Because they have tried making this a "political" thing... that's the real reason why things haven't gotten done over there like it needs to. And that's squarely on this administration. Stop the pansy ass waivering back and forth because of "poltical consequences", get it right, and THEN get out. But not until then.

THAT is the point I tried to make earlier.

Because they have tried making this a "political" thing... that's the real reason why things haven't gotten done over there like it needs to. And that's squarely on this administration. Stop the pansy ass waivering back and forth because of "poltical consequences", get it right, and THEN get out. But not until then.

What does "get it right" entail?

What does "get it right" entail?

According to your camp, getting out now.

 

Since the easy answer is to "get out", what would you suggest, other then that, seeing as how I never see ANY answers from people like you.

 

No, you first. Then I'll answer.

According to your camp, getting out now.

 

Since the easy answer is to "get out", what would you suggest, other then that, seeing as how I never see ANY answers from people like you.

 

No, you first. Then I'll answer.

I didn't claim that I had the right answer. You said we had to "get it right" so I was wondering what that meant. I assumed you knew something we all didn't.

According to your camp, getting out now.

 

Since the easy answer is to "get out", what would you suggest, other then that, seeing as how I never see ANY answers from people like you.

 

No, you first. Then I'll answer.

You do realize the irony in even asking that question, yes? Sqwert disagreed with the war from the beginning, said it was a bad idea. The war happens, and goes badly, as predicted. Then someone who supports the war (your "camp") insists that Sqwert come up with an answer, and further says, but don't give me your previously stated answer.

 

To use one of your lines, Kap... come on, you know better than that.

 

You do realize the irony in even asking that question, yes? Sqwert disagreed with the war from the beginning, said it was a bad idea. The war happens, and goes badly, as predicted. Then someone who supports the war (your "camp") insists that Sqwert come up with an answer, and further says, but don't give me your previously stated answer.

 

To use one of your lines, Kap... come on, you know better than that.

Fine... "bad war"... ok, whatever. I disagree, but whatever.

 

Every time someone, anyone, says just go in there, blow s*** up, get things under control on the ground (after all, the army was made to blow stuff up, not be a peacekeeping, rebuilding group), and restore order enough that the Iraqis can stand on their own two feet (that is what I mean by "get it right" instead of this half ass, "don't offend anyone with my policies" crap we see now) we see this sarcastic, "what do you know we don't" line from BS. Offer some substance to it, just don't throw the "neener neener neener I was RIGHT !!!111!1!!!" stuff that's out there.

 

Fine... "bad war"... ok, whatever. I disagree, but whatever.

 

Every time someone, anyone, says just go in there, blow s*** up, get things under control on the ground (after all, the army was made to blow stuff up, not be a peacekeeping, rebuilding group), and restore order enough that the Iraqis can stand on their own two feet (that is what I mean by "get it right" instead of this half ass, "don't offend anyone with my policies" crap we see now) we see this sarcastic, "what do you know we don't" line from BS. Offer some substance to it, just don't throw the "neener neener neener I was RIGHT !!!111!1!!!" stuff that's out there.

Maybe because we think that "blowing s*** up" won't help matters. Hasn't worked well so far, has it?

 

We picked the wrong target. Why keep throwing bodies and money at it, when those could be used so much more effectively elsewhere?

 

Maybe because we think that "blowing s*** up" won't help matters. Hasn't worked well so far, has it?

 

We picked the wrong target. Why keep throwing bodies and money at it, when those could be used so much more effectively elsewhere?

But we haven't picked the wrong target. To use Bin Landin's own words, the "war front" is now Iraq. According to their own plans, if they wait us out, they will win, all because the American people can't stand to be in a real war. And we haven't "blown s*** up" - not the way we need to. Too messy... and *gasp* we can't have CASULTIES. The truth is, we will, and in order to justify what's happened already, we have to make this work, like it or not, and getting out of there now is not the answer.

 

By many accounts, even those coming from the MSM (*GASP*), the "surge" is starting to work. The idea of securing areas and not letting control of it go is making progress and stabilizing what they can. If it's stable long enough, things will start getting done (which is why the electricity/water issues, etc. - people can't get out to work on it due to instability). We're in a position that we have to hold the security long enough to raise the standard. Iraq must do its part. If they don't then it doesn't matter.

 

I can't think that most ordinary citizens over there wants to keep going like it has. If they see themselves that stability is coming, they'll respond.

 

But here's the issue...you can't bomb away an insurgency! No country has ever been able to successfully do that. Because every bomb you drop, every home you destroy, every person you kill winds up creating more insurgents than you kill. That's why the army has had to avoid casualties...not because of those nasty, mean Democrats. The Bush administration stopped the first assault on Fallujah back in 04 not because of those mean Frenchmen or those mean Democrats and their nasty words; they stopped it because it was creating so much more hostility towards the U.S. throughout Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

 

Couple other points; first, it is simply foolish to do things because it's the opposite of what an opponent says they want you to do. Heck, I can produce as many quotes from Al Qaeda leadership saying they want to bleed the U.S. dry in Iraq as you can produce statements showing that a U.S. pullout from Iraq would be claimed as a victory.

 

And next...ok, fine...so what evidence do we actually have that Iraq itself is going to do its part? In 4.5 years, their government hasn't done jack. Their leaders are vastly more interested in keeping their own positions strong than in maintaining that country. Their government has made virtually zero progress on any of the benchmarks set for it by us at the start of this year, and is now on a monthlong vacation. As far as I can tell, that country and its leaders pretty much just preparing for the bigger civil war to follow, and aside from the people currently running the show, virtually none of them have anything riding on the success of that government.

But here's the issue...you can't bomb away an insurgency! No country has ever been able to successfully do that. Because every bomb you drop, every home you destroy, every person you kill winds up creating more insurgents than you kill. That's why the army has had to avoid casualties...not because of those nasty, mean Democrats. The Bush administration stopped the first assault on Fallujah back in 04 not because of those mean Frenchmen or those mean Democrats and their nasty words; they stopped it because it was creating so much more hostility towards the U.S. throughout Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

 

Couple other points; first, it is simply foolish to do things because it's the opposite of what an opponent says they want you to do. Heck, I can produce as many quotes from Al Qaeda leadership saying they want to bleed the U.S. dry in Iraq as you can produce statements showing that a U.S. pullout from Iraq would be claimed as a victory.

 

And next...ok, fine...so what evidence do we actually have that Iraq itself is going to do its part? In 4.5 years, their government hasn't done jack. Their leaders are vastly more interested in keeping their own positions strong than in maintaining that country. Their government has made virtually zero progress on any of the benchmarks set for it by us at the start of this year, and is now on a monthlong vacation. As far as I can tell, that country and its leaders pretty much just preparing for the bigger civil war to follow, and aside from the people currently running the show, virtually none of them have anything riding on the success of that government.

I've said this for 3 years now. BushCo SUCKS at getting the right message out. And that is most of the problem... you can't "stay the course" or whatever else BS cliches they use... it's a "political" or "marketing" campaign, which is crap, but that is really what this boils down to.

 

You're right, you can't "bomb away" an insurgency, but you can get rid of it through other means. This, IMO, is BushCo's biggest downfall.

 

Your last paragraph, I agree, largely, but how do you get these people to want to invest in their future? That's part of the BushCo problem as well.

 

 

Your last paragraph, I agree, largely, but how do you get these people to want to invest in their future? That's part of the BushCo problem as well.

So, I think we're coming to an agreement on that part, but it's going to force me to ask this question; if the thing that each leader in Iraq cares about is himself, his sect, and his future power, and they have therefore very little reason for reconciliation, and at the same time even Petraeus is saying that the most important thing is political reconciliation...aren't we pretty much just screwed? If they aren't going to do the single most important thing, what else is left?

So, I think we're coming to an agreement on that part, but it's going to force me to ask this question; if the thing that each leader in Iraq cares about is himself, his sect, and his future power, and they have therefore very little reason for reconciliation, and at the same time even Petraeus is saying that the most important thing is political reconciliation...aren't we pretty much just screwed? If they aren't going to do the single most important thing, what else is left?

I think the "surge" was to try to buy more time to get these people to see that they have to get along...

 

Now, there's the arguments that "for 5,000 years, these people have fought"... really? I guess. There's a larger, more sussinct (sp) deal here that if there's stability, the parties can find a way to live together. How do we know that they "aren't going to do the most important thing"? It's not really been given a chance to succeed... and that is largely due to BushCo's handling of things. This all should have been realized in about, oh, the fall of 2003.

But we haven't picked the wrong target. To use Bin Landin's own words, the "war front" is now Iraq. According to their own plans, if they wait us out, they will win, all because the American people can't stand to be in a real war. And we haven't "blown s*** up" - not the way we need to. Too messy... and *gasp* we can't have CASULTIES. The truth is, we will, and in order to justify what's happened already, we have to make this work, like it or not, and getting out of there now is not the answer.

