Assuming Dems Don't get a Majority in November

[eilute]

If the Democrats don't get a majority in either the Congress or Senate, will America stay in Iraq through the end of Bush's term? All signals from Bush, indicate that we will.

With 3,000 dead, and 15,000-20,000 casualties can we sustain our troop levels? If we need a draft to sustain troop levels, will there be one?

 

[EagleKeeper]

No draft - yes we will still be there. Hopefully at a reduced level as they self destruct to a level that the IRaqi governemnt can then control.

 

[palehorse]

I want Rumsfeld tossed out on his arse and replaced by a retired General who is willing to double the troop strengths in Iraq and Afghanistan so that we can kick the living crap out of the insurgencies, lock down their borders and cities, train their local police and military forces more quickly, and even invade NW Pakistan!

A draft? I support it if/when it's necessary... and it probably will be.
five more years in Iraq? not a problem IF we do like I said above instead of taking our sweetassed time getting the job done.

I could care less who wins power over here... no matter who takes the reigns, it's the military that needs to do the job over in Iraq, and they must be allowed to do so correctly. If that means doubling or trippling our troopstrengths, then let's f'n do it already and quit f'n around!

 

[ayabe]

Yes we will be there in strength until the next President is elected, especially now that we know that Kissinger is helping to run the show over at the asylum.

 

[yllus]

Until 2010, minimum. No draft.

 

[eilute]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
I want Rumsfeld tossed out on his arse and replaced by a retired General who is willing to double the troop strengths in Iraq and Afghanistan so that we can kick the living crap out of the insurgencies, lock down their borders and cities, train their local police and military forces more quickly, and even invade NW Pakistan!

A draft? I support it if/when it's necessary... and it probably will be.
five more years in Iraq? not a problem IF we do like I said above instead of taking our sweetassed time getting the job done.

I could care less who wins power over here... no matter who takes the reigns, it's the military that needs to do the job over in Iraq, and they must be allowed to do so correctly. If that means doubling or trippling our troopstrengths, then let's f'n do it already and quit f'n around!

I've seen polls that show most Iraqi's want us out now. We sent 140,000 troops there and everything has just gone down hill. Might 280,000 just make things worse? The phrase "mo troops, mo problems" comes to mind.

 

[Tom]

We may be driven out of Afghanistan in the next 6 months.

We'll continue to lose 10 or 20 Americans a day in Iraq, probably increase to as high as 50 per day.

But we'll stay there, for no particular reason. Just like Vietnam.

 

[Lemon law]

Impossible to predict---but if Iraq goes civil war and takes a good part of the Mid-east with it---it won't be a question of withdrawal---it may transform to a can we get our troops out alive
fast enough.---Bush's plan could be--business as usual one day---and go to totally untenable faster than the Shah of Iran went.

Who if any think GWB has a contingency plan for such an event?---but thats yet another possibility far more likely to happen---compared to Bush's plan.

But at the rate the situation in Iraq is deterorating---anything could happen.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: eilute

Originally posted by: palehorse74
I want Rumsfeld tossed out on his arse and replaced by a retired General who is willing to double the troop strengths in Iraq and Afghanistan so that we can kick the living crap out of the insurgencies, lock down their borders and cities, train their local police and military forces more quickly, and even invade NW Pakistan!

A draft? I support it if/when it's necessary... and it probably will be.
five more years in Iraq? not a problem IF we do like I said above instead of taking our sweetassed time getting the job done.

I could care less who wins power over here... no matter who takes the reigns, it's the military that needs to do the job over in Iraq, and they must be allowed to do so correctly. If that means doubling or trippling our troopstrengths, then let's f'n do it already and quit f'n around!

I've seen polls that show most Iraqi's want us out now. We sent 140,000 troops there and everything has just gone down hill. Might 280,000 just make things worse? The phrase "mo troops, mo problems" comes to mind.

we have three options:

1) cut and run completely - total withdrawal
2) stay the course
3) double/triple the troops

Option 1: total and complete cesspool of religious anarchy throughout all of Iraq. A civil war there than kills millions more and lasts 5 to 30+ years... at least; and, worse yet, it provides the world's fanatics with unfettered access to training facilities and real-world missions to hone their terrorist skills and then direct them at Europe and the U.S. Iran eventually takes over Iraq through a puppet government of their own which imposes Sharia law with a vengeance upon the people...

