Ted, he didn't need to. Chem and bio weapons have a very short shelf life, so that's why production facilities were a big focus of the weapons search. To have stockpiles, you need to produce a lot of it all the time to replenish those stocks. The evidence that I am right and as usual, you are wrong is in those mustard gas containers the insanity of Hannity was spouting off with the "we found the weapons!!!1!!!ELEVENTY!111!!!" not too long ago.

They found goo in shells from pre Gulf War 1.0. That's the best they could do.

I would like to ask DR at this time then (kinda again- I think he got distracted)

I am curious as to what the "political ploy" payoff would be? At this point- it seems that if it were a political ploy- that too has been a miserable failure

The republicans - at this point in time - are getting ready for another butt whipping come election time. They own this war right now. The "ploy" is to make it the democrat's war. In my opinion, the surge does nothing but make that happen.

Nobody with an ounce of sense thinks this surge will make any kind of difference. The administration is controlling the message however. They are not allowing casualty figures to be released, pictures of the devastation, or anything that harm's their cause. They claim reduced numbers of casualties (with very little to back them up) without reminding anyone that millions of Iraqis have been run out of the country from the areas decimated.

So, they are claiming progress even in the absence of evidence. They are claiming success, improvement, and promise. The enemy is Al Qaida - the people that attacked us on 9/11. And they are asking for more time.

But if the democrats pull the plug, the democrats own the war and the loss. The republican campaign mantra will be "don't vote for Ira Librul because they caused our defeat in Iraq. We were winning and the democrats put a stop to it before we had a chance to complete our mission. The devastation currently in progress, the genocide, the loss of life, and the ethnic cleansing is a result of the democrats taking over the Iraq war policy". Suddenly, casualty figures and pictures will be released. Joe Sixpack doesn't have the attention span to remember how we got there, but will only hear how the democrats caused it.

It will be very, very tough for the democrats to dispute what technically, will be the facts if they pull the plug during these claims of success. The republicans have no options other than passing the loss onto somebody else. The democrats have no options but to wait until the republicans man up and put the troop's lives over politics. And while we wait for this, many, many people will cease to exist.

Assuming the most cynical of motivations for Dubya, et al., then I basically agree with this read. Or rather, I think they're trying to have it both ways. Either the surge works in which case Dubya looks good or the surge doesn't work in which case Dubya looks bad AND the Congress looks bad (controlled by Democrats). They're trying to spread the *scatological euphemism* around.

If there were concrete benchmarks, then Dubya, et al., could actually be held accountable. Thus, there are no benchmarks.

The "blame the Iraqis" strategy seems to have taken hold of both parties. That is, if we can't hold ourselves to benchmarks, then we can hold those Iraqis to benchmarks who will, of course, fail to meet them because Iraq is simply DOA. The advantage of this strategy is that the *scatological euphemism* rolls downhill. That is, neither Dubya nor the Congress nor the pro-war supporters need to accept responsibility since it's the *Iraqis* who failed and not the Americans.

Let's also not forget the coward's mantra: "fight them over there so we don't fight them over here". Here we see the pro-war American's true colors: people who are quite willing to have Iraqi's die and a nation destroyed for a fight that is America's. This less-than-brave attitude allows the pro-war supporter to rationalize the death, destruction and mayhem in Iraq. By pulling out of Iraq, we would no longer be fighting them over there and thus might be fighting them over here. It is a rationalization of fear and cowardice.

DaytonRocker




I disagree with that, I don't think this is a ploy to purposefully lose the presidential election and hand the democrats the war. It might not be a perfect plan or even a plan that is highly popular but I think its nothing but a late attempt to correct prior mistakes in strategy, we went into Iraq far to light and increases in troops over the years prove they knew this was a mistake. Look at the WIKI link on troop levels I posted earlier. Most suggested we go in with anywhere from 400,000 - 500,000 troops to appropiatly fit the situation, similar to what we did in Desert Storm. Instead we go in with 130,000 ? What the hell was Bush and Rumsfeild thinking, and what did they expect to happen? This is why we have seen the steady rise in troops, and to win we need them. I'm supposing many against this must believe we have been adding a ridiculously large and unnecessary amount of men in this war, when the truth is we are still well understaffed. Why do you think the casualtie rate of U.S. troops is so freakishly low when compared to other wars of this length? 3.5 thousand deaths for a war this long is unheard of, in fact I'm not so sure its even happened.

They should fight a war like its a war, period, or don't fight it. I'm so sick and tired of being jerked around by those who are making the decisions playing politics. This war never was unwinable, and that remains true today. Were just not winning it, because we are not fighting it. I say fight it or they might as well leave now and quit wasting their time, Iraq's time, and our time. Very little that they have done has pleased me here although the soldiers themselves are putting up one hell of a fight, and they need our support.

"purposefully lose the presidential election "?? What the heck are you talking about? I never suggested such a thing and in fact, have advocated the opposite. Do you even read the posts you respond to?

Iraq war supporters are not going to win the presidency. When/if the democrats take ownership of this war, the republicans will be off the hook to your average retard that hasn't been paying attention. That's the only hope they have to win in 2008. That's my point.

The republicans cannot win on issues because they've acted like horrible liberals. And the Iraq war is the concrete block around their neck. But they do "spin" really well and without Iraq being the monkey on their back any longer, they will have some sort of chance because of the demonization the democrats will receive.

They are handing this war off to someone they can kick to win, not lose.

I know you are bitter and sinister but to suggest that the Administration is “sacrificing” men for something that has no chance is over the top and just plain crap.

Petraeus is no kid and he is the kind of man who would not take a job if he thought it was just for political expediency.

He thinks he can win some kind of a settlement or accommodation to salvage Iraq and I will take his word one hell of a lot more seriously than anything you say.

DaytonRocker






Hold on you said in perfect clarity and word for word the following.......



Am I missing something here? Did I change that around, did I put words in your mouth or something, I don't do that. I replied with..........

I disagree with that, I don't think this is a ploy to purposefully lose the presidential election and hand the democrats the war.

A perfectly reasonable response given what you said, what other election would you be talking about other than the presidential election, and by ploy you are in fact referring to this wars surge no doubt so why are you confused about my response? Did you not say what you said? Did you not say, The "ploy" is to make it the democrat's war. Level with me here, because I simply disagreed with you, if you think the surge is a ploy to give the war to the democrats that obviously means they have to win the election next year to have the war, congress does not have the war if thats who you are referring to, in comparison to the presidential cabinet there power is limited so that argument makes no sense either.

Why would republicans choose a plan they know will fail to strike against the liberal congress to win the election, when its not even congress that would receive the bulk of the heat for a failed plan. Thats why I didn't think thats what you meant if it is, because that makes even less sense. That would make about as much sense as the principle of a school planting dope in all his teachers desk and calling the cops because he doesn't like his teachers and expecting that he wouldn't be held accountable for hiring 20 pot heads, get it? Republicans have the bulk of the power and responsibility as long as they hold the presidency therefore anything they decide for that fails will come back on congress some, but no where near as much as this presidential cabinet.

And may I make a suggestion saying something like The republicans cannot win on issues because they've acted like horrible liberals. Only puts you in gutter pretty much with both sides, if I were liberal id find that rather offensive, yet many other things you say are what a republican would find offensive. I think there is at least some truth to that, I do think republicans are softening but come on "horrible liberals" there not all horrible.

Net2007, you might want to actually do some research on things before you start spouting off about how we "went in too light" at the beginning of the war. That battle plan was the plan of General Tommy Franks and he writes extensively about how and why that plan was adopted in his book "An American Soldier". Neither Bush nor Rumsfeld had anything to do with it other than to approve it based on the recommendations of General Franks. Now I realize that perhaps General Franks doesn't have the extensive video war game background that perhaps you have, but he does know a thing or two about how to conduct a war and to win an actual military campaign. There were mistakes made following the defeat of Saddam Hussein to be sure, but that had nothing to do with the way he was defeated in the first place. The plan to topple his regime was brilliant and effective. It took less than a month from the time the invasion was launched until the statue fell in the middle of Baghdad - the symbolic end to the formal side of the war. If General Franks had done what you suggested and attempted to put 500,000 troops into Iraq initially, it never would have happened that quickly and time is blood. Franks wanted to go, go in fast and go in hard, engage the enemy and get them on the run. And, that's exactly what he did and once they turned tail and ran, he stayed with them. biting them on the butt all the way to Baghdad. It's pretty difficult for the enemy to fight back when you've got their rear end in your jaws and Tommy Franks had them by both cheeks. His plan was to move as fast as he could and by doing that save lives. A smaller force can move that fast because the logistical support could keep up, barely, with 130,000 troops. There would be no way to supply the kind of forces you desire without slowing everyone down and that would have cost lives while they were sitting in the desert waiting for a load of fuel. Tommy Franks was tasked with over-throwing the regime of Saddam Hussein and in order to do that he had to get his forces to downtown Baghdad and occupy the city. He did that in less than a month with one of the swiftest and most efficient military advances in history. There were mistakes made in the aftermath to be sure, but that had nothing to do with the original battle plan. That worked to perfection.


Aquilla

Ok net...stick with me here....I'll say it a little slower just for you.

The war will be the main issue for the next election. Right now, it's the republican's war. Given this, there is very little chance they can win next election.

Since 1994, the republicans have not picked up one new seat via elections. They got new seats via redistricting. Now out of charge, they won't be able to create seats that way for a while. The republicans are failing at winning the hearts and mnds of voters. And they've alienated many republicans like me.

So, the republicans need to get this war off their back to have any chance of winning any elections. And this will happen when the republicans claim success with this absurd "new way forward" and the democratic controlled house and senate put a stop to it.

When the democrats "take ownership of defeat" (a right wing talking point/term), the republicans are back in the game and have a better chance of winning because your average voter is a moron.

And I don't care if both sides find my comments offensive because I think both sides (republican and democrat) are lying and cheating frauds. I will never apologize for the poor behavior of any party because I put principle over politics every single time. But it's funny you say there is some truth to what I say while finding it offensive.

Don't get me wrong there were defenatly successes, the toppling of Saddam's regime was fast and efficient just like Desert Storm, Ive never been one to say there has been no success here because thats a flat out lie. The difference however is we went in to take a nations leader out so unlike Desert Storm afterwards we had nobody in place to prevent all out civil kayos. And I do understand what the "go in light" plan was all about and not everybody agreed that was the best thing to do in this situation. At the very least after saddams capture we should have increaced our forces to maintain order for a situation many predicted would get ugly fast. The Rumsfeild Docterine went on the notion that we should use small nimble ground forces with surpressing air support, and I don't agree that strategy was ideal here.

To back this argument why did many disagree with this from the start? Why do Generals on the ground today complain about the lack of man power they have? Why have we increased our forces at least somewhat if they didn't feel they were understaffed? I believe what I do because I have done the research, not the other way around. Did you see the WIKI link I posted? Ironically I actually agree with most of what you say, most of the time. Your one of the more sensible people here when it comes to debating this war.



But I flat out disagree that the democrats can assume more responsibility for a failed war plan than the republicans unless of course they have the presidency. Congress is highly opposed to this war plan for starters. How can it be a ploy to get the average voter think a failed plan was more the fault of the democrats than the Republicans when it is primarily the ambition of the Republicans to do this thing. Granted some responsibility can fall on congress for denying funding and whatnot, but to tell you the truth anything that goes wrong with this plan will be deemed more the republicans fault than anyone else and I don't think the average voter is that stupid.

You know what though? I guess I do agree that (republican and democrat) are lying and cheating frauds, much of the time. I hope this plan does work however and I don't think its a ploy, I simply don't think its enough, and it may be to late. I support winning this war and hope we don't give in.

Nobody wants to lose this war and we shouldn't have to. However, Bush is not doing anything meaningful to win it. In the absence of a plan and a strategy that would secure the peace, he is only left with political cover. He can't get more troops without a draft because some are starting their fifth tour. He can't get help from other countries that have battle ready troops and money because he trashed them all for not supporting this invasion. He can't get help from the UN because he trashed them as well and defied the UN security council to get his way (never got the 2nd vote everyone said he needed - there was no automatic "trigger" is 1441 as he likes people to believe existed).

He's really left us no other options. He's burned every bridge from here to Iraq. So he wants us to believe that 30,000 troops will somehow quell the violence that has existed for 8000 years when not ruled with an iron fist (and why we used to like Saddam).

Even Patreus has said there is no military solution. There can only be a political solution that will have to wait because the sorry excuse for a government will be taking a month's long vacation from doing hardly anything during the entire month of August. How many Americans will die for their cause between now and then?

This is a disaster of epic proportions and Bush is doing nothing but stalling for time. He is not leading. Neither is his "war czar" that apparently does less than the Iraqi government.

Listen to Rush and Hannity for a few hours a day like I do. The mantra is now that the democrats "own defeat", are wanting to surrender in the face of victory, and every inconceivable angle of spin you can imagine. The blame has already started and the democrats really haven't done anything yet.

And during all this time, our best and bravest are getting fed through a meat grinder with the rest of the Iraqi population.

Sorry - I'm not ok with that.

Even Patreus has said there is no military solution.

Well I agree that we cannot have a total military victory but the “plan” for the surge, which you contend did not exist, imo was to get/push the government into a position whereby a political solution/compromise. Failing that and the fall of the government or emergence of a Shiite dictator chaos will ensue.
Bush is not “stalling for time” he is trying to allow enough time for Petraeus to get something accomplished – and as is the problem with all time tables that tend to slip.

Okay Ted I'll bite, if no military solution is possible what exactly is General Patreus trying to accomplish?

To satisfy my curiosity net2007, what is your definition of ‘fighting a war’ versus not ‘fighting it’?
I agree that in comparison to other wars, the casualty count is relatively light. But my problem with that argument is this……..why should anyone else have to die for such dubious goals? It should be safe to say that not one person in uniform enlisted or was commissioned for the sole purpose of serving the nation of Iraq. Yet, that is what we are being asked to do. Losing even a small number of men and women, mostly by sectarian groups bent on a suicidal path of religious dominance, doesn’t seem to fit anywhere in the oath that I swore to. I’m sick and tired of being jerked around too………by both Democrats AND Republicans. Neither seems to have the best interests of our nation or its uniformed constituents at heart. One side shouldn’t have kept us in Iraq this long, and the other, for all its blather, won’t man up and get us out. The bottom line is this…..this is not an honorable war, fought for just purposes or the good of civilization. People are dying every day. Dying. Your friend and neighbors…….for what, control of a sandy patch of desolation ruled by Mosques?
I used to feel pretty humbled and gracious when someone would come up to me and thank me for my service or sacrifice. I know most mean well, but I hate to hear it anymore…….I’m not defending my country right now. In all honesty, what we are truly fighting for is each other…………
Now I don’t want anyone mistaking me for a wild eyed granola-eating-Birkenstock-wearing-tree-hugging-touchy-feely-anti-war advocate. But after seeing the apathy and ignorance of the Iraqi people when given the opportunity of democracy and the political gamesmanship carried out in the halls of congress, and doubtlessly, on the golf course………………I quickly came to the conclusion that my life, nor those of my brothers and sisters was worth the ‘stated’ goals.


I agree completely. If I were a Republican, I would have likely turned my membership card quite some time ago.


I have no doubt that his intentions are honorable, and I do admire his views on counter-insurgency. He was also one of the best Division Commanders that the 101st Airborne Division has ever had.
But you speak as if you know him personally…….I just found your comment odd. I’ve shaken his hand, but not said more than two words to the man……..but I wouldn’t think to imply what you have based on that.

Back to the original topic question. I don’t believe that the surge was a political ploy or stunt. Based on the fact that we are in Iraq, and at the time of the surge planning, it was thought assured by DOD planners that we would still be there a year from that point; the Baghdad surge was really the only plan that had a chance of success. The planners took lessons learned from previous operations and devised an operation to complete the goals that the DOD and administration wished to achieve. As jaded as I am toward Democrat and Republican politicians, I don’t believe that any, White House included, would visit such needless loss of life for a dubious outcome. What hasn’t been theorized, unless I missed it, is what would be the point (politically) of the surge, if it was a stunt. Certainly, higher casualty figures aren’t helping the administrations approval ratings. And I don’t think that Republicans had any less of a chance of losing the White House now, then before the surge.
As far as the surge itself goes, for every casualty, there are several success stories. Now this is coming from one guy on the ground, so don’t expect to be wowed with macro-scale events………but when we nab a particularly bad dude, or oversee the opening of a market, or find a nasty cache of weapons and chemicals………that is a success. All erased, however, when we lose a comrade.
Clearing operations are in full swing in most parts of Baghdad, many neighborhoods having already been swept. More Combat Outposts are being built, moving the bulk of combat power out of the FOB’s and now amongst the people. Kind of like neighbors……….only more heavily armed…….and with iPods.
The Iraqi Security Forces are becoming more competent in battlefield skills, corrupt still, but more competent. The main problems they have are in the areas of battle staff (operations and planning) and logistically support their own forces. Their institutional foundation still relies on the commander making all decisions, a very narrow top down approach that stifles initiative and breeds apathy. Whereas the American military empowers junior leaders to make most decisions within the framework of commanders guidance. At our Joint Security Stations, US and Iraqi forces and staffs work side by side, and we attempt to instill this flavor of operations, but it’s not easy to teach an old camel new tricks.



Pretty good breakdown Aquilla, that indeed spells out the strategy for the invasion. I am absolutely positive that the occupation has thus far failed, not for lack of troops, but for ignorant political decisions.

One last issue that I find repulsive is the theme of ‘winning vs. losing’. As exemplified by some of our posters and many people in general, it has taken on the feel of rooting for a sports team, or some absurd point of pride. Just as I’m sure there are some on the left that would like to see us ‘lose’ simply to further disgrace and embarrass the right, I believe that some on the right would see many more uniformed citizens die or be maimed needlessly, so they do not find themselves on the ‘losing team’. As much as I would like to see us achieve success in Iraq, its’ simply not worth my life.

This is not quite fair to the Democrats, is it? Except for the Republicans' filibustering in the Senate, there would have been a deadline for withdrawal well before this.

In one respect I do agree with you, however, and that is that the Congressional Democrats haven't been "man enough" to cut off funding for the war. Bush has no way to veto that -- just fail to pass the supplemental appropriations bill, and that's the end. That such an action would undermine "our troops" is mere rhetoric.




I fully agree with this, except that I very much doubt that there is anyone who wants to see more U.S. casualties, just because they're opposed to the war. I will say that I don't want to live in a world where any nation, even my own, can stomp around and use military power to inflict its will on the weak. Since I view the invasion of Iraq as part and parcel of such a stomping exercise, motivated not by anything noble but by the desire of some for even more power and wealth, I would have to say that yes, I do hope that this enterprise fails. I am certain for various reasons that it will, but I would prefer, rather than see all this killing continue even a short while, that the U.S. come to its senses and adbandon military adventurism in general, and the Iraq adventure in particular. Naturally I don't want to see Americans die, but it is worth pointing out that it is not I, nor is it anyone else on the left, who sent them out to do so -- and with so much vacuous cheering and flag-waving, and so little appreciation of the nature of war, thrown into the bargain.

We disagee, however, that the invasion failed due to unreasonable political interferance with the generals. There really is very little in the history of the war that supports that. I doubt very much that the wisest of leadership could have pacified Iraq with the troops and other means that we have had at our disposal. The very simple fact is, these people don't want us there, and many of them are willing to fight and die to kick us out.

I can understand your frustration at seeming like a pawn in the political fight that is happening right now. Don't blame you at all for that. Believe it or not I watched some of the Senate marathon last night on C-SPAN (yeah I was the one viewer) and Senator McCain brought up a good point about "winning and losing". He said something along the lines of "if we have lost, then who won?" Good question, and Senator McCain has certainly earned the right to ask that question.

Many people here and in the public eye have compared this war with Vietnam. That bothers me. It bothers me a lot. It bothers me because we were never in Vietnam to "win". We were only there to "fight". If that's why we are in Iraq, then we need to get the hell out of there tomorrow. That's why I posted this thread. There haven't been many responses to it, but I would like to personally invite you to supply your input, DTOM. If we aren't making progress towards an eventual goal, they we need to get out, and get out now. Not in 3 months or 6 months, but now. I don't personally believe we are at that point, but maybe I'm wrong and you're in a better position than I to determine that.

It seems to me that we need to define "winning" in this war. Not nebulous rhetoric, but specific indicators and goals. in Vietnam we were "fighting communism", but we were also enriching the pockets of corrupt dictators and other officials. We could offload a supply of M-16's and ammo at Da Nang only to find them being used against us the next day by the VC. Some corrupt ARVN captain had sold them to them. When Nguyen Kao Ky booked it out of Dodge, he brought a boatload of money with him and ended up opening a liquor store in Huntington Beach, California. I used to live in Huntington Beach and I went into that liquor store once. My thoughts ran along the lines of 'What in the HELL is this all about? 58,000 Americans died so this SOB could open a fricking liquor store?" I don't want our country to make that mistake again. So, we need to define specifics of why we're in Iraq. What do we hope to accomplish and how can we measure that? Some have claimed we've already "lost" but they've never defined what a "win" would be or at least concrete indicators of whether or not we're succeeding. I would prefer to hear that kind of debate over some of the political crap we're getting now (from both sides I will add).



Aquilla

I agree- one thing that has NEVER been done is to have a clear, empirical, definition of victory from ANYONE at this point. How can you "win" when you have no idea what a win is? And no way to measure it when you declare it?

I never met the man personally (would like to) but I have read a good deal about him.

My comment is based on reading analysis such as this:

“For all of these reasons, the president changed his strategy profoundly in January 2007, and appointed a new commander in General Petraeus and a new Ambassador in Ryan Crocker to oversee the new approach. This new approach focuses on establishing security in Baghdad and its immediate environs as the prerequisite for political progress”

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...3vtvls.asp?pg=1



I agree and the term “winning” cannot really apply since defining it is difficult at best. Certainly leaving Iraq with a democratic government aligned with the US and not at the beck and call Iran would be desirable. If the surge fails to allow the breathing space the government needs to make the necessary political accommodations then the outcome is less clear and the long term stability of Iraq is in question.

What outcome would you call a “success”. If we pull up stakes now what would happen in Iraq in the short term – in the long term? And how would it affect out notional interests?

First off I think you really meant to say "they" were never in Vietnam to win. It wasn't your war any more than Iraq is your war, unless you've served your country over there. I'm sure each GI in Vietnam and Iraq, under enemy fire, would think "what's this 'we' garbage?". Anyways according to the President at the time, Lyndon Johnson, the US was in Vietnam to win. And some could roll their eyes and wonder 'what possible goal could anyone have when they enter or initiate a war? To win. Not to achieve a stalemate as in Korea, that's obvious. I've seen some of Johnson's speeches.."we are going to, make no mistake about it, WIN *clap clap clap goes his partisan audience*.
http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archi....hom/640108.asp
By the way, for historical purposes, understand that the US did achieve their true goal and aim in the Vietnam War. Vietnam was trashed to the point where it will take 100 years to rebuild and regain what all was lost during the US attack on South Vietnam. Yes the US attacked South Vietnam. Unless a person considers these facts as an act of a concerned friend:
*The uprooting of massive amounts of people and placing them in 'hamlets' i.e. camps where they are forced to stay under primitive conditions (imagine what primitive means to a peasant Vietnamese farmer in relation to what it means to an affluent American) under the guise of keeping the population away from the evil VC/NVA who try to recruit them.
*Spraying 10% of your 'allies' territory with 72 million litres of chemicals, cancer-inducing chemicals such as Agent Purple and Agent Orange (66%). http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/VNchemical.htm
*Butchering women and babies while pictures are being taken<---displays an evil disregard for human life but even worse it proves they acted with relative impunity. Would you kill a baby and kids when a guy's got a camera in his hands for documentation purposes? Of course not. Your first thought would be to put down the gun and not shoot kids and babies while the camera's present.
*Dropping more bomb tonnage on an "ally" than was dropped during all of WW2, as in all theatres of the war. 7,078,032 tons in Vietnam, 2,057,244 tons in WW2. Even if you say "hey the US bombed North Vietnam too" it matters not, since even 50% less on South Vietnam is still far more than the tonnage during WW2.
To believe CrusingRam one has to trust that, reversely:
*Hypothetically, if the US was invaded by China, the releasing, by way of Chinese military aircraft, of millions and millions of litres of cancer inducing chemicals near-permanently destroying US vegetation and natural environments for generations to come...would be an act of an ally trying to help the American people, to protect them from the mean and enemy Americans.
*The dropping of bombs, by the Chinese, onto American targets inside the US itself, to the tune of 1000 pounds of bombs for every American living, is the act of an ally trying to save the Americans from other Americans, the mean ones, that is. That the Chinese weren't attacking the US, but just the Americans living there.
Anyways the fact is that the US' aim, at least for the ones fighting it, was to win the war and go home. Does CR really think that a military force goes to war only to fight...and keep fighting...and fight....and fight some more...and fight...and continue to fight....to go on fighting....Yeah right.

The fact that Congressional Democrats haven't had the balls to cut funding is why what he says is fair to the Democrats. They've turned a moral issue regarding appropriate use of our military into a political issue. The soldier's are no longer fighting to protect our country, they are fighting to protect themselves... we've left them hanging out there. Iraq will never be the democracy Bush wants it to be. That's a pipe dream. It appears that people voted to have their interests represented, sure, but those interests appeared to be getting some back on the people who treated them badly. And now, this democracy is going to take a month off. They haven't achieved a single "benchmark", but they're taking a month off. Nice. Why? Why are we wasting our soldiers' lives to help protect a government that has shown no real desire to establish itself as a real government? It seems to me to be about saving face. Some people have been saying from the get go that you can't force a democracy and the situtation in Iraq has only served as the poster child for that concept. The only significant benefit has been for those whose pockets are being filled at the expense of our military. These guys make a tough sacrifice to serve our country - a sacrifice I, myself, am unwilling to make (which is why I respect them all the more) - and it is a flat out abuse to use them in this way.

I meant "we". I am 54 years old, do the math TruthMarch. Vietnam was "my war" and guess what. Iraq is my war as well. I have a 20 year old nephew over there right now fighting against your so-called "freedom fighters" who blow up innocent civilians every day. So yeah, it's my war there too. "We" means different things depending on where you are at the time. If you are in the US, it's means your country with the hope that we're all in this together. If you're in a rice paddy in Vietnam or on patrol in Sadr City it means the guys standing and fighting next to you.



Aquilla

Dontreadonme



Fighting a war means you make the decisions necessary to win a war when they count the most especially when you see something isn't working.
For example DaytonRocker says we can't get more troops without a draft because some are starting their fifth tour. Now while I think we can manage with this, the point is we shouldn't be in this situation where we have troops that are over extended, its ridiculous to say the least. Look at this link of our new secretary of defense, Robert Gates, calling for an expansion in our overall ground forces by almost 100,000 soldiers.........

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washingt...ldup_in_troops/

Now they will meat this mark by 2012 but much of the relief from this will come sooner, 2 years to be exact if they go through with this which I think they will.
The decision to do this should have been made years ago, if it had been made at the start of the war or just prior to it we wouldn't be in this situation. The president knew that by removing Saddam the level of sectarian violence would increase resulting in a longer war than Desert Storm, now this doesn't mean we shouldn't have taken him out, it means we probably should have sent more support into Iraq after Saddam's capture when the violence started to incline. Granted we have sent some extra support, its just not enough, and I've been hearing comments like that from generals and soldiers on the ground in Iraq off the news for years now. This is what I'm talking about when I talk about strong leadership, and fighting a war to win the war. In comparison look at WW2, I'm no expert on WW2 but from what I do know it was a time of growth for this country as well as for our military. Things that we were incapable of doing militarily at the start of the war, we found a way to make work. I read much of the weaponry as well as ships and aircraft at the start of WW2 had changed little since WW1. However we did what we had to do, and made changes and advances as necessary.

Here in this war there is no struggle to compete with another nations technologies, we have gone above and beyond anyone in our military technologies, no question about it, yet as far as decision making goes after our initial success in Iraq its like we stopped fighting the war and sat in limbo wondering what to do. We went on defense. We need more troops in Iraq to win, and I'm not the only one saying this. here is Senator Joe Lieberman thoughts about this issue.....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6122801055.html





DaytonRocker


Thats just the thing though, I hear that all the time, Nobody wants to lose this war yet at the same time half the people that say that aren't willing to support winning it. We have skeptics primarily on the left by the millions, who don't want to support it because they honestly believe we cant win it, either that or they claim we shouldn't even try, there is no reason or motive, and while I'm asked time and time again to give one good reason to fight this war and answer accordingly every time, I wonder to myself why shouldn't we try and win it ? We made a commitment to offer a better way of life to millions by going in when we did in 2003. Saddam was evil, and that word is actually not enough to explain who that man was. He is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of people primarily by using WMD, and has even murdered people himself at point blank range for simply saying something he didn't like. He had much in common with Hitler in fact.

That alone, is reason enough to have gone to war, but beyond that we have the responsibility of ensuring Iraq remains an ally to the U.S. rather than a safe haven for extremist. We have never lost a war militarily, in Vietnam we lost our will. There is no reason we cant win this war, this is the most resourceful superpower on the planet. We can do whatever we want, and if your question then becomes why try and win, I'll answer by saying we are at war, we are not deciding whether or not to go to war. We are there, we made that decision in 2003 yet this country is more concerned about whether or not we should be at war than how to win the war, no wonder we are losing.




Don't get confused about his belief about this war, if he said that there is no military solution I sure would like to see the original context of that and I'm not doubting you, but I'm willing to bet that what he was implying was that there can be no military solution with the absence of diplomacy. For example look at this link from the New York Times dated 2007/01/23.............

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/23/world/mi...nyt&emc=rss

Doesn't sound like he is too against using military force to me, and he has never given me that impression before.



I agree with much of that



If by Hannity your talking about Hannity & Colmes on Fox, I catch that probably 2 or 3 times a week. The Democrats will take most of the blame if they take the presidency next year and surrender our troops, until then the most they can do is make things very difficult for Bush and if that leads to a loss in the next year, which I don't think it will, then they will certainly share the blame for a loss. However to say that this troop surge was just some ploy to shift the negative focus from Republicans to Democrats is not something I think is plausible.



Most of our soldiers are very proud of what they are doing, I think our leadership however should be strong and our decisions wise, to avoid putting these men in a dangerous situation any longer than necessary.

What is the price for this 'commitment'? I'm not speaking of dollars......What price are you willing to support in the pursuit of establishing a democratic Iraq? I personally believe that most Iraqi's have turned down the ballot box in favor of the Imam. More troops is not the answer to solve that problem. The surge may buy some time, and maybe has an ever so slight chance of turning the tide......but why is 'winning' in Iraq worth so many dead and maimed soldiers? Comparisons to WWII are meaningless........we don't have to be in Iraq......

Well, this is fairly interesting. General Patreus - the panacea of the Iraq War - apparently has some 'splaining to do. It seems in September of 2004, he wrote a piece stating:



None of that was or is true. He was clearly pimping Bush's "when they stand up, we'll stand down" policy of the month. This absurd surge strategy suddenly becomes more outrageous because the guy in charge is a BushBot who would have to say his previous statements were untrue for him to say the surge is not working. In other words, he will have to say the surge is working to vindicate his previous claims whether it's working or not. Otherwise, which story are we to believe?

This point has already been dealt with, you even agreed to the corrections presented previously, lord knows why you just return to repeating the same point now as though previous conversations had never happened.

This is a proposal put forward by gates, it has not passed Senate nor Congress, it has not even been fully drafted in final, it has not passed Committee approval, and in fact (as I explained with citation last time you brought it up) it was just recently put to the United States military for a feasability study estimated to take many months.

The point of this, of course, is that by your standards, no new troops will be ready for deployment for two years, in reality it will be closer to three years, IF the plan even gets put into action. So, two years or three years, why am I making such a big deal out of a year or less difference?

Because that means current troop levels, which will need to be REDUCED when this surge ends due to the strain it put on extended and premature deployment, will be the best case scenario for the next three years. So on top of the 4.6 years the war has been waged in a measurably losing manner, you suggest waiting another THREE years before there can be any significant atempt to increase troop levels and try and make a difference.

Mind you, in the PAST four years the number of active insurgents in Iraq has increased by about 800%, so can we presume the same will continue to happen? Not to mention more deaths, casualties and loss while the country fails to improve despite the best efforts of the men on the ground. Even those of the far right, when arguing FOR a surge 8 months ago, framed it as a 'last attempt to turn things around'. Well, the surge is not over, but so far there has been a complete failure to turn things around. So you will forgive me if you are greeted with a GREAT deal of skepticism when the best you can offer is maybe making another effort to increase troop levels significantly in about three years. THAT is assuming the plan is enacted, AND that is assuming that once enacted, the plan works (Many have commented that the plan requires a pool of active volunteers ready to don uniforms, which does not exist)

That gives us, not a solution, but a troop increase in three years. Except localised troop increases have been tried throughout the war (and in every other counter-insurgency in the modern era) and have all failed. So to those many and increasing numbers (both Right and Left) who think that the war is going somewhat or very badly (74% of Americans, according to recent Newsweek Poll), what do you have to offer except three years of bodybags, then More bodybags? Can you suggest a means whereby the losing status quo can be reversed? You offer many eloquent platitudes, but the issue comes down to, as the surge continues and the benchmarks continue to be missed, what possible good can come from throwing away more American lives and Treasure? What practical, honest hope can you possibly offer?

In the same newsweek poll, Americans were asked if they wanted troop levels increased, reduced or withdrawn completely: Only 12% called for an increase, as opposed to 29% decrease and 34% remove altogether. Can you say anything of [u]substance[/i] which would make wothwhile the deaths of More Americans? You have openly sated before that you don't care if 10,000 more Americans die (other than yourself) if it means victory, but apart from a somewhat scary willingness to kill Americans, you can't even offer a tangible means by which the deaths of the 10,000 US citoizens you are so willing to sacrifice COULD gain victory.




Forgive me, but these are the same platitudes you have been offering since you came on this board, despite repeated please to offer something more substantive. 'More troops' has never worked before, and is currently impossible. 'Strong leadership' is a rhetorical catchphrase that means nothing whatsoever.





No, sadly that is you (deliberately or accidentally) completely misrepresenting what everyone else is saying. This has nothing to do with people's lack of desire to win, nor their lack of desire to support winning. It has to do with the partially blind desire of a diminishing few on the far right to continue supporting defeat. I have no doubt you could offer good reasons why it would be good if the war were won: I could even offer a half dozen. That is not the debate, and has not been the debate for years. The issue is can it be won? 4.5 years of loss is a lot, and to pretend people are not willing to support trying to win is disingenuous at best. What has the US been doing for 4.5 years? Trying to lose? No they have been trying to win and failing. Now failure sticks in the craw of many, and that is natural of course, but a dislike of the term does not in any way affect its reality.

The question you are being asked again and again, and NOT answering (ever) is not why should the US win, but HOW can the US win at this stage? It is a question I ask you yet again, and still await a genuine response.

Lastly, 'trying to win' has so far cost about 32,000 US casualties and over half a trillion dollars. Please don't pretend that 'continuing to try' is an academic excersis, it is a bloody and costly excersise. Given the ENORMOUS cost of lives and money 'continuing to try', it is not unreasonable to ask if there is any actual reasonably obtainable positive outcome, and how you plan to get there. It is called a cost-benefit analysis. The cost is enormous, is there any benefit which can realistically be obtained? And how?





Well, technically he killed about 6-8000 people with one WMD, mustard gas, mostly Kurds and some Iranians. Just to be factually corect.

That is however an aside. In reality, I don't tink any such commitment was actually made, but even if it was it compares to the 'commitment' made to the people of South Vietnam. Commitments are great, but once the cost rises and the attainment of those commitments can no longer be reasonably expected, it is madness to simply assume throwing more bodies and billions of dollars down a hole are somehow necessary.



(We will ignore the US loss in the war of 1812 to keep the debate on-topic, again, just to be factually correct.)

No, the US lost the war in Vietnam, and because of the military loss, constant and unchanging, the complete lack of measurable progress in the war, and complete ability of the heavily-supported South Vietnamese regime to govern their people... given all that failure the will of the people to keep pouring more men and money into a useless hole eventually vanished. Vietnam was a military loss, no ifs ands or buts, but it tok a collapse of the home front to force the few reamining far-right wingers in the US at the time that throwing away more lives uselessly on a venture nobody could determine how to win was criminal negligence of the highest order.

You say the US can 'do whatever it wants'. Again, a pleasant sunding platitude. Perhaps you could be more specific (I ask again)? How is the US being withheld from winning right now? What do you suggest the US do right now to turn 4.5 years of loss around? Have you anything apart from rhetoric to offer?




I don't think the American people are that stupid. Given their near overwhelming desire to see a reduction in US forces in Iraq, given poll after poll after poll after poll that confirms their desire to see a concrete draw-down date, as well as the near-record lows in approval rating of the president and his handling of the war, I think people are smart enugh to know whose fault this debacle has been.




Are they? I'm sure they are proud to be Amercans in uniform, as they should be. But are they proud of their position in Iraq? Poll after poll consistently shows that the majority of US troops favour immediate or phased withdrawal from Iraq. Given the increased defections and unpopularity of the war even among Republicans, it seems more and more people, even on the right, are listening to them.

Vermillion




I think this plan will likely go through, given our circumstances over seas, but did specify here as well as where I mentioned it before that it has yet to do so, here is part of my last post you quoted that you conveniently left out to make your argument, please note the word underlined...............

Now they will meat this mark by 2012 but much of the relief from this will come sooner, 2 years to be exact if they go through with this which I think they will.

To create a position in a debater that is easily refutable is by definition the description of a Straw-Man argument. And you've mastered the technique, congrats.



Well you've been out for days, so you tell me through your PM's so what would you know about what I have presented, if you've looked, I suggest look again. I'm not the only one saying this, I got this idea from senators like Joe Liberman who have been to the middle east and talked to the Generals on the ground about this in specific. This is not some wild inconceivable tale, now while its fair to say many in congress and the senate disagree with this point, typically if you don't support a war, you don't support fighting a war by sending in troops, that makes sense. I support this war, and in turn support winning it though necessary means and I've heard countless times from many creditable sources, some of which I have already presented, that sending in more troops to obtain more security in places like baghdad is the right thing to do.





No I'm not deliberately or accidentally misunderstanding what people are saying, I wasn't being specific to anyone in particular when I made that comment but Ive been told by many liberals straight up, that we cant win this war, or we shouldn't try because they disagree with the motive behind it, and they have a right to that opinion, however I'll disagree with that if I do in fact disagree, what would you prefer I say? Ive heard from Most liberals that they agree we should fight the war in Iraq? I'm afraid I don't know what your getting at here, not only is that not what I've heard most liberals say, I am sure if I did say it that it would be an insult to the many liberals who don't believe it.



Actually Ive been asked both questions, and have always given a straight up answer. How do you win? For one you don't quit until you do win, and that above anything is most important. I'll continue below......



The spending has been outrageous with little result in recent years to boot, I'm not as sure as I was "once upon a time" that Bush knows what he is doing anymore. However I believe this war is very important and that it can be won, and Ive explained why I believe this to you already, how many times in other forums by now? I'm not going over it again, and you can believe what you wish Vermillion, but nothing you ever at any time presented me with was ever proof this war cant be won. There is no such proof, only the 101 reasons why we are in a very difficult situation....... the CIA believes we went in under faulty intelligence, and the opinions of dozens of liberal members of congress who share your point of view and I've heard all this already, and even agree with some points.







...And what you just said is whats factually correct? Are you surrrre about that? That He killed 6 to 8 thousand people with one WMD? I know the casualties were Kurds and Iranians as Ive said, but I'm going to cross reference you on that figure you just gave. I hate to have to elaborate on a side issue, but you brought up my apparent lack of knowledge on something I was brief on earlier for that very reason so lets look at this, shall we?

by the way when I say "I was short on this before for that very reason", I'm referring to that reason being its a side issue, not my lack of knowledge. I Just reread that and figured you might try and take advantage of it, call me crazy but it wouldn't surprise me.

Here are Four links total, the First is from WIKI an impartial online encyclopedia as you know.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weap...ass_destruction


From this WIKI link this is a list of WMD/chemical attacks made by Iraq from 83' to 91' I had to space it with periods to get it to look more legible but its available at the link as well as other info. note that the chemicals listed here are among those I mentioned before as well as the dates, the death figure I gave considers the casualties mentioned here as well death reports from other sites, some which I'll share TONIGHT to put this silliness to rest, as you actually do this often.





Next link
This is an interesting article I looked up this evening just to see what else I could find, it's called "How Many People Has Saddam Hussein Killed?" while it does go into the iran-iraq war a bit, it actually covers a number of circumstances Saddam has killed beyond that particular war. This source seemed creditable enough and the author realistic, facts such as these are in numerous locations.

http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/ajan/27_saddam.html

From this link lets look at some quotes, for starters, something else I had mentioned was that many murders of Saddam's were very direct, and he had personally executed people. The first quote here backs this some, although I first remember hearing this out the mouth of Saddams former military adviser years ago. The second quote from the link is war related, but it can all be read at the link.


There are rituals to make the end as terrible as possible, not only for the victims but for those who survive. After seizing power in July 1979, Mr. Hussein handed weapons to surviving members of the ruling elite, then joined them in personally executing 22 comrades who had dared to oppose his ascent.................


DOING the arithmetic is an imprecise venture. The largest number of deaths attributable to Mr. Hussein's regime resulted from the war between Iraq and Iran between 1980 and 1988, which was launched by Mr. Hussein. Iraq says its own toll was 500,000, and Iran's reckoning ranges upward of 300,000. Then there are the casualties in the wake of Iraq's 1990 occupation of Kuwait. Iraq's official toll from American bombing in that war is 100,000 was surely a gross exaggeration but nobody contests that thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians were killed in the American campaign to oust Mr. Hussein's forces from Kuwait. In addition, 1,000 Kuwaitis died during the fighting and occupation in their country.

Casualties from Iraq's gulag are harder to estimate. Accounts collected by Western human rights groups from Iraqi émigrés and defectors have suggested that the number of those who have "disappeared" into the hands of the secret police, never to be heard from again, could be 200,000.

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Vermillion it sounds like to me that your talking about one event, I'm talking about exactly what I originally said I was talking about and thats, "that man is responsible for the deaths of 10's of thousands" many of them very unjustifiably in fact, and I think that is a conservative estimate considering all Ive read.
Good enough?

Here is another two links on this, both are credible but I'll only mention some of the About.com link to prevent this from becoming too long.

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/internati...dam_hussein.htm
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/09/iraq-000918.htm

This portion of the About.com link mentions the abduction of 8,000 members of Barzani's clan including men women and children, most of whom were killed. I'll end this point by saying this alone equates to the number you gave, not to mention everything else he has done, and as you so often say Vermillion, please do some research. In fact, Ironically I think that was the point you were trying to make here, by attempting to say my original figure was largely overshot or factually incorrect, hmm. If anything it was a very conservative figure.

The about link list more than the part quoted below, talking about thousands of other deaths he is responsible for,
I don't know maybe you were talking about the number of deaths he was tried for or something, personally I don't know where you got that figure but its not what I've read. The truth is much like the Iraq war death toll we will never know how many deaths he is responsible for because the figure is very high and does have some unknowns but thats the first time Ive actually heard a figure that low Vermillion..........

from About.com "link above"

The Barzani Clan Abductions of 1983: Masoud Barzani led the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), an ethnic Kurdish revolutionary group fighting Baathist oppression. After Barzani cast his lot with the Iranians in the Iran-Iraq War, Hussein had some 8,000 members of Barzani's clan, including hundreds of women and children, abducted. It is assumed that most were slaughtered; thousands have been discovered in mass graves in southern Iraq.

four links Vermillion, that together show he was likely responsible for much more death than the figure you used not to debate the topic, but in attempt to discredit me as you often have done on this site. Two of which were from highly regarded websites for posting non pardison facts "About.com, and Wikipedia.org" the other two were well written articles that used a number of notable sources. I think thats good enough, but its nice to know how fact oriented you truly are, so lets get back to the issue of troops, instead of your false assumption I was presenting non factual information about Saddam, but something tells me you are not finished talking more about the credibility of my comments and less about what I was implying by using such comments, I don't know call it a hunch but we've talked much before.



Wow, ok hunch confirmed, that didnt take long it was only one paragraph away, lol
This is off topic, as you said yourself, but since your being factually correct again, where aparently I was not, again I'll have you know Ive read the war of 1812 was very unpopular, fighting a battle overseas at the time was not near as easy considering the long distances being such a factor at the time. It was ultimately this lack of popularity that brought this war to an end before James Monroe had the chance to develop a working strategy. Its perhaps controversial but I would prefer sticking to this war, but to put it shortly from what I've read we lost our will their as well, but this is irrelevant because the U.S. was no where near as resourceful at that time as we are today, and they had every reason to be discouraged. The U.S. today is the strongest nation in the world in many ways, we can win this war if we had the willpower, or even the conviction to do so, but we are divided, and I don't think this country knows what it wants to do at this point.




And you, no doubt, will say the same thing about this war if we pull ourselves out of Iraq next year, no doubt in my mind. I don't want to get into Vietnam but we had our successes their as well, particularly in the air, but I'll tell you right now that this war is much more important and relevant to America than Vietnam ever was, and I'm not just talking about Iraq, I'm talking about The War on Terror as a whole, its important for a number of reasons I've explained on this site in detail numerous times.



LOL, Nothing that wont be deemed rhetoric to you, nope. The simplest answer to what it is that withholds us from winning?, is our own d