 

By many accounts, even those coming from the MSM (*GASP*), the "surge" is starting to work. The idea of securing areas and not letting control of it go is making progress and stabilizing what they can. If it's stable long enough, things will start getting done (which is why the electricity/water issues, etc. - people can't get out to work on it due to instability). We're in a position that we have to hold the security long enough to raise the standard. Iraq must do its part. If they don't then it doesn't matter.

 

I can't think that most ordinary citizens over there wants to keep going like it has. If they see themselves that stability is coming, they'll respond.

You can't be serious. Of course its the war front NOW, because we invaded! How can you say we picked the right target, when our choice of target resulted in that situation?

 

I think the "surge" was to try to buy more time to get these people to see that they have to get along...

 

Now, there's the arguments that "for 5,000 years, these people have fought"... really? I guess. There's a larger, more sussinct (sp) deal here that if there's stability, the parties can find a way to live together. How do we know that they "aren't going to do the most important thing"? It's not really been given a chance to succeed... and that is largely due to BushCo's handling of things. This all should have been realized in about, oh, the fall of 2003.

 

Fall of '03? Bush Sr. and Co. realized it back in the early 90's and decided that forcefully overthrowing Saddam with the US military would create the exact mess that we're stuck in now.

 

Today, insurgents drove a tanker truck loaded with explosives into a crowded gas station. At least 60 people are dead. These people aren't just attacking American soldiers; they're destroying themselves. Our presence there isn't helping this any. We're going to dump many more billions and several thousand soldiers into this thing, only to have to walk away in a position much worse than we are now.

Today, insurgents drove a tanker truck loaded with explosives into a crowded gas station. At least 60 people are dead.

And, in what is perhaps a more important development (yes, more important than the deaths of 60 people), the Sunni block has once again suspended its participation in the Iraqi parliament, which will throw yet another wrench into even the first little beginnings of political reconciliation in that country, since that's one of the 3 big groups we keep talking about. And it may also be enough to once again prevent the parliament from ever reaching a quorum.

The only good news to that news about the Sunnis is that the Parliament is on a one month vacation. So there's plenty of time for them to change their minds.

An average day in Iraq...

 

An average day in Iraq...

 

Could also be an average day in Minneapolis.

 

Could also be an average day in Minneapolis.

 

Is it wrong if I thought of posting the same exact thing?

 

Any way, it does make a point. Here, it becomes a tragedy given national coverage for days. It'll be thoroughly analyzed and investigated. In Iraq, it is just another day. Tomorrow there will be more bombings, more fighting. No need to worry about a dozen people being blown up today, another dozen will go tomorrow.

Is it wrong if I thought of posting the same exact thing?

 

Any way, it does make a point. Here, it becomes a tragedy given national coverage for days. It'll be thoroughly analyzed and investigated. In Iraq, it is just another day. Tomorrow there will be more bombings, more fighting. No need to worry about a dozen people being blown up today, another dozen will go tomorrow.

That's what I was hinting at.

 

And America is 100% at fault.

 

/rolly

 

And America is 100% at fault.

 

/rolly

Well, yes, we are. We invaded a country, and now we own it. Congratulations on your purchase. Good luck trying to take any of the equity out of it.

 

And America is 100% at fault.

 

/rolly

 

I must have missed those daily car bombings before we invaded.

 

There were several crucial mistakes made early on by our civilian leadership. Monumental mistakes that we still haven't recovered from. These mistakes led to the current environment and our inability to control the country.

 

We created the situation and couldn't keep it in check.

Edited August 2, 200718 yr by StrangeSox

Amazing.

 

There were that many people and more getting killed every day by Saddam's regime.

 

Now, the good 'ol US of A is TOTALLY responsible for the mess over there. Not Al Queda, not repressed people lashing out because they can, not idiots hell-bent on creating a civil war, THE US is responsible for all of this.

 

 

Now, the good 'ol US of A is TOTALLY responsible for the mess over there. Not Al Queda, not repressed people lashing out because they can, not idiots hell-bent on creating a civil war, THE US is responsible for all of this.

We created the situation that allowed for all of this to happen. If we don't invade, it doesn't happen. If we invade and don't totally f*** up their country, government, and army, it doesn't happen.

Edited August 2, 200718 yr by StrangeSox