

On the other side, the enemy is a smart one. And I don't care what is thought here but I do question people like Reids patriotism. When the left makes statments as they are doing now they have to take the blame for some of the deaths and violence. There is more of it because they cant keep a civil tongue. As I have said before, the war will be lost in the US (if it is lost) but it will be won in Iraq.

Do I think I can change any part of your opinion with all of this? Hell no, but at least I am being consistant. And I realize emotion, like hatred, does not have an open mind.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

... As I have said before, the war will be lost in the US (if it is lost) but it will be won in Iraq.

Define winning. And what would be considered acceptable losses with regard to life, military, and fiscal strain? Would you be willing to increase taxes to pay for it?

Do I think I can change any part of your opinion with all of this?

Not likely. My rantings have been proven to be correct repeatedly for the last half decade. Why break the streak?

Hell no, but at least I am being consistant.

Certainly no argument there.

And I realize emotion, like hatred, does not have an open mind.

Was that a shot at me or is this the first of twelve steps

[hairyjuan 0]

support the troops, bring the ones still alive HOME NOW!



1 U. S soldier dead is too many,


650,000 dead civilians, the use of Depleted uranium against them is the use of a weapon of mass destruction, per Title 50 USC sec...

Terrorist: What the big army calls the litttle army


www.threeworldwars.com

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

[joedirt 0]

It seems like people just say

"It's the middle east pal... come on" or
"you can't beat an insurgency"

as if these are facts. They must hear they're favorite anti - Bush pundit say it, so they think it's true. It's easier than trying to understand something on your own. Bush is cocky, he's a "fortunate son", he didn't serve in Vietnam, didn't win the popular vote and probably did some blow when he was young. His administration had bad intelligence about WMD and invaded Iraq when they might not have had to. These things don't change the fact that the place where religion is used to teach hatred and violence stems from the middle east. Encouraging democracies in the middle east is a noble goal, one that could eventually minimize the impact of radical Islam and their attempt at Jihad. I get the point of the President's strategy. Two democracies, one on each side of Iran, could have been a very good thing. We have a decent chance of failing though, public opinion changed pretty quickly, it's too bad. If Democrats are right then great, we'll leave Iraq to it's own civil war, all the radicals will quit since we're gone, and the jihadist movement will just fizzle out. I kind of doubt it though. I personally don't understand how people can have such strong convictions about that.

FYI - The U.S. military has beaten an insurgency before in the Phillipines (after the American-Phillipine war). It was a ten year insurgency preceded by a declaration of victory by the U.S. government. Sound familiar? Also the British defeated a communist led insurgency in the Malay peninsula after WW2.

We may have gone about fighting this insurgency wrong, but to act as if it is common knowledge that an insugency can't be put down is ridiculous.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

It seems like people just say

"It's the middle east pal... come on" or
"you can't beat an insurgency"

as if these are facts. They must hear they're favorite anti - Bush pundit say it, so they think it's true. It's easier than trying to understand something on your own. Bush is cocky, he's a "fortunate son", he didn't serve in Vietnam, didn't win the popular vote and probably did some blow when he was young. His administration had bad intelligence about WMD and invaded Iraq when they might not have had to. These things don't change the fact that the place where religion is used to teach hatred and violence stems from the middle east. Encouraging democracies in the middle east is a noble goal, one that could eventually minimize the impact of radical Islam and their attempt at Jihad. I get the point of the President's strategy. Two democracies, one on each side of Iran, could have been a very good thing. We have a decent chance of failing though, public opinion changed pretty quickly, it's too bad. If Democrats are right then great, we'll leave Iraq to it's own civil war, all the radicals will quit since we're gone, and the jihadist movement will just fizzle out. I kind of doubt it though. I personally don't understand how people can have such strong convictions about that.

FYI - The U.S. military has beaten an insurgency before in the Phillipines (after the American-Phillipine war). It was a ten year insurgency preceded by a declaration of victory by the U.S. government. Sound familiar? Also the British defeated a communist led insurgency in the Malay peninsula after WW2.

We may have gone about fighting this insurgency wrong, but to act as if it is common knowledge that an insugency can't be put down is ridiculous.

Very nice summary. Too make it worse, the Dems now need this war to fail. They have based thier power and credibility on it.

The Dems also use history selectivly or re-write it all together. They just do not go back as far to do it as they used to.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[ErricoMalatesta 0]

Quote

Encouraging democracies in the middle east is a noble goal

Something the U.S have never done...

[SkyDekker 1,141]

Quote

Encouraging democracies in the middle east is a noble goal, one that could eventually minimize the impact of radical Islam and their attempt at Jihad.

It is a noble goal, but it isn't the goal the US has in mind IMHO. The US doesn't just want a deomcracy, it wants a democracy made up of parties the US can agree to. If a deomcratic vote in Iraq would lead to a government sympathetic to Iran, the US would never stand for that. If a democraticly elected government in Iraq would decide to kick the US out and start trading its oil in Euro, the US would not stand for that.

To me, that is why this "mission" will never work. The US doesn't want to create a democracy, it wants to create puppet governments.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

It seems like people just say

"It's the middle east pal... come on" or
"you can't beat an insurgency"

as if these are facts. They must hear they're favorite anti - Bush pundit say it, so they think it's true. It's easier than trying to understand something on your own. Bush is cocky, he's a "fortunate son", he didn't serve in Vietnam, didn't win the popular vote and probably did some blow when he was young. His administration had bad intelligence about WMD and invaded Iraq when they might not have had to. These things don't change the fact that the place where religion is used to teach hatred and violence stems from the middle east. Encouraging democracies in the middle east is a noble goal, one that could eventually minimize the impact of radical Islam and their attempt at Jihad. I get the point of the President's strategy. Two democracies, one on each side of Iran, could have been a very good thing. We have a decent chance of failing though, public opinion changed pretty quickly, it's too bad. If Democrats are right then great, we'll leave Iraq to it's own civil war, all the radicals will quit since we're gone, and the jihadist movement will just fizzle out. I kind of doubt it though. I personally don't understand how people can have such strong convictions about that.

FYI - The U.S. military has beaten an insurgency before in the Phillipines (after the American-Phillipine war). It was a ten year insurgency preceded by a declaration of victory by the U.S. government. Sound familiar? Also the British defeated a communist led insurgency in the Malay peninsula after WW2.

We may have gone about fighting this insurgency wrong, but to act as if it is common knowledge that an insugency can't be put down is ridiculous.

Very nice summary. Too make it worse, the Dems now need this war to fail. They have based thier power and credibility on it.

The Dems also use history selectivly or re-write it all together. They just do not go back as far to do it as they used to.

I just don't know what to say. I've started this reply about six different ways and have decided that it's a complete waste of time. But I'll go ahead and ask again.
Define winning.
What would be considered acceptable losses?
How should we pay for it, increase taxes or dump it on our grandchildren?
Should we have a draft in order to maintain our military strength?
How do you attack and contain an ideology of hate/revenge/resistance to oppression/perceived justice? Can you do it with force or is that counter productive?
Would you be willing to change your lifestyle at all to help solve the problem?
Or is this discussion simply for the purpose of mental masturbation?

[joedirt 0]

Define winning - making the Jihad ineffective
Acceptable losses - whatever it takes
How to pay for it - get rid of 90% of entitlements
Draft - yes
How do you attack/ contain an ideology - Defending freedom of press/speech
Would you change your lifestyle - yes
Mental masturbation - yes

Oh and the whole trading oil in euros thing is B.S. It would only hurt us temporarily, that is a major reason for the floating exchange rate. Right now we have a lot of foreign capitol invested in the U.S., but a large trade deficit. If oil stopped being traded in dollars, the value of the dollar would drop. Foreign capitol would be invested elsewhere, but this would eventually be offset by a smaller trade deficit due to cheap american goods. As more people would want cheap American goods the dollar would rise back up in value. This is why our money is no longer backed by gold. Believe it or not, its not a conspiracy.

[shropshire 0]

Who are you fighting?
What are their goals? ... Are you sure?
How many groups are there?
How many are linked to each other?
How many hate each other as well as us?
How would you recognise one if you ever saw one?
Do they wear black hats?

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Casurf1978 0]

Excellent reply. You forgot to mention one important thing: religious insurgency. These two group have been going at it for over 1,000 years well 1,300+. What makes us, USA, think we can bring peace and democracy to these two groups.

[masterblaster72 0]

Quote

I am used to the ceptic comments

Dude, what is it with you and the word "ceptic?" Do you idolize Shrub so much that you're aping his invention of nonexistent words?

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[billvon 2,426]

>Dude, what is it with you and the word "ceptic?"

To be fair, he has recently switched to "septic" instead.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

It seems like people just say

"It's the middle east pal... come on" or
"you can't beat an insurgency"

as if these are facts. They must hear they're favorite anti - Bush pundit say it, so they think it's true. It's easier than trying to understand something on your own. Bush is cocky, he's a "fortunate son", he didn't serve in Vietnam, didn't win the popular vote and probably did some blow when he was young. His administration had bad intelligence about WMD and invaded Iraq when they might not have had to. These things don't change the fact that the place where religion is used to teach hatred and violence stems from the middle east. Encouraging democracies in the middle east is a noble goal, one that could eventually minimize the impact of radical Islam and their attempt at Jihad. I get the point of the President's strategy. Two democracies, one on each side of Iran, could have been a very good thing. We have a decent chance of failing though, public opinion changed pretty quickly, it's too bad. If Democrats are right then great, we'll leave Iraq to it's own civil war, all the radicals will quit since we're gone, and the jihadist movement will just fizzle out. I kind of doubt it though. I personally don't understand how people can have such strong convictions about that.

FYI - The U.S. military has beaten an insurgency before in the Phillipines (after the American-Phillipine war). It was a ten year insurgency preceded by a declaration of victory by the U.S. government. Sound familiar? Also the British defeated a communist led insurgency in the Malay peninsula after WW2.

We may have gone about fighting this insurgency wrong, but to act as if it is common knowledge that an insugency can't be put down is ridiculous.

Very nice summary. Too make it worse, the Dems now need this war to fail. They have based thier power and credibility on it.

The Dems also use history selectivly or re-write it all together. They just do not go back as far to do it as they used to.

I just don't know what to say. I've started this reply about six different ways and have decided that it's a complete waste of time. But I'll go ahead and ask again.
Define winning. An Iraqi governement that can withstand Al Queda and Iran
What would be considered acceptable lossesThat is a tough one. I can only ask, in your opinion, what is the cost of security and freedom
How should we pay for it, increase taxes or dump it on our grandchildren?Military spending is less than 5% of the budget, including the war. Not an issue
Should we have a draft in order to maintain our military strength?Don't have to, unless the media and the Dems demonize it to the point of scaring all new ones away
How do you attack and contain an ideology of hate/revenge/resistance to oppression/perceived justice? Can you do it with force or is that counter productive?Your opinion that it is counter productive. A seed has been planted. I can grow if given a chance. The left and the media will not allow that if they have anything to say about it. They are so invested in defeat they have no other choice
Would you be willing to change your lifestyle at all to help solve the problem? Come on. If we don't continue we will be forced to. The GWing alarmist are working on the same
Or is this discussion simply for the purpose of mental masturbation?

OOoooooohhhhhhh Ggggggooooodddd that feels good

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

?Your opinion that it is counter productive. A seed has been planted. I can grow if given a chance. The left and the media will not allow that if they have anything to say about it. They are so invested in defeat they have no other choice

This is so fucking stupid.
The whole reason people join one political side or another is that they think it's best for the country. You don't want things to go BADLY for the country. You choose which side based on what you think will make things go well.

Now different people think differently about what is the best course of action.

It is a complete cop-out to simply attribute evil intent to the other side, (but of course then you don't have to argue about it, since you know the other side is just plain evil).

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

?Your opinion that it is counter productive. A seed has been planted. I can grow if given a chance. The left and the media will not allow that if they have anything to say about it. They are so invested in defeat they have no other choice

This is so fucking stupid.
The whole reason people join one political side or another is that they think it's best for the country. You don't want things to go BADLY for the country. You choose which side based on what you think will make things go well.

Now different people think differently about what is the best course of action.

It is a complete cop-out to simply attribute evil intent to the other side, (but of course then you don't have to argue about it, since you know the other side is just plain evil).

Whats the matter, afraid to respond to me?

Sad

I look at actions and what is said. Reid spelled it out. Nothing else they are doing makes any sense unles you look at it in the perspective of power aquisition. Got a different take, other than your cop out?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

?Your opinion that it is counter productive. A seed has been planted. I can grow if given a chance. The left and the media will not allow that if they have anything to say about it. They are so invested in defeat they have no other choice

This is so fucking stupid.
The whole reason people join one political side or another is that they think it's best for the country. You don't want things to go BADLY for the country. You choose which side based on what you think will make things go well.

Now different people think differently about what is the best course of action.

It is a complete cop-out to simply attribute evil intent to the other side, (but of course then you don't have to argue about it, since you know the other side is just plain evil).

And another thing, you have commented that Reps do things for money and power. You think the Dems don't? Or is just one side evil?

Get some consistancy dude.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,644]

Quote

Quote

?Your opinion that it is counter productive. A seed has been planted. I can grow if given a chance. The left and the media will not allow that if they have anything to say about it. They are so invested in defeat they have no other choice

This is so fucking stupid.
The whole reason people join one political side or another is that they think it's best for the country. You don't want things to go BADLY for the country. You choose which side based on what you think will make things go well.

).

I don't agree. I think a lot of people (both sides of the spectrum) join based on what they think is best for them, not best for the country.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Define winning.
What would be considered acceptable losses?
How should we pay for it, increase taxes or dump it on our grandchildren?
Should we have a draft in order to maintain our military strength?
How do you attack and contain an ideology of hate/revenge/resistance to oppression/perceived justice? Can you do it with force or is that counter productive?
Would you be willing to change your lifestyle at all to help solve the problem?

History books contain the answers to all your questions.

. . =(_8^(1)

[ErricoMalatesta 0]

Quote

Define winning. An Iraqi governement that can withstand Al Queda and Iran

So a puppet U.S government like it already has?

Quote

Define winning - making the Jihad ineffective

Iraq launched a jihad against the U.S? I must have missed this memo from fantasy land

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

?Your opinion that it is counter productive. A seed has been planted. I can grow if given a chance. The left and the media will not allow that if they have anything to say about it. They are so invested in defeat they have no other choice

This is so fucking stupid.
The whole reason people join one political side or another is that they think it's best for the country. You don't want things to go BADLY for the country. You choose which side based on what you think will make things go well.

).

I don't agree. I think a lot of people (both sides of the spectrum) join based on what they think is best for them, not best for the country.

Dam I hate to say this but, I agree with you here

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Define winning. An Iraqi governement that can withstand Al Queda and Iran

So a puppet U.S government like it already has?

Quote

Define winning - making the Jihad ineffectiveplease show me where I stated this??

Iraq launched a jihad against the U.S? I must have missed this memo from fantasy land

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln