We'll extract our troops from Iraq as soon as the Bush fanbois extract their heads from Bush's arse.
Red-Dawn, I was being somewhat sarcastic. Where do you gather that we are paying off England and Poland to help?
I was actually saying that it is hard to get a country to participate in a war that they do not support the cause of it. I would like to see other countries get troops into Iraq to help us, but if not, then I certainly don't support the idea of allowing them to reap any the benefits of our blood, sweat, and tears. It wouldn't be right to our contractors.
I was actually saying that it is hard to get a country to participate in a war that they do not support the cause of it. I would like to see other countries get troops into Iraq to help us, but if not, then I certainly don't support the idea of allowing them to reap any the benefits of our blood, sweat, and tears. It wouldn't be right to our contractors.
Bitek
Lifer
- Aug 2, 2001
- 10,676
- 5,239
- 136
I voted Yes and Yes, but there needs to be a 3rd poll which asks if this Presisdent can do it. To that I say a resounding No.
My Armchair-General analysis:
1.) We need more forces in to secure the country, at least enough to hold legitimate elections. No way that's going to happen with the current plan of action.
-->Bush is a pariah. He will never win the international support we need. He is too stubborn to admit mistakes, and his admin bullied and insulted the major players so that they feel their best interest is to watch Bush eat the sh!t he cooked for himself. They're just sending the FU right back.
*Why would they want to get involved anyway? Yes, Iraqi stability benefits everyone. But instability hurts us much more than them (at least in the short term.) They only get to spend their own money, bury thier soldiers, and have to lose face by giving in to Bush. Not much reward in that....
--> If Russia asked us to send troops to Chechnya, would we be racing to do it? No freaking way.
2.) We are handicapped in Iraq, but its a situation we've created for ourselves. Failing in Fallujah in April was a turning point. Now that governance has passed to the Iraqis, we are limited in what we can go blow up. Start killing hordes of civilians, and we undermine the Iraqi government which will undermine legitimacy for the future and degrade our crediability to the population. We've missed the opportunity to go in no-holds barred.
3.) Therefore, Iraqi forces need to be given major fighting responsibilities ASAP. We got to get the Iraqi army out fast. Its been over a year and we have little to show. We also need to secure the police force. Many are volunteering, but they are still weak and ineffective. Proving safety at police recruting stations is a start.
===> Iraqis must be able to take over as quickly as possible. We can provide support, but frontline fighting must not be left to us. That only re-inforces the idea of us as occupiers, which breeds resentment and mistrust. We need to show we are moving out of the country, but not ditching it to collapse.
--> Elections, legit elections, must take place. Again, hand over responsibily to Iraqis. Only they can ever attain true victory and stability.
Now, Bush has proposed doing many of these things, but is not following through. So far I would rate his track record as poor in terms of actually getting things done. His stubborness, miscalculation and inaction have led to many opprotunites lost and is directly contributing to the current mess.
Do i see any reason to believe things will suddenly change? Heck no. This job is too important to risk it on him anymore.
I believe Kerry will be more effective, and sincerely hope he can, for the sake of all of us. At worst, he'll be a fresh start to the int. community we sincerly need to see this thing through to success.
My Armchair-General analysis:
1.) We need more forces in to secure the country, at least enough to hold legitimate elections. No way that's going to happen with the current plan of action.
-->Bush is a pariah. He will never win the international support we need. He is too stubborn to admit mistakes, and his admin bullied and insulted the major players so that they feel their best interest is to watch Bush eat the sh!t he cooked for himself. They're just sending the FU right back.
*Why would they want to get involved anyway? Yes, Iraqi stability benefits everyone. But instability hurts us much more than them (at least in the short term.) They only get to spend their own money, bury thier soldiers, and have to lose face by giving in to Bush. Not much reward in that....
--> If Russia asked us to send troops to Chechnya, would we be racing to do it? No freaking way.
2.) We are handicapped in Iraq, but its a situation we've created for ourselves. Failing in Fallujah in April was a turning point. Now that governance has passed to the Iraqis, we are limited in what we can go blow up. Start killing hordes of civilians, and we undermine the Iraqi government which will undermine legitimacy for the future and degrade our crediability to the population. We've missed the opportunity to go in no-holds barred.
3.) Therefore, Iraqi forces need to be given major fighting responsibilities ASAP. We got to get the Iraqi army out fast. Its been over a year and we have little to show. We also need to secure the police force. Many are volunteering, but they are still weak and ineffective. Proving safety at police recruting stations is a start.
===> Iraqis must be able to take over as quickly as possible. We can provide support, but frontline fighting must not be left to us. That only re-inforces the idea of us as occupiers, which breeds resentment and mistrust. We need to show we are moving out of the country, but not ditching it to collapse.
--> Elections, legit elections, must take place. Again, hand over responsibily to Iraqis. Only they can ever attain true victory and stability.
Now, Bush has proposed doing many of these things, but is not following through. So far I would rate his track record as poor in terms of actually getting things done. His stubborness, miscalculation and inaction have led to many opprotunites lost and is directly contributing to the current mess.
Do i see any reason to believe things will suddenly change? Heck no. This job is too important to risk it on him anymore.
I believe Kerry will be more effective, and sincerely hope he can, for the sake of all of us. At worst, he'll be a fresh start to the int. community we sincerly need to see this thing through to success.
CaptnKirk
Lifer
- Jul 25, 2002
- 10,053
- 0
- 71
Darkhawk -
Assuming that you may not have any military background, I submit this for your education:
Joe Galloway
Assuming that you may be a football fan, I submit this for your review
Joey Galloway
Either way, the saga continues . . .
Assuming that you may not have any military background, I submit this for your education:
Joe Galloway
Assuming that you may be a football fan, I submit this for your review
Joey Galloway
Either way, the saga continues . . .
Kerry was in Viet Nam, and he doesn't know that. At least, his latest stance on Iraq suggests he doesn't know anything.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
War has no gray area. It is either do or do not. Win or lose. Now that we have made the mistake of committing ourselves to Iraq, we must commit ourselves as completely as possible or we will not win. This was the reason I was opposed to the war in the first place, because I knew that we would not bring the necessary level of commitment to the conflict.
In order to win in and extract ourselves from Iraq, we must provide that commitment swiftly and completely, subdue the Iraqis as the conquerors that we in fact are (the reason we are struggling there is because we are in denial of that reality), leave a couple of well-defended military bases, create a puppet government that does our will, and then leave. If we would be an empire, then we must act as an empire. Otherwise, we would be wise to not flex imperial muscles that we are not willing to use.
It sounds brutal, but then again we're talking about war. Our only other alternatives are to either (1) find an expensive and indefinite holding action, or (2) walk away in defeat and accept the consequences.
In order to win in and extract ourselves from Iraq, we must provide that commitment swiftly and completely, subdue the Iraqis as the conquerors that we in fact are (the reason we are struggling there is because we are in denial of that reality), leave a couple of well-defended military bases, create a puppet government that does our will, and then leave. If we would be an empire, then we must act as an empire. Otherwise, we would be wise to not flex imperial muscles that we are not willing to use.
It sounds brutal, but then again we're talking about war. Our only other alternatives are to either (1) find an expensive and indefinite holding action, or (2) walk away in defeat and accept the consequences.
France, Germany, Russia, and Canada sending in contractors is not close to having the UN step in with peacekeepers and other humanitarian groups. Bush denied the possibility of economic gain to these countries who refused to send in troops.
CaptnKirk
Lifer
- Jul 25, 2002
- 10,053
- 0
- 71
Bush denied the possibility of economic gain to these countries who refused to send in troops.
In reality bush said 'IF' you sent in troops, we will have our Contractors give
you some of the less desireable Sub-Contracts, and you can hire the local
labor that we will permit you to use, on our conditions.
Contact Bechtel or Haliburton, and pay them your entrance fee.
In reality bush said 'IF' you sent in troops, we will have our Contractors give
you some of the less desireable Sub-Contracts, and you can hire the local
labor that we will permit you to use, on our conditions.
Contact Bechtel or Haliburton, and pay them your entrance fee.
I agree...(1) Might not be too bad and (3) was actually not too bad before we came (On of Saddam's few pluses was that he was more progressive than his mideast neighbors in terms of women's rights).
(2) would take a total change of the landscape though....creating a strong middle class out of an economy based on a resource that is almost defined by rich owners and poor laborers....
Sure he did. That is, he voted for the war in Iraq before he voted against it.Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
In case you missed it, Kerry wasn't the one who decided to send the troops into Iraq.
Wrong on BOTH counts. Good job!Originally posted by: Carbo
Sure he did. That is, he voted for the war in Iraq before he voted against it.Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
In case you missed it, Kerry wasn't the one who decided to send the troops into Iraq.
I think this is what's going to happen. A new dictator will rise out of Iraq. He'll be more Western friendly. Basically like Saddam but we'll call him a friend like we treat the Saudi Arabians and Pakistanis. Democracy could work in Iraq, but not at the end of an infidel American rifle. I predict there will be a nomimal democracy that will need someone who's tough on the insurgents and that guy will turn into / already be a dictator.
That's what people didn't get about Saddam. He was a secular stabilizing force before the US demonized him. Sure, it'd be great if Iraqis were democratic, but we aren't going to be the ones to bring it.
That's what people didn't get about Saddam. He was a secular stabilizing force before the US demonized him. Sure, it'd be great if Iraqis were democratic, but we aren't going to be the ones to bring it.
Ozoned
Diamond Member
- Mar 22, 2004
- 5,578
- 0
- 0
We (Us consumers) are the buying power that runs the entire economy in the middle east. A true divorce between the Us and middle east oil would allow for an easy extraction from Iraq.
Aside from committing economic suicide, how would one pull that off? That is the only way out that I can see....
Aside from committing economic suicide, how would one pull that off? That is the only way out that I can see....
We managed to get out of Vietnam, we can get out of Iraq also. The best way would be to get the rest of the world invloved, if possible. Kerry could do it better then Bush.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter