| Author |
Message |
    
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3654
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - 9:46 am: | 
|
Iraqi forces to take over by year's end
Gee... right on time. Couldn't have predicted this a year or two ago. Oh, wait, yes, about a bazillion people did. But even if they do hold some ceremony and officially claim that the Iraqis are now back in charge of the situation, the statement by Talabani that they will "eliminate terrorism" in this year is about as credible as an assertion that he will personally sprout wings and conduct naked aerial surveillance. Iraqis are blowing up each other (and our soldiers) right and left. Still, you've got to admire his optimism... or is it bald dishonesty? |
mjh
Supporter
Username: Mjh
Post Number: 718
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - 10:22 am: |
|
I suspect it's someone (guess who) holding the proverbial gun to his head and giving him the required script to read in advance of the November elections.
Is anyone still influenced by this kind of dribble? |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3661
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - 3:42 pm: |
|
So, if Iraq did take control of all its provinces, allowing us to significantly reduce our forces there... what would we do with those troops? Would we actually let them come home and enjoy the trees and grass and lack of gunfire for a while? This would, of course, have to be largely accomplished by the end of September in order to have the desired effect on the elections. Failing that, would we use them to bolster our presence in Afghanistan, where things are far from stable? Give them a few months of rest and relaxation in, oh, northern Israel? |
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1292
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - 11:11 pm: |
|
Wow, notehead and mjh, solid logrolling.
How is the Dean-Borg Collective group think doing? |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 12306
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, August 3, 2006 - 4:55 am: |
|
Even if it is possible to reach this goal (and I have my doubts) we would have to keep considerable force in or near Iraq to keep the Shite dominated army from slaughtering the Sunnis and the Kurds. There was an opinion piece in the NY Times suggesting Kurdistan as a base and I sort of agree with this. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 15196
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 3, 2006 - 7:08 am: |
|
But we said we'd pull out as soon as they invited us to leave. Aren't we going to make good on that promise? 
|
Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 7641
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, August 3, 2006 - 8:07 am: |
|
Notehead is unhappy because the Iraqi Government is trying to win..
|
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 12309
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, August 3, 2006 - 8:59 am: |
|
Is the government trying to win, or is the Shi'a majority trying to win? |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3663
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, August 3, 2006 - 9:35 am: |
|
Straw is unhappy because nobody told him not to eat paint chips.
Meanwhile, we thought we'd achieve victory and bring freedom and democracy to Afghanistan (remember Afghanistan?) and we're about to send another 11,000 of our sons and daughters into harm's way over there.
U.S. to send 11,000 troops to Afghanistan
Prior to going into Iraq, a lot of us pointed out how we failed Afghanistan. Killing people is the easy part, especially for a country as addicted to militarism as the U.S. Of course we win battles, but we don't keep the peace. We said it would be unconscionable to go into Iraq without a solid understanding of, and commitment to, doing what was necessary to both remove Saddam and bring a lasting peace to the country. And since both the understanding and commitment were clearly lacking, we said that we shouldn't go to Iraq. Well, we were right. |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4613
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, August 3, 2006 - 9:38 am: |
|
"Is the government trying to win, or is the Shi'a majority trying to win? "
Bob K,
I don't understand. Doesn't the majority typically win in a democracy. Or are we trying to cobble together a Lebanese style democracy with artificial limits on true majority rule. |
Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 7642
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, August 3, 2006 - 9:42 am: |
|
Notehead rooting against America once again... |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 12310
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, August 3, 2006 - 9:45 am: |
|
Tjohn, In Iraq we already have cobbled together an artificial democracy with certain ministries and positions reserved for certain religious and/or ethnic groups. Iraq basically has a coalition government. The theroy is that the government will be fair to all.
In my humble opinion, the only thing that holds the government together is our prescence with 150,000 or so troops, including coalition forces.
It is one thing to win and say you "killed" the opposistion. It is another thing to really kill them. |
steel
Citizen
Username: Steel
Post Number: 1099
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, August 3, 2006 - 9:48 am: |
|
The insurgency is in it's last bomb throws. |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3665
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, August 3, 2006 - 9:50 am: |
|
Straw, failing to post a cogent argument of any kind, once again. |
Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 7643
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, August 3, 2006 - 9:58 am: |
|
Notehead failing to defend his anti U.S position. |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3667
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, August 3, 2006 - 10:30 am: |
|
It's not my position. It's one you made up. That's what you do. It's what you always do. You know what that is? It's WEAK.
By the way... why do you hate freedom? 
Steel: "Last throws" -- good one. |
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1299
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, August 3, 2006 - 8:17 pm: |
|
Um... I think notehead and mjh, " the like-mindies" should wait to see if it happens first. Otherwise their comments appear more political than factual.
Go back to bashing Bush guys. You know you love it. |
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 2916
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, August 3, 2006 - 10:05 pm: |
|
Fvf:
And Bush makes it sooo easy to bash him.  |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 2204
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 4, 2006 - 3:55 pm: |
|
What was Abizaid saying yesterday, "...worse than I've ever seen it..."
And what was Pace saying: "Polly wanna cracker..."
And what was Feltmarschal von Rumsfeldt saying? "I never said I was optimistic..." |
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1304
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Friday, August 4, 2006 - 5:23 pm: |
|
anon- An actual and solid grasp of history and warfare would help first. "Kos" is not god.
Innisowen- It seems you are looking for a further smackdown after admitting that Iraq is not analogous to Vietnam, admitting that "wars take time", and the associated. Please bring your "A" game instead of your absent from school on the day the subject was studied approach. |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4626
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, August 4, 2006 - 5:46 pm: |
|
We expect our military leaders to provide accurate assessments of combat operations. When military leaders start to waffle and wiggle in the manner of civilian officials then we have lost something of value. Of course, I use General Stillwell as my standard and that is setting the bar very high indeed. |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 2205
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 4, 2006 - 7:14 pm: |
|
Hi, Fiction:
Congratulations on your continued solid ability to misread and misunderstand.
This time, I guess I have to key S-L-O-W-L-Y in hopes you will understand:
That the lessons of VietNam seem either to have been lost on our current leaders or never learned.
You made some wonderful parallels about our military having learned a lot from the Russian experience in Afghanistan. Yup, I can see the results of that learning being applied every day, especially in Baghdad.
If you wish to misrepresent what I have said, misrepresent it more accurately, as 43 would probably say.
As to smackdowns, they would take more than your bantamweight snideness could bring to bear. Keep up your wishful thinking, and keep on watching as the Iraq mess deteriorates under the "expert" guidance of the administration.
|
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1309
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Friday, August 4, 2006 - 7:25 pm: |
|
Innisowen-
Innis... innis... inis.. I am beginning to think you are hopeless.
You're not a millitary historian if you can't discuss Iraq in the context of past wars,and you keep going back to Vietnam which you yourself agreed doesn't apply. I served you up the Russians in Afghanistan to give you some form of credible fig leaf for your arguments, but you aren't taking it.
It seems to me that you engage in broad-based peeing matches with other people you deem conservatives or neo-cons on MOL without backing it up intellectually. I like and welcome give and take and disagreement if it is in a friendly spirit and without the type of negative comments you make. I apologize for the smackdown comment to the extent I am very frustrated that you never fully respond in a dialogue after you have been called on something. |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 2207
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 4, 2006 - 7:32 pm: |
|
fiction:
You have failed to show me the parallels to the Russian experience in Afghanistan, as they apply to Iraq and to Baghdad.
You still haven't replied to my comments about the incompetence of this administration in executing a war in Iraq. Until YOU do that, your observations are worth nothing. |
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1313
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, August 5, 2006 - 1:24 pm: |
|
Innisowen-
Of course they have screwed up. Don't you read other people's posts or do you get too wound up in anti-Bushist hatred after the first sentence? There were some flawed premises and execution. At the same time, and
BTW, they screwed up in the Civil War, WWII, etc. etc. almost every millitary conflict down the pike. So that means we " lost" all those wars in the end?
You admitted yourself that wars can take a long time, and Iraq is not Vietnam. So your problem with Bush is political rather than millitary, because you are conceeding Bush can still win or advance the objectives the US has in Iraq.
We are not being defeated in Iraq, they are trying to subject us to attrition to get us out. Big difference.
And why do I have to show you the parallels? I was trying to help you find a way to make some sort of cogent argument on Iraq we could discuss.
What you should do is refine your argument to simply say you don't believe Iraq is worth it.
|
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 2215
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, August 5, 2006 - 2:46 pm: |
|
Fiction:
Oh, come on! "Some flawed premises and execution"????
You are so indulgent and patronizing that it must be almost embarrassing to be you
You link, for some reason best known to you, criticism of performance with some political motivation.
Your boss must have a great time doing performance reviews with you.
If you can't understand the distinction, I can't help you. Perhaps whoever does your performance reviews could move you a step along the way.
|
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1316
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, August 5, 2006 - 2:58 pm: |
|
I happen to do the reviews.
And come on now, stop dodging the issues.
Bush and his crew screwed up. So did Lincoln and his crew, so did Roosevelt and his crew, and the list continues.... Personally I would have slapped Iraq with a trade and sea and air embargo first, but no one asked me.
War is not like a "Happy Meal" in our instant gratification society.
To boil it all down in a manner that makes sense:
Your opposition to Iraq is political and because you believe it is not worth it.
You can't make any other presentation because you have undercut your own arguments on Vietnam and war. |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4627
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, August 5, 2006 - 8:04 pm: |
|
What I have noticed about the major wars in our past is that we started out getting slapped around pretty badly but eventually got the better of our enemies. When ever we end up fighting asymetrical wars, it seems that we start out very well and then things start to go downhill.
In every war, both winners and losers make tactical errors all of the time. The losers, however, also make strategic errors. |
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 2933
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, August 5, 2006 - 10:21 pm: |
|
War is not like a "Happy Meal" in our instant gratification society.
But Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld sold it that way. |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 2218
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, August 5, 2006 - 10:40 pm: |
|
Fiction:
Oh sure, I am confident that "you are the guy doing the reviews." That's what they all say.
Watch what's happening in Iraq and the recurrent, unresolved mess in Afghanistan and tell me there is military success there or even the likelihood of succcess there.
I have been saying since you and I began "discussing" this that it is the administration's lousy performance that has caused what you finally have called the "screw-up." There's a difference between losing battles/replacing generals and this administration's consistently failing to plan for successful execution of something more than an invasion. The administration has wasted both tremendous sums of money and opportunities.
It has taken you a while to say that.
Whether or not I believe the Iraq initiative was worth it, is irrelevant in that context.
You may call that a political reason if you wish, but then your definition of political is strange. I call it poor performance by the MBA president and his team. You say "tomayto" and I say "tomahto."
The difference between us may be that I perceive similar lousy performance on nearly every initiative, whether military, economic, domestic, international, or global that this team has touched.
|
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1334
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Monday, August 7, 2006 - 10:06 am: |
|
Innisowen:
Finally, thank you !
In your last sentence you admit your opinion on Iraq is premised on your politics. We have dispensed with the Vietnam argument, the millitary argument, and you deny your argument is that Iraq isn't worth it.
Now don't argue with me anymore on this thread. Because as a latin scholar that you are, you know , "falsis in unium, falsis in omnibus".
anon-
Actually I am somewhat in agreement. The Bushies thought it would be a quicker in and out of Iraq. On the other hand to be cynical, they knew they were dealing with a "happy meals" instant gratification society that has not had a unity of purpose and social support for any form of national sacrafice since WWII, so probably better not to spell things out too much.
Again, there is a difference between opinion polls, short term politics, and longterm national interests. I understand completely what they are attempting to do, and have to give it my qualified support.
Creating a new paradigm of government in an islamic nation if possible, and on the relative cheap,( say as compared to WWII) is groundbreaking, and the one thing that has never been tried. Propping up authoritarian regimes because we need oil is a failed attempt at meeting our longterm interests.
Is it also an acceptable trade-off to have 2,000 soldiers kia rather than 20,000-50,000 americans, plus, in domestic terrorist strikes? Tough issues. Tough questions.
The world really is a Hobbsian place. That's why progressives who have isolationist beliefs scare me. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1799
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 7, 2006 - 10:19 am: |
|
Boo.
Hope that has you under your bed and shaking.
The false premise you float about American dead is a non starter. The issue is not whether it is ok to have 2000 soldiers killed versus 50,000 civilians, its whether we can protect our society from terrorists while at the same time remaining a free democratic society.
The 3000+ murdered on 9-11 have not been well served by the misdirection that is the war in Iraq. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out that the best way to protect yourself from another terrorist act like 9-11 would be to capture or kill the individuals responsible and to eliminate the organization of al-Qaeda. The administration decided that the Iraq experiment was more important then protecting Americans from the threat of the next al-Qaeda plan.
The foreign policy practiced by this administration is sick. What is needed is intelligence (both of the covert overt and intellectual varieties). What is needed is cooperation amongst nations to eradicate this type of threat, not a unilateral war of choice and profit to satisfy the latest neo-con geopolitical theory. |
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1336
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Monday, August 7, 2006 - 2:10 pm: |
|
Hoops-
We are and will always remain a free society where one can express their opinions and dissent. The fact that we have people such as yourself who are obtusely damaging our efforts to defeat radical islam by preaching a utopian and isolationist world view is a good example. You offer nothing substantive that offers us an alternative route to victory over radical islam, merely fuzzy thinking.
Again we live in a Hobbesian world and have to make hard and unpalatable choices. We are a target for these people as long as we are perceived as having influence in the Near East, not just by being there. I would bet many americans would of necessity accept the sad equation I presented earlier.
Both Iraq and Al Queda are being fought, with Iraq being seen as an experiment to mitigate and ameliorate the rise and perpetuation of terror groups. Al Queda is no longer a totally formalized organization but rather a group of independent islamic terror contractors with like minds. Bush's administration has done a good job in a difficult area in preventing domestic terror.
Your comments about foreign policy are naive and boy scoutish. The world has always been a Machiavellian place. Russia and China will oppose us due to the value of business dealings with Iran. The europeans look to the USA, as always to resolve the problem.
|
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1805
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 7, 2006 - 2:29 pm: |
|
according to fvf I am
1) obtusely damaging our efforts to defeat radical islam
2) am a fuzzy thinker
3) naive and boy scoutish
Quite a descriptive mouthful from a self-proclaimed expert on the middle east who is firmly in the Bush camp on foreign policy, who believes that the USA has done a good job in fighting al Qaeda and who believes vehemently that the Iraq war is a success.
I doubt very much that al Qaeda was ever more then a loosely organized group of different radical islamic groups. The point is that the leadership of al Qaeda is still out there organizing while we fiddle faddle in Iraq to the tune of too many human lives lost. Good job indeed.
See I suppose you didnt read for comprehension when I said what we require is intelligence and diplomacy, both of which are sorely lacking in this administration making us far more likely to be a terrorist target then before. I would venture to say that this statement is as substantive as it needs to be on this message board. I dont recall your 'substantive' statement, unless you are refering to any of your verbose postings that pretty much all say the same thing.
1 - "I know more about the middle east then anyone so I am right"
2 - "Radical Islam is bad"
But better then that I have figured out your foreign policy position is to wage war with all muslim countries. Something like a Mr.T philosophy -
"Become a democracy or I'll kill ya!".
|
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1338
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Monday, August 7, 2006 - 4:25 pm: |
|
"I pity the fool who adopts a Hoopsian foreign policy". - Mr. T
Actually Hoops you are correct on your numbers 1-3.
Please put your pudding to the proof and elaborate on your policies for smashing Al Queda and radical islam. Besides the starry-eyed stuff. Let's read them.