Option 2: stalemate wherein US soldiers die at a slow pace, but their effectiveness is limited and the training fo the ANA, ING and police takes several more years and with fewer garduates down the road. All the while funds are descreased by the next democratic Admin in 2008, and our troops there are forced to work with even less... basically, we end up getting nowhere in the longrun, our people grow tired of trying, and we end up with all of the problems in Option 1...

Option 3: The insurgencies get royally smacked upside the head. We can train more Iraqi's and Afghans, faster, in order to hand the countries over to them in 5 years or so. We can provide additional security for their core infrastructure (water, power, oil, etc), and we can better secure their borders. We do all of this, a REAL "shock and awe campaign," and then we hand the countries over 100$ to their own forces 5-6 years from now.

I like option 3 best.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Tom
We may be driven out of Afghanistan in the next 6 months.

We'll continue to lose 10 or 20 Americans a day in Iraq, probably increase to as high as 50 per day.

But we'll stay there, for no particular reason. Just like Vietnam.

Who is going to "drive" us out of Afghanistan? The Taliban who get their asses kicked every time they get involved in a real fight?
Read the news stories, they all tell the same story, 100 dead Taliban fighters vs. 3-4 dead NATO soldiers, if we are driven out with that ratio then we should just give up and convert today.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Tom
We may be driven out of Afghanistan in the next 6 months.

We'll continue to lose 10 or 20 Americans a day in Iraq, probably increase to as high as 50 per day.

But we'll stay there, for no particular reason. Just like Vietnam.

Who is going to "drive" us out of Afghanistan? The Taliban who get their asses kicked every time they get involved in a real fight?
Read the news stories, they all tell the same story, 100 dead Taliban fighters vs. 3-4 dead NATO soldiers, if we are driven out with that ratio then we should just give up and convert today.

Didn't catch "Frontline" last night, did ya Prof?

 

[ProfJohn]

If we haven't made progress within a year I think we will see some shift in strategy in order to give our 2008 Presidential candidate a chance.
No GOP candidate is going to want to run while 3-4 Americans are dying a day.
All reports are that within 6 months there are suppose to be enough Iraqi's trained for them to start taking over security forces, let's see what happens then.
If they still can't control their own country within a year then we should withdraw to bases outside of Baghdad and use our forces to attack any terror cells and bases we see to keep their government from being over run by the militias and all.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Didn't catch "Frontline" last night, did ya Prof?

You mean the Democrat run propaganda tool known as PBS? Nope.

 

[slash196]

We will stay in Iraq as long as the people continue to put up with it or until the government gets some goddamned common sense.

Taking Vietnam as a baseline, it'll take America about 15 years to get tired of the war, and the government will never attain common sense, so I'd say we're in it for the long haul. Unless of course we throw the Bush admin out of office wholesale, call the war what it was (a deliberate lie and a crime on Bush's part and a mistake on the American people's part to support him), and ask the international community for help. Swallowing your pride is better than letting a country swallow itself in rage.

 

[slash196]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Didn't catch "Frontline" last night, did ya Prof?

You mean the Democrat run propaganda tool known as PBS? Nope.

There are two possibilities you must consider when you look at an opposing viewpoint.

1. That opposing viewpoint has some political bias.

2. That opposing viewpoint is right, and you're wrong.

Seeing as how every television study I've read (even the blatantly flawed ones that claim to confirm the existence of a "liberal media") states that public broadcasting is one of the least biased news sources in the country (by virtue of its insulation from politics by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting), the only other option is that you, sir, are wrong.

PBS is biased in the same way I'm biased: towards the truth.

 

[Lemon law]

I will just settle for Prof John or any other poster attacking a position and stating why some other position is wrong with supporting evidence---dismissing something as propaganda
is phony logic---and a convient way to deflect and duck the question.

have you been listening to Rush too long??---Rush logic works only because Rush scripts everything---on anand tech we have higher standards.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
we have three options:

1) cut and run completely - total withdrawal
2) stay the course
3) double/triple the troops

Option 1: total and complete cesspool of religious anarchy throughout all of Iraq. A civil war there than kills millions more and lasts 5 to 30+ years... at least; and, worse yet, it provides the world's fanatics with unfettered access to training facilities and real-world missions to hone their terrorist skills and then direct them at Europe and the U.S. Iran eventually takes over Iraq through a puppet government of their own which imposes Sharia law with a vengeance upon the people...

