TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Another dumbass politician likens Iraq to Vietnam ... oh wait it's Bush

Another dumbass politician likens Iraq to Vietnam ... oh wait it's Bush

quote:

Bush Accepts Iraq-Vietnam Comparison George Stephanopoulos Interviews President Bush on Iraq, the Midterms and His Legacy WASHINGTON, Oct. 18, 2006 � President Bush said in a one-on-one interview with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos that a newspaper column comparing the current fighting in Iraq to the 1968 Tet offensive in Vietnam, which was widely seen as the turning point in that war, might be accurate. Stephanopoulos asked whether the president agreed with the opinion of columnist Tom Friedman, who wrote in The New York Times today that the situation in Iraq may be equivalent to the Tet offensive in Vietnam almost 40 years ago. "He could be right," the president said, before adding, "There's certainly a stepped-up level of violence, and we're heading into an election." "George, my gut tells me that they have all along been trying to inflict enough damage that we'd leave," Bush said. "And the leaders of al Qaeda have made that very clear. Look, here's how I view it. First of all, al Qaeda is still very active in Iraq. They are dangerous. They are lethal. They are trying to not only kill American troops, but they're trying to foment sectarian violence. They believe that if they can create enough chaos, the American people will grow sick and tired of the Iraqi effort and will cause government to withdraw." Bush said he could not imagine any circumstances under which all U.S. troops would be withdrawn from Iraq before the end of his presidency. "You mean every single troop out? No," he told Stephanopoulos. Bush also had some tough words for Democrats, saying that pulling troops from Iraq would be the equivalent of surrender. "If we were to leave before the job is done, in my judgment, the al Qaeda would find a safe haven from which to attack. This is exactly what they said," Bush said. The president insisted he was not disparaging his opponents. "It's not questioning their patriotism. I think it's questioning their judgment," he said. When asked whether the midterm elections are a referendum on Iraq, the President replied, "I think they're a referendum, from my perspective, which is kind of like your perspective, which is the Washington perspective, based upon: who best to secure this country from further attack and who best to help this economy continue to grow. The truth of the matter is, as you well know, most elections are very local elections. Sometimes those issues are salient, but sometimes there's other issues at the local level as well." "I'm not on the ballot," Bush said. "This set of elections is much different from a presidential election year." Stephanopoulos pointed out that 72 Democrats running for the House had used Bush in their campaign ads. "Are they saying good things?" Bush joked. "Look, maybe that strategy will work; maybe it won't work. I've always found that when a person goes in to vote, they're going to want to know what that person's going to do. What is the plan for a candidate on Iraq? What do they believe?" Bush said he reads "every casualty." "The hardest part of the presidency is to meet with families who've lost a loved one," he said. October is shaping up to be one of the bloodiest months in Iraq since the war began, and the president assessed the situation somberly: "I'm patient. I'm not patient forever. But I recognize the degree of difficulty of the task, and therefore, say to the American people, we won't cut and run." On the issue of North Korea, said bluntly that if the rogue nation sold nuclear missiles to Iran or al Qaeda, "They'd be held to account." Stephanopoulos noted that after last week's latest nuclear missile test out of North Korea, the president referred to the country as a "grave threat," a phrase Bush has used only once during his six years in office, in reference to Iraq before the U.S. invasion of that country. He asked the president what he means by that phrase now. "Well, time they find out, George," Bush said. "One of the things that's important for these world leaders to hear is, you know, we will use means necessary to hold them to account. "If we get intelligence that they're about to transfer a nuclear weapon, we would stop the transfer, and we would deal with the ships that were taking the � or the airplane that was dealing with taking the material to somebody," he said. "My point is that I want the leader to understand � the leader of North Korea to understand that he'll be held to account," Bush said. "Just like he's being held to account now for having run a test." Bush also suggested that China may be more committed to the recent round of U.N. sanctions than it has let on in public statements. "I'm getting a little different picture from Condi [Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice]," he said. "They don't particularly want to board ships. But, on the other hand, if there's good intelligence, they'll work with us on that intelligence. They're inspecting cargoes coming across their border." He insisted China was not "half committed" to the sanctions. Moving away from the controversial issues likely to play a critical role in the 2006 midterms, Stephanopoulos asked the two-term incumbent which personal quality is going to be important for the next president. "Determination and compassion," Bush said. When asked what advice he might have for his successor, Bush told ABC News, "Stand on principle." Tune in to "Nightline," "Good Morning America" and "This Week," and check back at www.abcnews.com for more of George Stephanopoulos' one-on-one interview with President Bush. http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=2583579&page=1

Now brace yourselfs for the republican backspin that this comparison is a-ok because the US and ARVN forces won the "military" part of the 1968 Tet ofensive. Not only is it extremely doubtful as to whether we're winning militarily (outside of the green zone), but even the corp has aknowledged that victory is dependant upon winning the political battle within Iraq ... something that we're losing.

Re: Another dumbass politician likens Iraq to Vietnam ... oh wait it's Bush

Ahead of the curve again. Heres when I compared it to the tet offensive in 2005.
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...263#post4364210

quote:

Originally posted by occrider but even the corp has aknowledged that victory is dependant upon winning the political battle within Iraq ... something that we're losing.

Yeah, I'll say. We're not losing the political battle in Iraq, its lost, gone. The only conceivable way we could think to gain political ground is if somehow we gain a military advantage and the region stabilizes significantly.

Re: Re: Another dumbass politician likens Iraq to Vietnam ... oh wait it's Bush

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 Ahead of the curve again. Heres when I compared it to the tet offensive in 2005. http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...263#post4364210

Are we winning militarily today as was the case in the tet offensive? Are we making an impact on the strength of insurgent attacks?

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Are we winning militarily today as was the case in the tet offensive?

not in the case of Tet. Tet required the NVA to take over militarily the South as opposed to winning over the hearts and minds thru insurgency, which they failed at as well. in Iraq, we have yet to see the insurgency win over the hearts and minds. something we'll never see.

as in Iraq, "post" Tet relied heavily on spreading negative propaganda through the various media. it worked. we didn't regain pre early '68 Indochina territory until 3 to 4 years later. by then it was too late and the NVA were entrenched.

quote:

Are we making an impact on the strength of insurgent attacks?

we have to be. the insurgency, no doubt, would like orders of magnitude more coalition deaths to be effective.


Bush has made news by "accepting" the comparison which, in itself, shouldn't be news, however the comparison is accurate.

i doubt Stephanopolous in his game of gotcha even thought it that through.

Re: Re: Another dumbass politician likens Iraq to Vietnam ... oh wait it's Bush

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 Yeah, I'll say. We're not losing the political battle in Iraq, its lost, gone.

wow, to you maybe. don't tell the Iraqi government that.

quote:

The only conceivable way we could think to gain political ground is if somehow we gain a military advantage and the region stabilizes significantly.

BRILLIANT!

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo not in the case of Tet. Tet required the NVA to take over militarily the South as opposed to winning over the hearts and minds thru insurgency, which they failed at as well. in Iraq, we have yet to see the insurgency win over the hearts and minds. something we'll never see. as in Iraq, "post" Tet relied heavily on spreading negative propaganda through the various media. it worked. we didn't regain pre early '68 Indochina territory until 3 to 4 years later. by then it was too late and the NVA were entrenched.

Right, the tet offensive was a smashing military success for the US in the sense that the VC were operationally crippled and they failed to achieve any of there objectives. Despite this huge military success it was a political failure in that it was a huge propaganda coup. My point is that in Iraq we�re not even winning militarily. We�re not crippling the insurgencies operational capacity, and as a matter of fact, military intelligence is acknowledging that we�ve lost certain provinces to the insurgency. The goal of the insurgency isn�t to win the hearts and minds. That much should be obvious by who the majority of their victims are. All the insurgency needs to do to win is foment sectarian strife to the point of civil war. A goal that they seem to be making far more progress towards achieving than our ability to win the �hearts and minds�.

quote:

we have to be. the insurgency, no doubt, would like orders of magnitude more coalition deaths to be effective.

Oh? So attacks are diminishing? Less troops are dying? Last I heard 10 of our boys died yesterday. Last I heard, the past 2 months have been particularly deadly. Let me rephrase my question � I�m not asking if we�re killing insurgents, are we depleting more of them than they are recruiting such that there will be a tangible drop in attacks?

quote:

Bush has made news by "accepting" the comparison which, in itself, shouldn't be news, however the comparison is accurate. i doubt Stephanopolous in his game of gotcha even thought it that through.

Tet was the turning point to which America lost the Vietnam war, the beginning of the end so to speak. For Bush to agree to such a comparison is rather stunning, particularly if he were to understand the historical depth of the comparison. However, in his defense, I shouldn�t give him the credit for thinking that through.

Propaganda-wise, I think the Americans should have done more to separate the insurgency and the free Iraqi people.
You certainly don't get that sense of separation at times, especially when we even have people here somehow equating extremist Islamic jihad with freedom fighting and American Imperialism with Nazi Germany

If they could only help explain to the Iraqi people how much better off they'd be without the insurgents rather than letting the people figure it out for themselves, this war would have gone a lot better than it has up to this point.

It's obvious the people don't know WHAT to think (for the most part) and are almost willing to go back to what they knew because they don't know anything different.
Sad really.

Although I hug lots of trees and spout hate propaganda in my weekly parades down hippie lane here in my college town, I wasn't really one to make very many comparisons between Vietnam and this current mess of a war. I know a lot of Lefties made that comparison over the years, but I always saw them as two different situations (although granted I did find some similarities).

So I think what Occ said is correct about Bush - I don't think he really understood the depth of his words in terms of the comparison historically. If he did it is truly mindboggling that he would in essence make the argument for the rest of my fellow tree-hugging hippie anti-war bretheren. But to his credit, I think he's finally coming around and making it known public that some other direction or strategery has to at the very least be entertained. Whether or not he actually listens to Baker, Murtha, Powell, or anyone else with some insight on the matter is another issue.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 But to his credit, I think he's finally coming around and making it known public that some other direction or strategery has to at the very least be entertained. Whether or not he actually listens to Baker, Murtha, Powell, or anyone else with some insight on the matter is another issue.

To his credit??? Really Opus I'm surprised you even give him that much latitude. I mean christ, virtually every realpolitik foreign policy expert knows that the Bush "stay the course" strategy is, and has been, a failed strategy. What more evidence does one really need? Just do a search of TA posts and that's only a tip of the iceberg.

So between marine intelligence reports acknowledging defeat in Anbar province, between former strategic and tactical commanders who outline administration incompetance, between overly "pessimistic" reports reports by "cut and run" senior intelligence committee democrats, between the serious concerns of senior senatorial republicans, between former high level Bush administration officials who have cried wolf, between the uptick in sectarian violence/insurgent attacks/american casualties/iraqi deaths, between evidence of a continually ineffective Iraqi government, between the lack of any indication of US troops drawing down as Iraqi troops stand up,despite etc., etc., etc. ... we're supposed to give Bush CREDIT for being nearly the last person on Earth (his army of trailing sycophants need a few days to wait for the updated talking points to come out) to realise his strategy has failed???

And for those still doubting that that his strategy has failed ... wow what can I say ... this news story should be unsurprising to nearly every one of us:

quote:

Major Change Expected In Strategy for Iraq War By Michael Abramowitz and Thomas E. Ricks Washington Post Staff Writers Friday, October 20, 2006; Page A01 The growing doubts among GOP lawmakers about the administration's Iraq strategy, coupled with the prospect of Democratic wins in next month's midterm elections, will soon force the Bush administration to abandon its open-ended commitment to the war, according to lawmakers in both parties, foreign policy experts and others involved in policymaking. Senior figures in both parties are coming to the conclusion that the Bush administration will be unable to achieve its goal of a stable, democratic Iraq within a politically feasible time frame. Agitation is growing in Congress for alternatives to the administration's strategy of keeping Iraq in one piece and getting its security forces up and running while 140,000 U.S. troops try to keep a lid on rapidly spreading sectarian violence. On the campaign trail, Democratic candidates are hammering Republican candidates for backing a failed Iraq policy, and GOP defense of the war is growing muted. A new NBC-Wall Street Journal poll released this week showed that voters are more confident in Democrats' ability to handle the Iraq war than the Republicans' -- a reversal from the last election. Few officials in either party are talking about an immediate pullout of U.S. combat troops. But interest appears to be growing in several broad ideas. One would be some kind of effort to divide the country along regional lines. Another, favored by many Democrats, is a gradual withdrawal of troops over a set period of time. A third would be a dramatic scaling-back of U.S. ambitions in Iraq, giving up on democracy and focusing only on stability. Many senior Republicans with close ties to the administration also believe that essential to a successful strategy in Iraq are an aggressive new diplomatic initiative to secure a Middle East peace settlement and a new effort to engage Iraq's neighbors, such as Syria and Iran, in helping stabilize the country -- perhaps through an international conference. One point on which adherents of these sharply different approaches appear to agree is that "staying the course" is fast becoming a dead letter. "I don't believe that we can continue based on an open-ended, unconditional presence," said Sen. Olympia J. Snowe, a centrist Maine Republican. "I don't think there's any question about that, that there will be a change" in the U.S. strategy in Iraq after next month's elections. Richard N. Haass, a former Bush administration foreign policy official, told reporters yesterday that the situation is reaching a "tipping point" both in Iraq and in U.S. politics. "More of essentially the same is going to be a policy that very few people are going to be able to support," said Haass, now the president of the Council on Foreign Relations. He added that the administration's current Iraq strategy "has virtually no chance of succeeding" and predicted that "change will come." Many Senate Republicans are waiting for the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel co-chaired by former secretary of state James A. Baker III, a Republican, and former Indiana representative Lee H. Hamilton, a Democrat. Both Baker and Hamilton have made it clear that they do not see the current administration Iraq policy as working -- though they don't plan to issue recommendations until well after the midterm elections, probably in early January. Many foreign policy experts believe that the commission could sway President Bush more than most such study groups because of Baker's close ties to the Bush family. In an interview this week, Hamilton said there is no "silver bullet" to turning the situation around in Iraq but said frustration is clearly rising over the current course. "I can't walk out the door without someone handing me a recommendation," he said. Sen. John E. Sununu (R-N.H.), a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said he is open to "significant changes" in the U.S. approach and is hoping the Iraq Study Group can supply them. "I don't think anyone in the administration is pleased about the current state of affairs," he said. "I would hope that members of the administration are willing to learn from past mistakes . . . and choose a different path that would allow us to meet our objectives." How open Bush will be to a change in course is unclear, even as the violence escalates -- this week has been one of the bloodiest for the Americans in Baghdad in months. In recent remarks about Iraq, Bush has sounded a more flexible tone, saying he is open to suggestions for changes and emphasizing that his commanders adjust tactics constantly. He has repeatedly made it clear that U.S. patience with the new Iraqi government is not open-ended. White House officials describe the current turmoil over Iraq policy in Washington as an expected byproduct of the upsurge in violence. Press secretary Tony Snow yesterday dismissed a dramatic about-face in policy -- such as a division of the country or phased withdrawal -- as a "non-starter" and called the idea that the White House will seek a course correction in Iraq "a bunch of hooey." Bush has been adamant that the United States will not withdraw its troops until the Iraqi government can defend itself. Like many who have met with the president in recent months to discuss Iraq policy, author and military expert Robert Kaplan said he detected clear limits to Bush's flexibility. "He seemed genuinely to enjoy the challenges to his policy that we threw at him," Kaplan said, describing a session Bush held with several outside strategists at Camp David in June. "He wasn't at all defensive. He appeared open to any new direction or tactic, except withdrawal, and yet that is what he might be faced with after November." Along with the political debate, there also is growing frustration inside the U.S. military over Iraq, with some officers debating privately whether the situation there is salvageable. In recent weeks, senior military officers have offered a torrent of negative comments, a sharp contrast to the official optimism of the past three years. "We're obviously very concerned about what we're seeing" in Baghdad, Army Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell, the top U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, said yesterday. He indicated that changes to a plan to restore security to the capital are being considered. "We find the insurgent elements, the extremists, are in fact punching back hard," Caldwell said. In recent days, the demand for change on Iraq has been especially notable from inside the president's party: Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, returned from a trip to Iraq saying that country was adrift and all options should be considered. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, a conservative Republican from Texas, said this week that she is willing to consider the wisdom of somehow breaking up Iraq. Until now, Democrats' calls for withdrawing troops have been largely irrelevant, but if Democrats take one or both houses of Congress next month, their views could become significant in shaping strategy. Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), who would take over the chairmanship of the Armed Services Committee, said he favors beginning a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops that "gives the Iraqis notice that they're going to be looking into the abyss" unless they make necessary changes. One version of this option was presented to House Democrats last month by former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, who outlined a four-step plan that would include a joint declaration by the U.S. and Iraqi governments on a timeline for the departure of U.S. troops, a follow-up international conference on stabilizing Iraq and a greater focus on economic reconstruction. Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), who is campaigning to become the new majority leader should Democrats take power, said many in his caucus like the idea behind the Brzezinski plan, though perhaps not all the specifics. "The Iraqis have to understand that there is a time frame," he said. "Our commitment is substantial, but it is not unending." People familiar with the work of the Iraq Study Group say it is also mulling a variant of the gradual withdrawal idea that would move U.S. troops out of Iraq but leave a residual force in the region to keep the violence from spreading and Iraq's neighbors from meddling. Another idea getting a closer look is a new power-sharing agreement that would give more power to autonomous regions -- Kurdish in the north, Sunni in the middle and Shiite in the south -- while weakening the central government. This idea is most closely identified with Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.), the senior Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, and Leslie H. Gelb, a former president of the Council on Foreign Relations. Because there is no oil in what would be the Sunni-controlled area, Biden and Gelb envision some sort of scheme to share oil revenue with the Sunnis to get them to agree to such a plan. Biden said yesterday that if the Democrats win big in next month's elections, "You have a lot of Republicans who are going to openly join Democrats and will push back hard against the president." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...mail/components

And the GOP has known it's been a failed strategy for some time. Yet neither they or Bush are going to affect any change prior to the election which is simply dispicable because our countrymen are dying because of politics. FFS Fox news even called them out on it:



Thank you gop for giving us the least competant government money can buy.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider My point is that in Iraq we�re not even winning militarily. We�re not crippling the insurgencies operational capacity, and as a matter of fact, military intelligence is acknowledging that we�ve lost certain provinces to the insurgency. The goal of the insurgency isn�t to win the hearts and minds. That much should be obvious by who the majority of their victims are. All the insurgency needs to do to win is foment sectarian strife to the point of civil war. A goal that they seem to be making far more progress towards achieving than our ability to win the �hearts and minds�.

the evidence you have of the Coalition losing militarily is that we've taken losses. so now what? if, historically, we fought wars in that manner then the world today would be in much sadder shape than you would suggest. i can't wrap my mind around that mentality, sorry.
all i can say is prepare for more loss...while we prepare for more triumph.

if the goal then of the insurgency is to "not win hearts and minds" like you say, but is to "forment enough strife" to breed a civil war, which you also say they are making progess towards, then i see those two as one in the same. you're being contradictory.

fact. there isn't enough "strife". they don't have the "hearts and minds". we take the battle to them everyday on our terms. we mourn the losses. we help the people. we are winning.

there isn't any credibility to the people who kidnap torture and kill others, and blow up others to forment anything when the peaceful Iraqis know whats better for them. they do. thats why Occrider can only admit to a "possible" civil war right now.

quote:

However, in his defense, I shouldn�t give him the credit for thinking that through.

clever but wrong. if what you say is true then the President would have to have no knowledge of Tet at all because the only signifigance of Tet was just that. "the beginning of the end". highly unlikely. i learned of Tet Offensive in grade school. if one could address the context of Tet in a way to compare it to today like Stephanopolous did and someone correctly agreed to the comparison, then that someone has a better grasp at the history of Tet than what should be given credit for.

Does this not really speak levels about the timing of this change of heart? Like what Occ said, this idea is nothing new, the horse on the failed Iraq strategy has been beaten well past death for some time. All of a sudden the very people who were starkly against this beating begin to change their minds when we're three weeks away from the elections that continue to have a very dismal look for the republicans. When everything was considered, not the body counts, not the increasing violence, not the enormous dissent, no person or people, could get these people to face reality. The one and only thing that could get them to turn their heads was the jeopardy of their power. And we're supposed to give them credit? Yeah, fuck that. Any change of heart at this point is merely their admission of its complete failure.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo the evidence you have of the Coalition losing militarily is that we've taken losses. so now what? if, historically, we fought wars in that manner then the world today would be in much sadder shape than you would suggest. i can't wrap my mind around that mentality, sorry. all i can say is prepare for more loss...while we prepare for more triumph.

Ummm no what I said was this:

quote:

My point is that in Iraq we�re not even winning militarily. We�re not crippling the insurgencies operational capacity, and as a matter of fact, military intelligence is acknowledging that we�ve lost certain provinces to the insurgency.

I could care less about the number of deaths in the grand scheme of things if we were acheiving our goals. Why can't you, of all people, wrap your mind around this mentality? You don't have to go to west point to understand the differences between tactical and strategic victories.

quote:

if the goal then of the insurgency is to "not win hearts and minds" like you say, but is to "forment enough strife" to breed a civil war, which you also say they are making progess towards, then i see those two as one in the same. you're being contradictory.

Huh? Why are you twisting my words around to obfuscate the issue? I'm not saying that their goal is to lose hearts and minds. I'm saying their goal is sectarian strife. An environment that provides the perfect breeding ground for Al-Qaeda recruiting, an Islamic fundamentalist state, and to get rid of foreign troops.

quote:

fact. there isn't enough "strife". they don't have the "hearts and minds". we take the battle to them everyday on our terms. we mourn the losses. we help the people. we are winning.

Wow that's some "fact" that. Understand these simple concepts. We're spending billions of dollars a day to simply keep the country from blowing up. We're not effectively reducing the number of attacks. We're not safeguarding the population. We're not preventing sectarian strife. Some 3000 civilians have died in the past 2 months alone ... some of the highest levels since invasion. The violence has only increased in the past several months. The insurgency need only to keep the status quo to defeat us when in fact they're making gains. We can't keep this up indefinitly unless you're supporting major tax increases ... you really consider this winning?

quote:

there isn't any credibility to the people who kidnap torture and kill others, and blow up others to forment anything when the peaceful Iraqis know whats better for them. they do. thats why Occrider can only admit to a "possible" civil war right now.

What the fuck is this? Look asshole, who the fuck are you talking to? One minute you're responding to my statements and in the next fucking instance you're making a campaign speech. If you have something to say in response to my arguments than say it to me. Or as you would say it, it's typical that Q5echo would set up straw man arguments and assign those beliefs to me and then pathetically bash me for a flaccid argument that he himself created ...

quote:

clever but wrong. if what you say is true then the President would have to have no knowledge of Tet at all because the only signifigance of Tet was just that. "the beginning of the end". highly unlikely. i learned of Tet Offensive in grade school. if one could address the context of Tet in a way to compare it to today like Stephanopolous did and someone correctly agreed to the comparison, then that someone has a better grasp at the history of Tet than what should be given credit for.

What? Tet wasn't a turning point of the war?

Out of curriosity have you been drinking? Not to be a grammar nazi but your punctuation seems off tonight.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Huh? Why are you twisting my words around to obfuscate the issue? I'm not saying that their goal is to lose hearts and minds. I'm saying their goal is sectarian strife. An environment that provides the perfect breeding ground for Al-Qaeda recruiting, an Islamic fundamentalist state, and to get rid of foreign troops.

if their goal is to breed civil war through sectarian strife then a fair amount of "hearts and minds" would, no doubt, be needed. thats what i am saying. one cannot be had without the other. they don't have it. they're not going to get it the way they are going about it.

this doesn't include the psychotic criminal element to all of this killing because some of these people are just plain murderous without any prejudice other than some thin excuse for a religion. it should be hard to find fault with someone who would underestimate that brutality like a lot of people did in the coalition, but not impossible of course.

quote:

Understand these simple concepts. We're spending billions of dollars a day to simply keep the country from blowing up.

understood. that should be lowest priority.

quote:

We're not effectively reducing the number of attacks.

understood. we are with respect to what the enemy would want in effect to achieve their goal strategically.. the second we conceed their attacks to be effective strategically we adjust.

quote:

We're not safeguarding the population.

understood. we must continue our efforts to train the native forces civilian and military. we have made serious strides in this area and continue to foster this effort as best as anyone can do or have done before.

quote:

We're not preventing sectarian strife.

understood. because ultimately, this will be a problem that only Iraqis can solve not just militarily or from a law enforcement perspective, but politically. the political structure is there backed by a popular set of laws and the support structure of other moderate Arab countries, it just needs some time and courageous politicians to invoke.

quote:

Some 3000 civilians have died in the past 2 months alone ... some of the highest levels since invasion. The violence has only increased in the past several months.

understood. and there will be more violence. some fights are just hard.

quote:

The insurgency need only to keep the status quo to defeat us when in fact they're making gains.

understood. i attribute those gains to the ongoing and gradual process of handing territories over to the Iraqi forces. i have no doubt that we will need to turn those certain territories over again as we adjust.

quote:

We can't keep this up indefinitly unless you're supporting major tax increases

understood. i'm not supportive of tax increases.

quote:

What the fuck is this? Look asshole

it's true. all you can offer is the possibility of civil war. your a f**kin genius! well, i suppose its a step above simply wishing it to come true? could you be given at least that much credit?

quote:

Tet wasn't a turning point of the war?

for many reasons it was, but not the only one.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 So I think what Occ said is correct about Bush - I don't think he really understood the depth of his words in terms of the comparison historically.

he understood Tet enough to agree with the comparison of the two to be similar in enemy tactics to achieve similar goals. the Tet comparison has been around for a while. even the Mujahaden has advertised Tet's effect on the US war effort. so it's not like this is new to anyone in the Administration.

quote:

If he did it is truly mindboggling that he would in essence make the argument for the rest of my fellow tree-hugging hippie anti-war bretheren.

then you and your bretheren should be careful in just comparing Tet's signifigance in Vietnam without considering it's failures.

to the president's credit, when has he ever said this will ultimately our demise just like Tet?

quote:

But to his credit, I think he's finally coming around and making it known public that some other direction or strategery has to at the very least be entertained. Whether or not he actually listens to Baker, Murtha, Powell, or anyone else with some insight on the matter is another issue.

he'll never listen to Murtha.

Don't skip over or pick and choose arguments you would like to address. Do you understand the difference between tactical and strategic victories/objectives?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo if their goal is to breed civil war through sectarian strife then a fair amount of "hearts and minds" would, no doubt, be needed. thats what i am saying. one cannot be had without the other. they don't have it. they're not going to get it the way they are going about it.

Why are you engaging in semantic arguments with me? Al-Qaeda does not have to do anything to win the "hearts and minds" because they've already won it. The Sunnis have been deposed from power, the Sunnis are concentrated in oil poor areas. The Shias with decades long emnitiy with Sunnis are in complete power. You think they need to make any more efforts to win their hearts and minds? Are you trying to tell me they need to win the hearts and minds of Sunnis and Shias to foment sectarian strife? Are you saying that insurgent groups are failing at acheiving their goals of sectarian strife? Well than why the fuck has the military acknowledged failure?

quote:

this doesn't include the psychotic criminal element to all of this killing because some of these people are just plain murderous without any prejudice other than some thin excuse for a religion. it should be hard to find fault with someone who would underestimate that brutality like a lot of people did in the coalition, but not impossible of course.

What are you talking about? Of course insurgents are murderous ... what about it? This is irrelevant to our discussion, it doesn't speak to any point I'm making, so again, who are you talking to? Are you running for office or something and you need speaking points you can look to in an ad?

quote:

understood. that should be lowest priority.

But you're not supportive of a tax increase as you've said later ... Wtf. Hey buddy this is one of those tradeoffs. Get off the fence and make a difficult decision.

quote:

understood. we are with respect to what the enemy would want in effect to achieve their goal strategically.. the second we conceed their attacks to be effective strategically we adjust.

