First
Lifer
- Jun 3, 2002
- 10,518
- 271
- 136
I don't think anyone ignored it, I think people simply disagree that that is the shift necessary to win the war. It's still a major military occupation, and that very broad fact is anathema to the strategy that several published intelligence reports (including NIE) have suggested, where they have said there is substantial evidence that our mere presence in Iraq is stoking terrorist jihad.
Obviously none of us are experts here, but I'd argue that when the only 3/4-star generals coming out publicly are all guys who are against the war, all saying the strategy is a disaster and that we either have to 1) pull out soon (< 6-12 months) or 2) stay a little while longer (12-24 months) so as to give Iraqi's the slightest inkling of stability so that we can get the heck out of there....that tells you something. IMO.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
"Reasonable" being the key word. Unfortunately the D's in this forum apply a different definition of reasonable to themselves than they do to others in here. For the I's, "reasonable" depends on whether an I is for or against the war in Iraq.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
When they have honest intent it's reasonable. When someone comes in here wothout honest intent, as was so plainly evident recently, they are not being reasonable.
Link to the Patraeus Plan? C'mon. Even some of the lefties in here had to laugh over the idiocy of that request.
JD50
Lifer
- Sep 4, 2005
- 11,630
- 2,015
- 126
"as soon as possible" is nowhere near the same thing as "immediate withdrawl". You'd really have to know in what context that question is asked. I would like to see the troops brought home as soon as possible, but I am definitely not in favor of an immediate withdrawl.
Although I'm sure we could argue the meaning of "as soon as possible" to death. But I think that most reasonable people know that an immediate withdrawl is not possible, and it would cause more harm than good.
Hlafordlaes
Senior member
- May 21, 2006
- 271
- 2
- 81
Quite frankly, it is the opportunity costs and poorer US security relating to this war that most disturb me:
- Loss of US credibility from the use, and misuse, of faulty intelligence to justify the war
- Loss of US moral leadership from the use of torture and the cynical labeling of prisoners as detainees to circumvent the Geneva convention rights
- Loss of an golden oppty to develop and carry out a Marshal plan in Afghanistan that could have succeeded in reshaping the heartland of Al-Qaeda
- Destabilization of Pakistan as a result, partially, of the preceding point and the Iraq war
- Acquiescence to the nuclearization of India to offset these weaknesses, yet in doing so making arguments against nuclear proliferation hollow (see Iran)
- Alienation of Russia thru prolonged US focus on a shoot-first, winner-take-all diplomacy
- Making the Iran bomb far more likely due to the preceding two points
There are some positive developments nonetheless, which to be fair should be mentioned, and which I ascribe in part to the same bully diplomacy:
- Libya blinked
- North Korea seems to be blinking
Now the loss of moral and political leadership may seem to be a pansy liberal concern, but they were key tools that helped win the (first) Cold War, which, if you are paying any attention, has already restarted in earnest. Today we need more often to pay off dubious collaborators, and far less often can count on philosophical and moral allies. The US has conquered the low moral ground, and now keeps the kind of company one would expect.
My take is that the Afghan war was critical to the fight on Al Qaeda, and, yes, the willingness to invade Pakistan and grab all its nukes, under certain scenarios, too. If Iraq had not been invaded and half the money spent on rebuilding Afghanistan (with the other on energy research), we would be in a much better position diplomatically, financially and militarily to take on Iran. Now the US will be the bad guys when it, if it, takes on our true number one enemy on the terror front.
I would qualify King George's neocon actions as just plain stupid, if it were not so clear that foreign policy is driven by narrow economic interests from which they benefit (cf Cheney's still-secret energy policy meetings). No, this group has sold out America's true security in a manner I consider nothing less than high treason.
As for the OP, with the ethnic separation nearly complete, the Sunnis have decided the only way to have a good share of future oil revenues is via cooperation with the US. 'Nuf said.
- Loss of US credibility from the use, and misuse, of faulty intelligence to justify the war
- Loss of US moral leadership from the use of torture and the cynical labeling of prisoners as detainees to circumvent the Geneva convention rights
- Loss of an golden oppty to develop and carry out a Marshal plan in Afghanistan that could have succeeded in reshaping the heartland of Al-Qaeda
- Destabilization of Pakistan as a result, partially, of the preceding point and the Iraq war
- Acquiescence to the nuclearization of India to offset these weaknesses, yet in doing so making arguments against nuclear proliferation hollow (see Iran)
- Alienation of Russia thru prolonged US focus on a shoot-first, winner-take-all diplomacy
- Making the Iran bomb far more likely due to the preceding two points
There are some positive developments nonetheless, which to be fair should be mentioned, and which I ascribe in part to the same bully diplomacy:
- Libya blinked
- North Korea seems to be blinking
Now the loss of moral and political leadership may seem to be a pansy liberal concern, but they were key tools that helped win the (first) Cold War, which, if you are paying any attention, has already restarted in earnest. Today we need more often to pay off dubious collaborators, and far less often can count on philosophical and moral allies. The US has conquered the low moral ground, and now keeps the kind of company one would expect.
My take is that the Afghan war was critical to the fight on Al Qaeda, and, yes, the willingness to invade Pakistan and grab all its nukes, under certain scenarios, too. If Iraq had not been invaded and half the money spent on rebuilding Afghanistan (with the other on energy research), we would be in a much better position diplomatically, financially and militarily to take on Iran. Now the US will be the bad guys when it, if it, takes on our true number one enemy on the terror front.
I would qualify King George's neocon actions as just plain stupid, if it were not so clear that foreign policy is driven by narrow economic interests from which they benefit (cf Cheney's still-secret energy policy meetings). No, this group has sold out America's true security in a manner I consider nothing less than high treason.
As for the OP, with the ethnic separation nearly complete, the Sunnis have decided the only way to have a good share of future oil revenues is via cooperation with the US. 'Nuf said.
The GOP talking heads are right. Eventually the surge will lead to a drop in civilian casualties.... they'll run out of civilians.
Nice obfuscation there, Johnnie! The only p'ownage going on is that of the American people against the Illegal Bush War of Occupation in Iraq - by a 2 to 1 margin.
Take the latest poll numbers on Iraq for a spin and see how the American people really feel about things.
And you are encoraged to maintain your same ol' tired talking points, manipulation of the truth and rhetoric. I think it's wonderful. More Red meat for the Blues in 2008. Thank you!
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,251
- 8
- 0
Um No, the guy CLAIMED that 74% of Americans wanted an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Said that there was a poll stating this.
I made a posted that showed his claim was total BS, not only was he off by 20 points (by his own admission) but he was wrong on the language as well.
In essence the guy posted total BS and got caught doing it. But at least he had the guys to return and admit his mistake, sort of.
BTW you can post whatever poll you want, that has nothing to do what he said and posted.
So proffy, are you going to admit your mistake in that plame thread where Evan Lieb dropped the hammer on you 
? Have you heard of politico.com yet ?
? Have you heard of politico.com yet ?I wasn't owned, I was off by 20%.
I'm glad to read that a majority of americans don't support this war. There were some interesting figures regarding our own soldiers' desires for withdrawl. I believe it was somewhere close to 99% of those polled that wanted a withdrawl as soon as possible.
Rogo
I'm glad to read that a majority of americans don't support this war. There were some interesting figures regarding our own soldiers' desires for withdrawl. I believe it was somewhere close to 99% of those polled that wanted a withdrawl as soon as possible.
Rogo
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,251
- 8
- 0
You were off by 20% and you had the wording completely wrong.Originally posted by: Rogodin2
I wasn't owned, I was off by 20%.
I'm glad to read that a majority of americans don't support this war. There were some interesting figures regarding our own soldiers' desires for withdrawl. I believe it was somewhere close to 99% of those polled that wanted a withdrawl as soon as possible.
Rogo
There is a HUGE difference between an ?immediate withdrawal? and ?as soon as possible.?
I'll post the actual numbers again:
Bring troops home
Remove all troops immediately 18%
Gradually over next year or two 34%
Keep troops in Iraq
Should set a time table 13%
Should not set a time table 25%
So 52% want troops removed over the next year or two or sooner.
That is a LONG ways from 74% want them home NOW.
Stop declaring Mission Accomplished please.
I strongly believe that shortsightedness of this sort is symptomatic of the entire Iraq campaign. To so casually assume causation ignores the complexity of the iraq situation. We are not talking about just 3 groups with monolithic interests among them, we have hundreds of self-interested factions and to assume they all are responding similarly to a particular stimulus is off the mark. Violence shoots up and down in Iraq, the question is at what stage, and under what conditions, can there be some predictability? I think it's patently obvious that even the U.S. army does not have a clear sense of what is needed, or at least, whether what is needed is practical.
I strongly believe that shortsightedness of this sort is symptomatic of the entire Iraq campaign. To so casually assume causation ignores the complexity of the iraq situation. We are not talking about just 3 groups with monolithic interests among them, we have hundreds of self-interested factions and to assume they all are responding similarly to a particular stimulus is off the mark. Violence shoots up and down in Iraq, the question is at what stage, and under what conditions, can there be some predictability? I think it's patently obvious that even the U.S. army does not have a clear sense of what is needed, or at least, whether what is needed is practical.
I assumed you hadn't changed your mind. I mean, you were constantly raving about how every month violence was decreasing.
BTW, nice car.
BTW, nice car.
yeah, i've also noticed that by continuously turning those corners using only their right foot, those continually turned corners have turned itself into a circle that loops iteslf over and over again with the same tired, worn out lie of a message that bush and cheney keeps barfing up all the time since they changed course mid-stream and went after saddam instead of bin laden.
i can imgaine how the families and loved ones of those that lost their lives on 9/11 must've really felt when bush declared that he didn't know where bin laden was and didn't really care, and that it wasn't important and it wasn't a priority. what a shmuck to spit on and cast aside the victims of 9/11 that way just so he could go profiteering in iraq.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 9K
-
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter