Iraq - what do we do now?

[Flying Titan]

Local 12 -
Just because it's in big, red type doesn't make it so.

Now that we're done with your diversion - how about answering the question - WHAT IS YOUR PLAN??? Frankly, it seems you just don't have one other than "stay the course," which it seems even the president doesn't believe will work anymore.

 

[Garfield1966]

I find it humorous when people still use the term ‘winnable’ in relation to Iraq and yet they never define what they mean by that term.

Does winnable mean a popularly elected government who is able to bring Iraq together and maintain some semblance of peace? Give that there are 3 factions in Iraq who hate each other to the point that they have no compunctions about killing each other whole sale I find that idea amusing to say the least.

Are we talking about winning the war on terrorism in Iraq? Sure, that will happen right after I win the lottery 5 times in a row, marry Cindy Crawford and Microsoft makes an OS system that cannot be hacked 1 day after it is released.

Three partitions will not work . How are you planning on diving up the oil revenue? Who gets to decide who lives where? Who gets to decide about the governments? You think they will elect anyone who likes the US? Hell, it took a year to get this puppet government in place and the current administration has already stated how they feel about him. The current president of Iraq just told W where he can stick his tri-lateral talks. It is pretty sad when the leader of a puppet government Bush installed blows off the Pres of the US because he is scared of Al-Sadr walking out of Parliament on him. By the way, you guys are aware that the man who Pres Bush got blown off for has an arrest warrant out right? OH yea, almost forgot, Maliki went to Iran to look for help? That is just too funny for words.

Now Maliki is saying the Iraqi forces will be ready by June. Anyone want to put some money on that horse? I find that statement highly optimistic given al that has and is going on in Iraq.

The reason you don’t hear a plan for ‘winning’ is that there is no plan because most people outside of the White House aware that there is no way to win in Iraq. Iraq is lost. It is just a matter of time before it implodes.

The Baker commission report should be a fun read.

Mission accomplished huh? He is either deluded or incompetent. Either way he is unfit to lead this country.

 

[Leto2]

How is this war different than WWII (a non-media-hyped, no-agenda view...)?

WWII: Hitler invaded Central/Western Europe and Russia
Iraq: Bush invaded Iraq

WWII: US Involvement was due to being threatened at home as well as vast swaths of allied territory being recklessly invaded and ransacked.
Iraq: US Involvement was due to Bush taking snippets of intelligence and making it look like Iraq had weapons. Why hit Iraq and not Iran, N Korea, India, Pakistan, Russia, France, Israel, etc who all have WMDs?

If Americans don't have the "guts", it's b/c we are fighting a bullsh$% war that WE started from OUR invasion. The implications of the WWII conflict were and always will be far more reaching than our invasion of Iraq will ever be. If you think the fact that these wars are fought on very different principles and with very different motives (i.e. defensive vs. offensive) makes Americans "sissies", you must not comprehend the issues at hand. It is not nearly as simple as you state.

The whole intelligence community believed that Iraq had or was going to have WMD's. You can't blame it on Bush's misinterpretation or misrepresentation because Clinton thought the same thing while he was in office. To say that Bush "wanted" to go to war for some reason is pretty stupid. Many of the other democrats also believed it and they would never go off Bush's word. You can blame it on false intelligence, but you can't blame it on Bush.

Had Neville Chamberlain done a preemptive strike on Germany before Hitler got the ball rolling, the world could have avoided a lot of death and destruction. Perhaps Bush's invasion of Iraq helped us dodge a much larger bullet, but I guess we'll never know. So yes, Bush is on the offensive and Chamberlain was on the defensive, but look what happened to Great Britain and the US in the 1940's. Like I said before, we had a lot more deaths and expenses in WWII than we have in Iraq.
Another thing that's very different between WWII and Iraq, is that we can't afford to be on the "defensive" these days. When WWII started, nuclear bombs didn't exist. They do now. Do we need to wait til one is dropped on Israel or New York or elsewhere before we go to war? Waiting for Pearl Harbor cost the US ~2200(?) men; waiting for them to hit us first would cost us ~500,000+. I'd say that's a risk not worth taking.

 

[Garfield1966]

The intelligence community told Bush what he wanted to hear. Numerous people have already come out of the white house and stated that Bush does not like to hear bad news. Bush wanted to find someone to blame for 9/11 and Iraq in his view (and Cheney) was the perfect pigeon, or so they thought. The evidence was manipulated to give the desired effect. Whether or not Clinton believed they had WMD or not is irrelevant. For that ever reason be it blind luck or intuition, he did not act on it. While the intelligence cluster F&*k may not be entirely Bush/Cheney’s fault, a large portion of it IMO does lay squarely in their lap.

Of course most members of the house and senate believed that garbage (or at least stated so publicly). They had no choice if they wanted to stay in power. We saw how Bush Co. dealt with anyone who was against the war. They were labeled a traitor. The people of this country wanted their pound of flesh and if Bush did not give it to them in the form of Iraq (or any other victim he chose) the people would have taken it out of his butt which they ended up doing anyway in Nov of 2006.

I guess it is possible that we dodged a bigger bullet than the one we are getting shot with now but I find it hard to believe that. As you said, we will never know.

As far as a nuke being dropped on NY or Israel. That is not going to happen. They are going to bring it over on a boat, drive it across the border and BOOM. This war will not and has nothing to do with that possibility. Even were it to come over by plane, Iraq does not have a long-range bomber. Besides, if you are talking about risk, Iraq was way down on the list of nations who want to nuke us.

Iraq was a target of opportunity. Unfortunately the hammer heads that planed this (and I use the term in it’s loosest sense) had no clue what they were in for. Now we are stuck in that place with no way out and no idea how to achieve a decent much less happy ending.

 

[KCFlyer]

The whole intelligence community believed that Iraq had or was going to have WMD's. You can't blame it on Bush's misinterpretation or misrepresentation because Clinton thought the same thing while he was in office. To say that Bush "wanted" to go to war for some reason is pretty stupid. Many of the other democrats also believed it and they would never go off Bush's word. You can blame it on false intelligence, but you can't blame it on Bush.

Had Neville Chamberlain done a preemptive strike on Germany before Hitler got the ball rolling, the world could have avoided a lot of death and destruction. Perhaps Bush's invasion of Iraq helped us dodge a much larger bullet, but I guess we'll never know. So yes, Bush is on the offensive and Chamberlain was on the defensive, but look what happened to Great Britain and the US in the 1940's. Like I said before, we had a lot more deaths and expenses in WWII than we have in Iraq.
Another thing that's very different between WWII and Iraq, is that we can't afford to be on the "defensive" these days. When WWII started, nuclear bombs didn't exist. They do now. Do we need to wait til one is dropped on Israel or New York or elsewhere before we go to war? Waiting for Pearl Harbor cost the US ~2200(?) men; waiting for them to hit us first would cost us ~500,000+. I'd say that's a risk not worth taking.

I didn't vote for Bush in 2000 because I had a "gut feeling" (isn't he famous for those) that he'd have us back in Iraq to finish daddy's war.

 

[QA4Jet-A]

How is this war different than WWII (a non-media-hyped, no-agenda view...)?

WWII: Hitler invaded Central/Western Europe and Russia
Iraq: Bush invaded Iraq

WWII: US Involvement was due to being threatened at home as well as vast swaths of allied territory being recklessly invaded and ransacked.
Iraq: US Involvement was due to Bush taking snippets of intelligence and making it look like Iraq had weapons. Why hit Iraq and not Iran, N Korea, India, Pakistan, Russia, France, Israel, etc who all have WMDs?

If Americans don't have the "guts", it's b/c we are fighting a bullsh$% war that WE started from OUR invasion. The implications of the WWII conflict were and always will be far more reaching than our invasion of Iraq will ever be. If you think the fact that these wars are fought on very different principles and with very different motives (i.e. defensive vs. offensive) makes Americans "sissies", you must not comprehend the issues at hand. It is not nearly as simple as you state.

Did you forget about Pearl Harbor?

 

[Ch. 12]

The whole intelligence community believed that Iraq had or was going to have WMD's. You can't blame it on Bush's misinterpretation or misrepresentation because Clinton thought the same thing while he was in office. To say that Bush "wanted" to go to war for some reason is pretty stupid. Many of the other democrats also believed it and they would never go off Bush's word. You can blame it on false intelligence, but you can't blame it on Bush.

Had Neville Chamberlain done a preemptive strike on Germany before Hitler got the ball rolling, the world could have avoided a lot of death and destruction. Perhaps Bush's invasion of Iraq helped us dodge a much larger bullet, but I guess we'll never know. So yes, Bush is on the offensive and Chamberlain was on the defensive, but look what happened to Great Britain and the US in the 1940's. Like I said before, we had a lot more deaths and expenses in WWII than we have in Iraq.
Another thing that's very different between WWII and Iraq, is that we can't afford to be on the "defensive" these days. When WWII started, nuclear bombs didn't exist. They do now. Do we need to wait til one is dropped on Israel or New York or elsewhere before we go to war? Waiting for Pearl Harbor cost the US ~2200(?) men; waiting for them to hit us first would cost us ~500,000+. I'd say that's a risk not worth taking.

Fair enough...

...if we compare Iraq to pre-WWII Germany it's only fair to compare Bush to Hitler (he was the unprevoked and unilateral invader and occupier for almost 5 years, right?) Both are ridiculous analogies so let's not go to extremes. Bush stopped no WWII by invading Iraq. If anything, he has led us much closer to WWIII.

Regarding intelligence...various sources were given to Bush...many of which are still classified to everyone except for Bush (after all...he is the Commander-in-chief, you know). Bush disseminated these snippets into a case...which HE presented to Congress. Congress...both Reps and Dems believing that the C-I-C who is the only one who has access to ALL of the intelligence, therefore the ENTIRE picture, of course thought they had a convincing case. Unfortunately, intelligence agencies providing the snippets to Bush have since said that he exploited pieces and parts to make a case that was never there. Clinton never tried making a case to Congress for invading Iraq b/c there wasn't enough evidence and morals wouldn't allow him to manufacture a case that wasn't there. He could only assume WMDs yet Bush TOLD Congress and the american people that there was indisputable evidence that the WMDs existed. Seems he stretched a little.

Your spinning is quite desperate given your omission of historical fact and your mass exageration of the scales of WWII and Iraq (downplaying the former and greatly upsizing the latter).

 

[Ch. 12]

Did you forget about Pearl Harbor?

Nope...what do you think that I meant by "threatened at home"? I'm not the one trying to water down the significance of WWII by putting it on the same level as Iraq...that is Leto.

Just out of curiousity...why did you think I forgot Pearl Harbor? I thought my post was clear that I feel that WWII was a just and significant war that we had to enter while I don't feel the same about Iraq. I guess I'm scratching my head if that didn't come through.

Now...if you bring up Pearl Harbor so that you can, in your next sentence, say "did you forget about 9/11", I will reply that Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11.

 

[Leto2]

Nope...what do you think that I meant by "threatened at home"? I'm not the one trying to water down the significance of WWII by putting it on the same level as Iraq...that is Leto.

Actually Ch.12, jimntx was the first to compare WWII to Iraq in post #63 on this thread. I was telling him that it's not fair to only compare one aspect of WWII (the one that fits his agenda) and leave the rest out. In fact, in post #71 I said that WWII and the Iraq War weren't comparable because they are very different. Get your facts straight.

 

[UAL_TECH]

and let's not forget the fact that we did not win WWII without help from Austrailia, Russia, the UK and a few others.

I stated on a different Thread a while back about my own idea of a solution. Let the Iraqi Government divide up the land so each of the 3 conflicting factions can have their own land. The kurds to the North, the Sunni's & Shiites their own. The latter two can play Bingo to decide for all I care as they will continue to fight each other no matter where they live. They just aren't a "Fun-Loving" bunch of folks I'd invite over for a Sunday BBQ.

I also read the Iranian Presidents' letter today addressed to we, the American People. Amusing to say the least. I do agree Palistinians need their own space but so do the Israeli's. Just curious how this BB reacts on that one. There is enough land over there for all or them to live peacefully. Perhaps, it is time for them to figure it out and leave each other alone. An 'Ideal' thought, but we know it won't happen in our lifetime.

In closing, I'd rate stopping 'al Qaida' with curing cancer. May tomorrow find Peace & Kindness with your day.

QA

QA,

JMHO, we can not break up Iraq (and it is clearly not our decision to make regardless). I’m not thinking of a ‘near term’ solution but trying to grasp our situation today and apply it to the future. If we do not resolve this problem today, then the next generation will be faced with it. As far as the Palestine situation, the Israelis have attempted numerous capitulations to appease them but continue to be met with hostilities. Unfortunately, IMHO these hostilities are driven by external M.E. countries.

Take Care,
B) UT

I agree that we need to bring back the draft, but if we did that, those folks whose support for this war consists of a $1.99 magnetic yellow ribbon on their car might think long and hard if their support meant sending their kid to fight it.

Something else about WWII...some of the men who weren't accepted in the US military went to Canada to try to GET IN to THEIR military. That is the definition of support for a cause. Compare that to today, where if you ask an avid war supporter if they would send their kid to Iraq, the response is "It's an all volunteer Army and I can't force an adult to do anything...although I'd strongly encourage them to serve". Translated that means "Whew...Johnny dodged a bullet on that one"

 

[local 12 proud]

Local 12 -
Just because it's in big, red type doesn't make it so.

And just because you disagree does'nt make it false either!

Now that we're done with your diversion - how about answering the question - WHAT IS YOUR PLAN???

Why dont you play catch-up and reread my many previous post concerning the Iraq war?

Frankly, it seems you just don't have one other than "stay the course," which it seems even the president doesn't believe will work anymore.

I never proposed staying the course, any fool can see that the present war plan is not getting the desired results, however it is/has been my position that a retreat without out victory will have a far worse outcome than what we now witness ocurring.

Finish what we started, be it more boots or bombing those fanatics into oblivion. Ive stated this many times you just don't like it because the only plan you liberal cowards have is to tuck tail and run.

Your Plan is 'admit defeat, and retreat' what a bold concept. You people just do'nt get it, if we leave without some form of victory the terrorist have won and with the house and senate now controlled by a bunch of defeatist left wing kooks Im not so sure they (the terrorist) have'nt already!

"These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives everything its value."
- Thomas Paine ("The American Crisis")

 

[Flying Titan]

I'll go point-by-point -

#1 - What makes it false is that every legitimate estimate that I've seen holds the numbers far higher than the numbers from that one website you've chosen to cite. Also, even the number of Iraqi civilian deaths cited by that site is far higher than the "red" herrings that you've posted. (48,979 - 54,351) Even your own source disagrees with you.

#2 - Perhaps I've missed it. Could you re-post your plan or supply a post number??? I've posted mine several times (see post #56 for the most recent time I put it up). Perhaps you've missed that since you have yet to address any of the substance of it. This seems especially true when all you can respond with is a tired catch phrases like "admit defeat, and retreat."

#3 - Nice to see you acknowledge that "any fool can see that the present war plan is not getting the desired results." At least that's a start toward a more rational course than the failed plan we have now.

#4 - "Finish what we started" sounds a lot like "stay the course." Let's hope your plan has more substance than that. You'll recall that when we "started," this was supposedly about finding WMD, stopping an "imminent" threat to the US, fighting al Qaeda, saving thousands of Iraqis from death at the hands of other ruthless Iraqis, and starting the spread of DEMOCRACY through the entire middle east region. Since none of those things are happening there, what's left is to find the best way to bring some sort of stability to Iraq and hope we haven't created a new Afghanistan or a puppet state for a more powerful Iran.

 

[Ch. 12]

Actually Ch.12, jimntx was the first to compare WWII to Iraq in post #63 on this thread. I was telling him that it's not fair to only compare one aspect of WWII (the one that fits his agenda) and leave the rest out. In fact, in post #71 I said that WWII and the Iraq War weren't comparable because they are very different. Get your facts straight.

Hmmmm...who wrote this in post #78?

Had Neville Chamberlain done a preemptive strike on Germany before Hitler got the ball rolling, the world could have avoided a lot of death and destruction. Perhaps Bush's invasion of Iraq helped us dodge a much larger bullet, but I guess we'll never know.

You outright made the suggestion that Bush prevented another WW through his brave acts when we know ...we KNOW...that Iraq had no capability to hurt us for a century to come and the worst they could ever do is attack Kuwait again...and that power was pretty much gone already. So I have my facts straight. I watched you post multiple posts comparing the two wars. Get your facts straight about your own posts.

 

[Leto2]

You outright made the suggestion that Bush prevented another WW through his brave acts when we know ...we KNOW...that Iraq had no capability to hurt us for a century to come and the worst they could ever do is attack Kuwait again...and that power was pretty much gone already.

I didn't mean to imply that Bush prevented a WW, but I did mean to imply that the problem could have gotten larger had we not invaded. I believe that if we weren't in Iraq and Afganistan the terrorists would have already striked again here.
And even if the problem wouldn't have gotten larger, Bush, and Clinton before him, had every reason to believe that Saddam had nukes. Given that information, Bush made the correct decision. Hindsight is 20/20, and perhaps the war wasn't the best decision given the information we have now. Unfortunately that is no longer the issue. The issue is what do we do now. That's why I started this thread.

So I have my facts straight. I watched you post multiple posts comparing the two wars. Get your facts straight about your own posts.

Yet you only criticize me and not jimntx and others who have compared Iraq to WWII.

 

[Ch. 12]

Yet you only criticize me and not jimntx and others who have compared Iraq to WWII.

B/C he compared them as milestones. WWII lasted so long...Iraq has now lasted longer. That compares timeframes which are equal. He didn't say that they were of the same degree or that Bush was a glorious leader of the Chamberlain/FDR/Truman scale.