I got my trusty reliable crystal ball recharged.

[Hayabusa Rider]

September comes along. Iraq is to be be "evaluated". Some reduction in some locations of attacks in Baghdad, otherwise deaths constant or rise somewhat.

Result?

"We have seen substantial progress in Iraq, and we will continue towards victory"

Also, this will be timed at or very near 9/11 and multiple references to it, Iraq, terrorists and supporting our troops.

The ball continues later...

 

[Witling]

Even before the war started in Iraq I -- and many others -- predicted that, "This ain't gonna work." In my opinion, it is not possible for us to bring either peace or democracy to Iraq while we're there. I've asked on this board many times for those who think we can win to tell us what a "victory" will look like. No takers. The people who want to stay the course simply have not realized that we will not be able to win, it is beyond our physical and political ability.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

we don't have the stomach to achieve victory.

Compared to my grandparents generation this one is a bunch of apathetic wusses best summed up as "Well, thats okay, but if something goes wrong I don't wanna do it then, like, uh, okay?"

 

[sierrita]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
we don't have the stomach to achieve victory.

Compared to my grandparents generation this one is a bunch of apathetic wusses best summed up as "Well, thats okay, but if something goes wrong I don't wanna do it then, like, uh, okay?"

Rummy, Cheney and Bush ARE my Grandparents' generation (well mostly Rummy, anyway).
And it's more like "If something goes wrong, I don't wanna take any blame, we'll lay that on others, won't listen to anyone and keep making the same mistakes over and over and over.

Bush has plenty of stomach for our soldiers dying, and is more than happy to foist this whole mess on the next President. Noble, isn't he?

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
we don't have the stomach to achieve victory.

Compared to my grandparents generation this one is a bunch of apathetic wusses best summed up as "Well, thats okay, but if something goes wrong I don't wanna do it then, like, uh, okay?"

Translation: We're not dumb enough to blindly follow these A-holes, come what may.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Shivetya
we don't have the stomach to achieve victory.

Compared to my grandparents generation this one is a bunch of apathetic wusses best summed up as "Well, thats okay, but if something goes wrong I don't wanna do it then, like, uh, okay?"

Translation: We're not dumb enough to blindly follow these A-holes, come what may.

My Dad is a vet of 2 tours of duty in WW2 and a hard core conservative. He was dead set against going into Iraq from the very start of any talk about it. He said it was going to be nothing but a waste of American lives. He'll be 87 in another month, but his crystal ball still seems to be working well.

 

[Witling]

Shivetya, I said, "I've asked on this board many times for those who think we can win to tell us what a "victory" will look like." Thank you for serving as a perfect example of my observation. What would "victory" look like.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
we don't have the stomach to achieve victory.

Compared to my grandparents generation this one is a bunch of apathetic wusses best summed up as "Well, thats okay, but if something goes wrong I don't wanna do it then, like, uh, okay?"

Wrong. It has nothing to do with stomach. We don't have the leadership to achieve victory. We don't have the just cause to achieve victory. We don't even have a clear definition of what constitutes victory.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
we don't have the stomach to achieve victory.

We don't have an administration with the brains to define victory, let alone understand how to achieve it.

In his memoirs, A World Transformed (1998), written with Brent Scowcroft, on pp. 489 - 490, George H.W. Bush prediected exactly what has happened:

Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

Sound familiar? :Q If only his idiot son could read! 🙁

 

[Lemon law]

The US military achieved victory in Iraq in one week---after that it became an occupation and the responsibility of politicians---and its GWB&co. who have dropped the ball in Iraq.

How---how in the world---after better than four long years--can anyone have any continuing faith in GWB&co?

GWB&co. are the rascals who caused the problem---and GWB&co are the clueless rascals who REFUSE to consider any options that might fix the problem.

And there is something deeply wrong and repulsive with Shivetya. When the trust of the Shivetya's argument is to blame it on our military.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
September comes along. Iraq is to be be "evaluated". Some reduction in some locations of attacks in Baghdad, otherwise deaths constant or rise somewhat.

Result?

"We have seen substantial progress in Iraq, and we will continue towards victory"

Also, this will be timed at or very near 9/11 and multiple references to it, Iraq, terrorists and supporting our troops.

The ball continues later...

Haven?t seen numbers for April yet, but in the first two months of the surge the OVERALL death toll in Iraq was down about 20%.

Now April looked like a bad month with all the car bombings and stuff, but there was a drop in the amount of death squad type killings. One thing we have to bear in mind is that a car bombing that kills 50 people gets a LOT of news coverage. But the death squads were killing 30+ people a DAY.

Cut the death squad killings back to 10 a day and add in a few major car bombs and the net effect is LESS deaths. Which is exactly what happened in the first two months of the surge. (And we are talking less for the entire country as a whole.)

Any day now we should see the ?official? April totals and then we can make a more accurate assessment of progress or lack of progress in Iraq.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
September comes along. Iraq is to be be "evaluated". Some reduction in some locations of attacks in Baghdad, otherwise deaths constant or rise somewhat.

Result?

"We have seen substantial progress in Iraq, and we will continue towards victory"

Also, this will be timed at or very near 9/11 and multiple references to it, Iraq, terrorists and supporting our troops.

The ball continues later...

Haven?t seen numbers for April yet, but in the first two months of the surge the OVERALL death toll in Iraq was down about 20%.

Now April looked like a bad month with all the car bombings and stuff, but there was a drop in the amount of death squad type killings. One thing we have to bear in mind is that a car bombing that kills 50 people gets a LOT of news coverage. But the death squads were killing 30+ people a DAY.

Cut the death squad killings back to 10 a day and add in a few major car bombs and the net effect is LESS deaths. Which is exactly what happened in the first two months of the surge. (And we are talking less for the entire country as a whole.)

Any day now we should see the ?official? April totals and then we can make a more accurate assessment of progress or lack of progress in Iraq.

Wow, thank you for opening my eyes to the stellar military leadership that is the dumbya regime. :disgust:
Amazing that you still swallow this tripe, then again after reading your posts, you probably have a picture of dumya in your residence somewhere.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Haven?t seen numbers for April yet, but in the first two months of the surge the OVERALL death toll in Iraq was down about 20%.

You haven't seen reality for years.

Any day now we should see the ?official? April totals and then we can make a more accurate assessment of progress or lack of progress in Iraq.

Would you care to define which kind of lie Bush is telling with the word, "progress" in each of these video clips? :roll:

Mark Twain said, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." Which of those are you telling, today? 😕

 

[Jaskalas]

Has everyone forgot there is a new Congress in town? Maybe you missed all the fighting these past months over funding our efforts in Iraq. These are our last months in that country with our full force.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Has everyone forgot there is a new Congress in town? Maybe you missed all the fighting these past months over funding our efforts in Iraq. These are our last months in that country with our full force.

And can you say "VETO, VETO, VETO"? Never before used in six years?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
September comes along. Iraq is to be be "evaluated". Some reduction in some locations of attacks in Baghdad, otherwise deaths constant or rise somewhat.

Result?

"We have seen substantial progress in Iraq, and we will continue towards victory"

Also, this will be timed at or very near 9/11 and multiple references to it, Iraq, terrorists and supporting our troops.

The ball continues later...

Haven?t seen numbers for April yet, but in the first two months of the surge the OVERALL death toll in Iraq was down about 20%.

Now April looked like a bad month with all the car bombings and stuff, but there was a drop in the amount of death squad type killings. One thing we have to bear in mind is that a car bombing that kills 50 people gets a LOT of news coverage. But the death squads were killing 30+ people a DAY.

Cut the death squad killings back to 10 a day and add in a few major car bombs and the net effect is LESS deaths. Which is exactly what happened in the first two months of the surge. (And we are talking less for the entire country as a whole.)

Any day now we should see the ?official? April totals and then we can make a more accurate assessment of progress or lack of progress in Iraq.

I caught HRC on the tube last night talking positively about the surge's progress. Particularly about the Sunni (tribal) leaders who are embracing our efforts and turning against AQ, etc.

Fern

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Has everyone forgot there is a new Congress in town? Maybe you missed all the fighting these past months over funding our efforts in Iraq. These are our last months in that country with our full force.

And can you say "VETO, VETO, VETO"? Never before used in six years?

The Republicans who like staying in office will override that veto this fall, or at least that's what it appears.

Oh, and Bush's veto itself is cutting the funds to the troops. If he does not accept a bill, they will come home sooner.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
we don't have the stomach to achieve victory.

Compared to my grandparents generation this one is a bunch of apathetic wusses best summed up as "Well, thats okay, but if something goes wrong I don't wanna do it then, like, uh, okay?"

What would the US have to do achieve victory in Iraq?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: Shivetya
we don't have the stomach to achieve victory.

Compared to my grandparents generation this one is a bunch of apathetic wusses best summed up as "Well, thats okay, but if something goes wrong I don't wanna do it then, like, uh, okay?"

What would the US have to do achieve victory in Iraq?

Broadly speaking the objective should two-fold IMO:

1. Prevent AQ from establishing a stronghold there (like they did in Afganistan) after our withdrawl, and

2. Ensure regional stability after our w/d. Generally this includes making sure Iran does not gain increasing influence in Iraq, sectarian violence does not spiral out of control (thus perhaps drawing other Sunni and/or Shia neighboring nations), and Iraq is not splintered into seperate autonomous states (e.g., Kurds breakaway causing Turkey to make problems etc ).

Have to achieve the above? Make sure the Iraqi government is strong enough to handle these challenges. To get there, they need to complete some agrements such as oil revenue sharing, and build/train their police/security and military to handle the sectarian violence and protect their borders.

Fern
edit: pardon me for butting in and answering 🙂