And don't put words in my font about foreign policy, Al Queda, and Iraq. I don't think Condi Rice is "all that" and give them qualified support for their experiment in Iraq. I grade them a "B" on dealing with the domestic terrorism stuff,but believe it would have been much worse with Kerry. Bill C. did nothing to affect change in the Near East in a substantive way and I really don't give a s#@! if Bush is a tongue-tied simpleton as long as some of the basic policies take fruit.
You really need to rise above your politics man.
|
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1808
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 7, 2006 - 8:27 pm: |
|
I agree 100% with Innis about your reading skills. You need to slow down a bit so that you actually get the message before you write the response.
1-3 are your opinions about me. So being correct in how I read your post only means I am observant enough to see how you are trying to put me in a box of your making while actually ignoring the points I made.
You believe in the neocon agenda and I dont so there is a fundamental difference in our politics. I have not seen you 'rise above' anything so that would be a first.
As far as al Qaeda goes, the enemy was in Afghanistan, in Saudi Arabia, and we attack Iraq. Why? To get a foothold to place permanent US bases in the ME. Stupid, wasteful and unsuccessful policy.
I reiterate for you one last time. The only way to get rid of them is via intelligence, know what they are planning so we can prevent it and know where they are so we can attack and kill them. We went to Afghanistan for that purpose and were not successful, in fact we were incompetent. The second front is through diplomacy, by forging alliances with the countries where they reside so that together the goal of eradication can be achieved. Nothing starry eyed about that.
Bill Clinton was on the path to finding and killing Bin Laden. The turnover to this administration lost sight of that, perhaps intentionally. At every turn the republicans were screaming about no war for Monica, but Clinton was laying groundwork for knowing where al Qaeda was and preventing attacks, like the Millenium attack which was stopped because of paying attention to the intelligence and treating the problem with urgency. We dont know what Kerry or Gore would have done but you can bet that neither of those men would have ignored the issue like Bush and his cronies in the administration did.
I cant fathom what your 'beliefs' are based on.
For all of your grandiose claims you have not elaberated on any policy for doing any of the above besides hawkish callings for the nuking of Iran. That sure will work.
Rising above my politics? Right. Make your case for how I am damaging the efforts to defeat radical Islam. I need a laugh.
|
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1344
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Monday, August 7, 2006 - 11:17 pm: |
|
" Foothold for permanent bases in the Middle East", wrong as to permanence and poor assessment of the purpose of being in Iraq.
"Stupid, wasteful and unsuccessful policy" - short term thinking and lack of understanding as to the "whys" of Iraq. I am not going to regurgitate what I have written previously. It may succeed in whole, fail in whole, succeed in part or fail in part, but a new paradigm was needed to be tried, the old model was not working, and the problem of authoritarian rule and it's effect on breeding islamic extremism needed addressing.
"get them via intelligence"- we have the most sophisticated intelligence, spy satellites, drones, etc in the world. Our human intelligence and wet activities abilities were destroyed by congressional dems in the '70s. It's about changing perceptions of government and representation if possible, see above.
"diplomacy" - joke, europe always sees things too late and the Russians and Chinese want anything that weakens us. What have the europeans put together? Can they even deal with radical islam in their own countries?
Clinton was on the path to jacks#@* on Al Queda. Avoiding the millenium attack was the work of an observant security screener.
Never said to nuke Iran, but to take out as many of their nuclear sites as possible.
Basically you talk around my question and give me vague generalizations about intelligence and diplomacy that have already been attempted or are already being pursued, but has not solved the problem or given us victory. Should we try "moral authority" too?
You are projecting when you refer to my posts as grandious, then.
Big hat, no cattle on this subject Hoops, sorry to say.
|
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1809
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - 9:46 am: |
|
try again when you want to get real. |
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1351
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - 5:27 pm: |
|
I am real, and better versed.
Give us your program or drop it, as you have none. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1823
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - 10:24 pm: |
|
 |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page