Option 2: stalemate wherein US soldiers die at a slow pace, but their effectiveness is limited and the training fo the ANA, ING and police takes several more years and with fewer forces down the road. All the while funds are being descreased by the next democratic Admin in 2008, and our troops there are forced to work with even less... basically, we end up getting nowhere in the longrun, our people grow tired of trying, and we end up with all of the problems in Option 1...

Option 3: The insurgencies get royally smacked upside the head. We can train more Iraqi's and Afghans, faster, in order to hand the countries over to them in 5 years or so. We can provide additional security for their core infrastructure (water, power, oil, etc), and we can better secure their borders. We do all of this, a REAL "shock and awe campaign," and then we hand the countries over 100% to their own forces 5-6 years from now.

I like option 3 best.

no comments? wow...

 

[slash196]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: palehorse74
we have three options:

1) cut and run completely - total withdrawal
2) stay the course
3) double/triple the troops

Option 1: total and complete cesspool of religious anarchy throughout all of Iraq. A civil war there than kills millions more and lasts 5 to 30+ years... at least; and, worse yet, it provides the world's fanatics with unfettered access to training facilities and real-world missions to hone their terrorist skills and then direct them at Europe and the U.S. Iran eventually takes over Iraq through a puppet government of their own which imposes Sharia law with a vengeance upon the people...

Option 2: stalemate wherein US soldiers die at a slow pace, but their effectiveness is limited and the training fo the ANA, ING and police takes several more years and with fewer garduates down the road. All the while funds are descreased by the next democratic Admin in 2008, and our troops there are forced to work with even less... basically, we end up getting nowhere in the longrun, our people grow tired of trying, and we end up with all of the problems in Option 1...

Option 3: The insurgencies get royally smacked upside the head. We can train more Iraqi's and Afghans, faster, in order to hand the countries over to them in 5 years or so. We can provide additional security for their core infrastructure (water, power, oil, etc), and we can better secure their borders. We do all of this, a REAL "shock and awe campaign," and then we hand the countries over 100$ to their own forces 5-6 years from now.

I like option 3 best.

no comments? wow...

There are no comments because your assessment of the situation is at best unrealistic and at worst downright childish.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: slash196

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: palehorse74
we have three options:

1) cut and run completely - total withdrawal
2) stay the course
3) double/triple the troops

Option 1: total and complete cesspool of religious anarchy throughout all of Iraq. A civil war there than kills millions more and lasts 5 to 30+ years... at least; and, worse yet, it provides the world's fanatics with unfettered access to training facilities and real-world missions to hone their terrorist skills and then direct them at Europe and the U.S. Iran eventually takes over Iraq through a puppet government of their own which imposes Sharia law with a vengeance upon the people...

Option 2: stalemate wherein US soldiers die at a slow pace, but their effectiveness is limited and the training fo the ANA, ING and police takes several more years and with fewer forces down the road. All the while funds are being descreased by the next democratic Admin in 2008, and our troops there are forced to work with even less... basically, we end up getting nowhere in the longrun, our people grow tired of trying, and we end up with all of the problems in Option 1...

Option 3: The insurgencies get royally smacked upside the head. We can train more Iraqi's and Afghans, faster, in order to hand the countries over to them in 5 years or so. We can provide additional security for their core infrastructure (water, power, oil, etc), and we can better secure their borders. We do all of this, a REAL "shock and awe campaign," and then we hand the countries over 100% to their own forces 5-6 years from now.

I like option 3 best.

no comments? wow...

There are no comments because your assessment of the situation is at best unrealistic and at worst downright childish.

how so? here's a thought: articulate!

 

[eilute]

Originally posted by: Tom
We may be driven out of Afghanistan in the next 6 months.

I thought we could have a 50 or 100 year troop commitment in Afghanistan.

 

[eilute]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: eilute

Originally posted by: palehorse74
I want Rumsfeld tossed out on his arse and replaced by a retired General who is willing to double the troop strengths in Iraq and Afghanistan so that we can kick the living crap out of the insurgencies, lock down their borders and cities, train their local police and military forces more quickly, and even invade NW Pakistan!

A draft? I support it if/when it's necessary... and it probably will be.
five more years in Iraq? not a problem IF we do like I said above instead of taking our sweetassed time getting the job done.

I could care less who wins power over here... no matter who takes the reigns, it's the military that needs to do the job over in Iraq, and they must be allowed to do so correctly. If that means doubling or trippling our troopstrengths, then let's f'n do it already and quit f'n around!

I've seen polls that show most Iraqi's want us out now. We sent 140,000 troops there and everything has just gone down hill. Might 280,000 just make things worse? The phrase "mo troops, mo problems" comes to mind.

we have three options:

1) cut and run completely - total withdrawal
2) stay the course
3) double/triple the troops

Option 1: total and complete cesspool of religious anarchy throughout all of Iraq. A civil war there than kills millions more and lasts 5 to 30+ years... at least; and, worse yet, it provides the world's fanatics with unfettered access to training facilities and real-world missions to hone their terrorist skills and then direct them at Europe and the U.S. Iran eventually takes over Iraq through a puppet government of their own which imposes Sharia law with a vengeance upon the people...

Option 2: stalemate wherein US soldiers die at a slow pace, but their effectiveness is limited and the training fo the ANA, ING and police takes several more years and with fewer garduates down the road. All the while funds are descreased by the next democratic Admin in 2008, and our troops there are forced to work with even less... basically, we end up getting nowhere in the longrun, our people grow tired of trying, and we end up with all of the problems in Option 1...

Option 3: The insurgencies get royally smacked upside the head. We can train more Iraqi's and Afghans, faster, in order to hand the countries over to them in 5 years or so. We can provide additional security for their core infrastructure (water, power, oil, etc), and we can better secure their borders. We do all of this, a REAL "shock and awe campaign," and then we hand the countries over 100$ to their own forces 5-6 years from now.

I like option 3 best.

Option 3 might not be effective against guerilla warfare. How do you subdue a population of 20 million when 14 million don't want you there?

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

We still have troops in Germany and Korea. Why would a change in leadership get our troops out of Iraq? I don't see us leaving any time soon no matter who is in charge.

To tell the truth, half of me is looking forward to the Ds taking control just to see what they do when they have to lead instead of sitting back and sniping all day.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: palehorse74
we have three options:

1) cut and run completely - total withdrawal
2) stay the course
3) double/triple the troops

Option 1: total and complete cesspool of religious anarchy throughout all of Iraq. A civil war there than kills millions more and lasts 5 to 30+ years... at least; and, worse yet, it provides the world's fanatics with unfettered access to training facilities and real-world missions to hone their terrorist skills and then direct them at Europe and the U.S. Iran eventually takes over Iraq through a puppet government of their own which imposes Sharia law with a vengeance upon the people...

Option 2: stalemate wherein US soldiers die at a slow pace, but their effectiveness is limited and the training fo the ANA, ING and police takes several more years and with fewer forces down the road. All the while funds are being descreased by the next democratic Admin in 2008, and our troops there are forced to work with even less... basically, we end up getting nowhere in the longrun, our people grow tired of trying, and we end up with all of the problems in Option 1...

Option 3: The insurgencies get royally smacked upside the head. We can train more Iraqi's and Afghans, faster, in order to hand the countries over to them in 5 years or so. We can provide additional security for their core infrastructure (water, power, oil, etc), and we can better secure their borders. We do all of this, a REAL "shock and awe campaign," and then we hand the countries over 100% to their own forces 5-6 years from now.

I like option 3 best.

no comments? wow...

I think you make some good points. Isn't it ironic that according to Woodward's new book Rumsfeld might actually be a closer to the Democrats stand than any replacement of him would be. Rumsfeld is supposedly the one who doesn't not want US to do the clean up of Iraq, but instead wants us to train the Iraqis so they can do it themselves.
Imagine a situation where Rumsfeld resigns and his replacement calls for 50,000 MORE troops into Iraq, the Democrats will be scratching their heads asking what went wrong.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Didn't catch "Frontline" last night, did ya Prof?

You mean the Democrat run propaganda tool known as PBS? Nope.

More deflection, more not addressing the facts. It's what we expect from you, oh great laughing stock of P&N.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: eilute

Originally posted by: Tom
We may be driven out of Afghanistan in the next 6 months.

I thought we could have a 50 or 100 year troop commitment in Afghanistan.

Notice I used the word "may", not "will".

Maybe our current administration will learn what diplomacy is, but I doubt it. We mostly seem to be able to piss off all of our allies, including Pakistan, which is sort of a pretend ally.

Or maybe we'll send 100,000 troops to Afghanistan, but where will they come from, and how will we pay for it ?

Given this administration's track record for surprising me, I think there's a fifty/fifty chance that Osama will be president of Pakistan, and there will be a nuclear war with India, before Bush's term is up. Iraq may be a new western province of Iran.

At least I'm being protected from married gay couples. I'm glad I'm too old to be a Congressional page though.