Iraq is 911... 911 is Iraq

[GrGr]

There are a lot of people who believe what Bush is saying. We see them every day here on P&N.

 

[xenolith]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: xenolith

IMO, it's not too late. We've always needed more boots on the ground, the generals there and analysts here have said so repeatedly. And more boots on the ground does not necessarily mean more heavy handedness. The generals and analyst I've seen say we do have enough troops available to send over there. Even if we don't have enough, don't you think we need to find the will as a country to fix that? This war is so important because of the Iranian component.

And being better off under Saddam is total BS. Tell that to the Curds and to all other Iraqi's that would cut his head off the moment they have a chance.

What's the alternative? Leave?

Please justify your bolded text, how are they better off?

People over there are afraid to send their children to school, afraid to go pray, afraid to go to the market. THe country is being run by militias, there is no centralized control, corruption abounds. Kidnapping for ransom is now one of the most popular professions in Baghdad.

Oil exports are down, electricity production is down, unemployment is way up, a previously secular society is now increasingly sectarian, a buffer to Iran's power has evaporated.

All of these things together say to me that the Iraqi's and the world are worse off.

People get their heads cut off everyday; this past month over 1000 civilians died.

Ok you say that more troops on the grounds doesn't mean more heavy handiness, but this is your statement:

"Maybe we should take the gloves off and send in more troops to be more responsive to insurgent attacks. "

Sorry to equate taking the gloves off with heavy handedness, my mistake....I guess.

As far as availibility of troops.....we cannot sustain the current troop levels for another 2 years, what makes you think we can send more? The public won't support a draft for a war that can't be won militarily, also how much more money do you think we can spend on the military? We don't have it, period.

Also, did you know that after 9/11 Iran reached out to us covertly and offered us assistance as long as we didn't invade Iraq? Well they did and we blew it, none of this nuclear nonsense would be happening if we kept our eye on the ball, listened to our allies, and swallowed a bit of our pride.

I stand behind my "take the gloves off toward the insurgent attacks" statement... mainly responding to attacks planned or carried out on our troops. More troops will help prevent that. And more troop presence will show the shaks/leaders we're finally taking a stand to win this war. Again, we also need to look these people in the eye and tell them they need to help themselves now or they will see what LEDominator said "a civil war [that] will make what its like now look like a cakewalk."

Look, I'm not going to be side tracked with whether Iraq is better or worse off post Saddam, or if Iran promised this or that before the war, those points are mute really as to what we should do now. I've told you what I'd like see done.

I'll ask again, what's the alternative? Leave, and just stand by and watch the horror that will surely follow?

 

[tommywishbone]

"... I'll ask again, what the alternative? Leave, and just stand by and watch the horror that will surely follow?"



Give the people of Iraq $500 billion in euros. Handover the current US Administration to the people of Iraq to be held & put on trial for war crimes. Pull all US military forces out of the entire Middle East. Stop all support for Israel. Pull all US contractors from Iraq. Leave all US military hardware in Iraq, for the Iraqi armed forces to use (since we destroyed all of theirs).

 

[xenolith]

There's more cool-aid drinkers here than I thought. I'm out.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: xenolith

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: xenolith

IMO, it's not too late. We've always needed more boots on the ground, the generals there and analysts here have said so repeatedly. And more boots on the ground does not necessarily mean more heavy handedness. The generals and analyst I've seen say we do have enough troops available to send over there. Even if we don't have enough, don't you think we need to find the will as a country to fix that? This war is so important because of the Iranian component.

And being better off under Saddam is total BS. Tell that to the Curds and to all other Iraqi's that would cut his head off the moment they have a chance.

What's the alternative? Leave?

Please justify your bolded text, how are they better off?

People over there are afraid to send their children to school, afraid to go pray, afraid to go to the market. THe country is being run by militias, there is no centralized control, corruption abounds. Kidnapping for ransom is now one of the most popular professions in Baghdad.

Oil exports are down, electricity production is down, unemployment is way up, a previously secular society is now increasingly sectarian, a buffer to Iran's power has evaporated.

All of these things together say to me that the Iraqi's and the world are worse off.

People get their heads cut off everyday; this past month over 1000 civilians died.

Ok you say that more troops on the grounds doesn't mean more heavy handiness, but this is your statement:

"Maybe we should take the gloves off and send in more troops to be more responsive to insurgent attacks. "

Sorry to equate taking the gloves off with heavy handedness, my mistake....I guess.

As far as availibility of troops.....we cannot sustain the current troop levels for another 2 years, what makes you think we can send more? The public won't support a draft for a war that can't be won militarily, also how much more money do you think we can spend on the military? We don't have it, period.

Also, did you know that after 9/11 Iran reached out to us covertly and offered us assistance as long as we didn't invade Iraq? Well they did and we blew it, none of this nuclear nonsense would be happening if we kept our eye on the ball, listened to our allies, and swallowed a bit of our pride.

I stand behind my "take the gloves off toward the insurgent attacks" statement... mainly responding to attacks planned or carried out on our troops. More troops will help prevent that. And more troop presence will show the shaks/leaders we're finally taking a stand to win this war. Again, we also need to look these people in the eye and tell them they need to help themselves now or they will see what LEDominator said "a civil war [that] will make what its like now look like a cakewalk."

Look, I'm not going to be side tracked with whether Iraq is better or worse off post Saddam, or if Iran promised this or that before the war, those points are mute really as to what we should do now. I've told you what I'd like see done.

I'll ask again, what's the alternative? Leave, and just stand by and watch the horror that will surely follow?

The horror is already here, putting more troops only presents more targets.

We need to redeploy to bases close but not in Iraq, with a rapid reaction force to help the government of Iraq in a time of crises. Unless the Iraqi's want it for themselves it isn't going to happen, so this would at least encourage them to get their act together. Even if we doubled our troop levels now we couldn't stop this kind of violence from occurring, if a guy wants to put a bomb in his car and blow it up there's not much we can do to stop him.