What? My brother, a jarhead, gave me permission to call you a squid. Look squid, we're not fighting a defensive battle against an insurgency. That's plain fucking retarded to anyone who has analyzed any insurgency in the past 2000 years. In order for us to WIN we have to successfully acheive our strategic goals. Something we're NOT DOING. If you're gauging success by our defensive operations than I weep for the stragetum of our armed forces. Ok I apologize for the squid remark ... I'm not even military

quote:

understood. we must continue our efforts to train the native forces civilian and military. we have made serious strides in this area and continue to foster this effort as best as anyone can do or have done before.

We've made serious strides? So how are we standing down as they are standing up?

quote:

understood. because ultimately, this will be a problem that only Iraqis can solve not just militarily or from a law enforcement perspective, but politically. the political structure is there backed by a popular set of laws and the support structure of other moderate Arab countries, it just needs some time and courageous politicians to invoke.

Ummm right so it's a political failure too right?

quote:

understood. and there will be more violence. some fights are just hard.

Stop ignoring the primary point that the insurgency, the attacks, and the violence is getting worse. WHO IS ACCOUNTABLE FOR OUR FAILURE TO REDUCE THAT?

quote:

understood. i attribute those gains to the ongoing and gradual process of handing territories over to the Iraqi forces. i have no doubt that we will need to turn those certain territories over again as we adjust.

Where has the insurgency weakened?

quote:

understood. i'm not supportive of tax increases.

So than you pay for the fucking cost of this war.

quote:

it's true. all you can offer is the possibility of civil war. your a f**kin genius! well, i suppose its a step above simply wishing it to come true? could you be given at least that much credit?

All I can offer is the possibility of civil war for WHAT??? WTF are you talking about? Look buddy, I didn't erase any posts. Point to any statement that I made so we/I can understand what the fuck you're talking about??? You're continuing your goddamn straw argument that I hypoethetically created and I have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

Edited: for the sake of more constructive arguments

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Why are you engaging in semantic arguments with me?

i'm trying not to.
you said- "The goal of the insurgency isn�t to win the hearts and minds".
...followed directly by- "All the insurgency needs to do to win is foment sectarian strife to the point of civil war".

i simply say thats contradictory.

quote:

Are you trying to tell me they need to win the hearts and minds of Sunnis and Shias to foment sectarian strife?

no. i'm saying that not all Sunni and not all Shia are willing to go to war with eachother no matter who is in power and no matter what outsider is forcing their hand.

quote:

Are you saying that insurgent groups are failing at acheiving their goals of sectarian strife?

at the moment, yes i am. im far from willing to be proven wrong.

quote:

Well than why the fuck has the military acknowledged failure?

they've aknowledged failure tactically. yes.

quote:

What are you talking about? Of course insurgents are murderous ... what about it? This is irrelevant to our discussion, it doesn't speak to any point I'm making, so again, who are you talking to? Are you running for office or something and you need speaking points you can look to in an ad?

it was something i wanted to address on my own because no one seems to talk about it. maybe i should have been more concise.

there is a certain, separate element to all of this violence that, IMO, can only be explained by shear homicidal brutality. a criminal side to this issue that is common in all walks of life on a limited scale but due to the lack of a civilian authority in certain parts is for some reason extremely exagerated. where police are effective in most of Iraq upholding the law and protecting it's citizens, this criminal homicidal behavior is shocking to say the least and was not anticipated by normal people Anglo or Arab. it's only blessing is that it is shocking and would put anyone off to any organized effort fostered by it...you would think.

quote:

Get off the fence and make a difficult decision.

why? tax revenues are up 18% this year preceded by increases last year. if there is a reason why fighting the Iraq war and raising my taxes shouldn't be mutally exclusive i'd like to hear it. i'll stand by what i said previously, and that is monetary costs should be considered the lower priority.

quote:

What? My brother, a jarhead, gave me permission to call you a squid. Look squid, we're not fighting a defensive battle against an insurgency. That's plain fucking retarded to anyone who has analyzed any insurgency in the past 2000 years. In order for us to WIN we have to successfully acheive our strategic goals. Something we're NOT DOING. If you're gauging success by our defensive operations than I weep for the stragetum of our armed forces. Ok I apologize for the squid remark ... I'm not even military

much respect to your brother. Squid is an affectionate term for a submariner, which i am . something i can hardly say for the term "Jarhead". they're not quite as affectionate about it but he's your brother so...

im defending our role so far in this by pointing out that we control the battlefield and can take the fight to any place, any time and yes, i do guage some success by our defensive operations. the strategy handing over territory to Iraqi forces has to imply some sort of defensive posture on our part. this is why i attribute a lot of this current violence to a young Iraqi military. like i said, some territory will have to be re-assessed and handed back again.

the enemy wants more violence to be successful and their status quo, like you said, can be percieved as a success. i don't think that staus quo can be sustained given the position we have over the country but there's gonna be some adjustment needed for sure.

quote:

So how are we standing down as they are standing up?

that i don't know exactly.

quote:

Ummm right so it's a political failure too right?

look the enablers are there, it's just gonna take some time is all im saying

quote:

WHO IS ACCOUNTABLE FOR OUR FAILURE TO REDUCE THAT?

the ones who are fighting to reduce that.

quote:

Where has the insurgency weakened?

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Where has the insurgency weakened?

that was not my point. my point was in conceeding those gains you were talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider What? My brother, a jarhead, gave me permission to call you a squid. Look squid, we're not fighting a defensive battle against an insurgency. That's plain fucking retarded to anyone who has analyzed any insurgency in the past 2000 years. In order for us to WIN we have to successfully acheive our strategic goals. Something we're NOT DOING. If you're gauging success by our defensive operations than I weep for the stragetum of our armed forces. Ok I apologize for the squid remark ... I'm not even military

Squid!! ha ha ha I have not heard that in a while,

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo that was not my point. my point was in conceeding those gains you were talking about.

Conceding gains are horribly irrelevant if the losses are greater and much more in number. You are playing a seriously stupid semantic game with Occ, and I think most folks here can smell your bullshit quite easily. Breaking down his arguments to the point of defining what "is" is, really is quite cute and rather Clintonian of you, but denying the fucking reality of what's occurring in Iraq and how we need to deal with it does not help you and your party's cause whatsoever.

But then again, let's review the differences. From Occ's article posted:

quote:

Senior figures in both parties are coming to the conclusion that the Bush administration will be unable to achieve its goal of a stable, democratic Iraq within a politically feasible time frame. Agitation is growing in Congress for alternatives to the administration's strategy of keeping Iraq in one piece and getting its security forces up and running while 140,000 U.S. troops try to keep a lid on rapidly spreading sectarian violence. Richard N. Haass, a former Bush administration foreign policy official, told reporters yesterday that the situation is reaching a "tipping point" both in Iraq and in U.S. politics. "More of essentially the same is going to be a policy that very few people are going to be able to support," said Haass, now the president of the Council on Foreign Relations. He added that the administration's current Iraq strategy "has virtually no chance of succeeding" and predicted that "change will come." Many Senate Republicans are waiting for the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel co-chaired by former secretary of state James A. Baker III, a Republican, and former Indiana representative Lee H. Hamilton, a Democrat. Both Baker and Hamilton have made it clear that they do not see the current administration Iraq policy as working -- though they don't plan to issue recommendations until well after the midterm elections, probably in early January. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...mail/components

And of course you can here one of your most prized media leaders say it out loud, Bill Kristol. Have you even heard that interview yet?

So read that which is being said by what's becoming a bipartisan Congress, as well as the Iraqi Study Group and Richard Haase consisting of ardent Republicans, and compare it to the Democratic message:

quote:

"The escalating sectarian violence coupled with the recent increase in the number of dead and wounded Americans are but the latest indications that neither the current U.S. plan, nor that of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, will bring stability and security to Iraq," read a letter to Bush from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.), House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and 10 other Democratic leaders. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6102000512.html

Now compare it to your GOP message:

quote:

"My message to the United States of America is: Victory in Iraq is vital for the security of a generation of Americans who are coming up," Bush told a National Republican Senatorial Committee reception in downtown Washington. "And so we will stay in Iraq, we will fight in Iraq and we will win in Iraq."

Which is more consistent not just with the majority public opinion, but with the fucking reality of the situation there? And you want us to talk about the fucking gains as if they stack up to the violence of over 70 of our men and women being killed this month (the 3rd deadliest month so far, right?), some 60-80 people killed a day, and a sectarian violence that's not stabilizing but is actually getting worse?

Well gee, go ahead and talk about it all you like. It's not gonna make that turd smell any rosier, and most folks know that by now.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo i'm trying not to. you said- "The goal of the insurgency isn�t to win the hearts and minds". ...followed directly by- "All the insurgency needs to do to win is foment sectarian strife to the point of civil war". i simply say thats contradictory.

Jesus, Q, that's not difficult to understand nor is it contradictory for fuck's sake. Let's see if I can break it down for you:

the insurgents are not trying to win over the Iraqi people like we were attempting to do with our lovely invasion.

What the insurgency needs to do, however, in order to win this war is create enough problems between the factions that we run like hell away from a civil war.

How the fuck is creating a civil war via violence and the fact that they're not trying to win over the people's hearts and minds contradictory? What part of that somehow conflicts with the other? Please be specific in detail on your answer, because it's becoming tedious for you to say this without sufficient explanation.

quote:

no. i'm saying that not all Sunni and not all Shia are willing to go to war with eachother no matter who is in power and no matter what outsider is forcing their hand.

Occ isn't saying that either, so why would you think he is? Not all Sunni and Shia are needed to go to war with each other in order to create enough sectarian violence to create civil war and chase us out. I'm sure there's many who do not want this, but that's irrelevant if the violent ones create enough problems to successfully tip the scales towards chaos. This is what we see today.

quote:

at the moment, yes i am. im far from willing to be proven wrong.

Considering this is coming from someone who believes Bush does no wrong at every turn, we're just utterly shocked beyond belief on your sentiments here. Absolutely shocking, I tell ya.

Also considering that our fearless leader mentioned that it is simply "illogical" to disagree with his Iraqi policies:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,221501,00.html

again the jaws are dropping far and wide with your feelings here.

But uhh, let's just handwave away typical days like these:

quote:

Friday, October 20, 2006 71 Killed Bombings, Shootings; Mosul, Kirkuk Targetted; Islamic Army in Talks with US Another US GI was killed in al-Anbar Province on Thursday. Guerrillas set off bombs in four Iraqi cities on Thursday, leaving dozens dead and hundreds wounded. *In Mosul a fuel truck loaded with explosives was driven into a police station. The driver was killed but his payload still detonated, killing mainly civilians at a nearby gas station. In a coordinated series of attacks, guerrillas then set off more car bombs in the city and launched mortar attacks. Altogether 20 persons were killed in the city. Reuters reported it this way: "MOSUL - Six suicide bombers in vehicles, including one in a fuel truck, attacked Iraqi police and U.S. patrols, and insurgents fired mortars and clashed with police, U.S. officials and police said. The violence killed at least 20 people in the city 390 km (240 miles) north of Baghdad." The US military withdrew 3,000 troops from Mosul to send to Baghdad, where 15,000 US soldiers are now engaged in Operation Forward Together. Guerrillas in Mosul, Iraq's second largest city with a population of some 1.8 million, some 80% of them Sunni Arab, have taken advantage of the draw-down of US troops there to multiply the number of their attacks on police and the institutions of the new government. Mosul was a bastion of the Baath Party in the old days, and crowds there have chanted for Saddam even after his fall. Some Sunnis in Mosul support the fundamentalist Salafi movement. *A carbombing in the northern oil city of Kirkuk struck at a popular market, killing 10 and wounding 58. Kurds, Sunni Arabs and Turkmen are contending for control of the city. There were there other bombings in or near Kirkuk according to Reuters, mainly targetting police, a number of whom were killed or wounded. *Guerrillas used a roadside bomb to kill 10 persons and wounding 20 in the mostly Shiite city of Khalis 50 mi. north of Baghdad. *In south Baghdad, guerrillas detonated a roadside bomb as a police convoy passed, killing 3 policemen and two by-standers. There were other bombings and shootings in the capital. Reuters reports other political violence in Iraq on Thursday. They report 71 dead in these attacks. Al-Sharq al-Awsat reports [Ar.] that tribal leaders and Baathists have recently formed protest groups in Tikrit and Kirkuk aimed at lobbying for the release of deposed president Saddam Hussein. The Iraqi Ministry of the Interior reacted with alarm to this development, threatening to arrest the founders of such pro-Saddam organizations. Al-Hayat reports that [Ar.] representatives of the Islamic Army of Iraq, a major Sunni Arab guerrilla group, are secretly meeting in Amman with an American delegation. The meeting is also being attended by representatives of major tribes and by the Iraqi Accord Front, the fundamentalist Sunni coalition with 44 seats in the Iraqi parliament. The visit over the past 3 days to Amman of Iraqi Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, who is from the IAF, may have included helping make secret arrangements for this clandestine summit. While in Amman he called for Sunni Arab guerrillas to talk to the Americans, and he was threatened for it by the 1920 Revolution Brigades, which still is rejectionist. An Iraqi observer said that the talks do not rise to the level of negotiations, but that they demonstrate a desire on both sides for negotiations. I wonder if these prospective negotiations were among the things making Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, a Shiite from the fundamentalist al-Da`wa al-Islamiyah Party, nervous about Washington's commitment to him. I said on the Lehrer News Hour on Monday that the "Battle for Baghdad" had failed and that attacks had actually increased since it started in August. The idea had been for the US and Iraqi troops to clean out the guerrilla cells from the Sunni Arab districts of the capital and stop attacks on Shiites, and then to go to the Shiites and demand they dissolve their militias, which they did not need any more because Sunni guerrilla capacity had been vastly degraded. But with attacks up, no neighborhood is going to give up its militia. So here is what the wire services are reporting from Thursday: "Military spokesman Maj Gen William Caldwell said there had been a 'disheartening' 22 per cent rise in attacks in Baghdad since the end of last month." He admitted that the security sweeps have not only failed to reduce attacks, they have failed to stem an increase in their frequency! I.e. what I said on Lehrer. Christian spokesmen in Iraq say 35,000 Iraqi Christians have fled to Syria in 2006, about 5% of the entire community. Money graf from AP: ' "We want to live in safety. We don't want to be killed. We love life," said another Christian refugee, Saddallah Mardini, 43. Mardini said US forces should leave Iraq now. "The occupation has brought destruction to Iraq," he said. His wife, Wissam, 25, complained of shortages of electricity and water in Iraq. "My kids go to school now (in Syria), which is something they were deprived of in Iraq," she said. ' These are Christians speaking. Imagine what the Muslims think. http://www.juancole.com/2006/10/71-...ings-mosul.html

Beautiful days in those neighorhoods, ain't it Mr. Rogers?

quote:

it was something i wanted to address on my own because no one seems to talk about it. maybe i should have been more concise. there is a certain, separate element to all of this violence that, IMO, can only be explained by shear homicidal brutality. a criminal side to this issue that is common in all walks of life on a limited scale but due to the lack of a civilian authority in certain parts is for some reason extremely exagerated. where police are effective in most of Iraq upholding the law and protecting it's citizens, this criminal homicidal behavior is shocking to say the least and was not anticipated by normal people Anglo or Arab. it's only blessing is that it is shocking and would put anyone off to any organized effort fostered by it...you would think.

Exaggerated violence, eh? Let's put it into perspective, which may be difficult to GOP folks like Rep. Steve King (R-IA), but we should try. Rep. King mentioned that living in Iraq is less dangerous than living in D.C.:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/...29/132706.shtml

Now before anyone's chuckles breaks out into laughter, let's keep going with the thought. Comparing a city to a country is a bit silly in the first place, but if we do actually break this down:

quote:

1) The King report uses 2002 data for Washington, D.C., finding a violent casualty rate of 45.9 deaths per 100,000 people. That number is badly outdated. Using the most recent 2004 data, the violent casualty rate in D.C. is 35.8 deaths per 100,000. There were 198 homicides total in D.C. for the entire year. 2) According to Pentagon's own data released today, there have been 94 violent casualties per day in Iraq between February and May of 2006. (see p.33). That translates into 34,310 deaths per year in Iraq. For an Iraqi population of about 26.7 million, plus another 150,000 coalition forces, the violent casualty rate in Iraq is 128 deaths per 100,000. 3) Lastly, the King report is trying to conflate the data for one urban area in the U.S. with the entire country of Iraq. As OpinionJournal writes, "The comparison with U.S. cities poses a problem of scale. Just as some municipalities here have high concentrations of crime, Baghdad and some other Iraqi cities have high concentrations of military, guerrilla and terrorist activity. A comparison of Baghdad with Los Angeles or a similarly sprawling U.S. city would be more enlightening than a comparison of Iraq as a whole with cities of well under a million people." http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7562.html

Oh, BTW, those Iraqi's really do love us to death:

quote:

About six in 10 Iraqis say they approve of attacks on U.S.-led forces, and slightly more than that want their government to ask U.S. troops to leave within a year, according to a poll in that country. The Iraqis also have negative views of Osama bin Laden, according to the early September poll of 1,150. http://iraqnam.blogspot.com/2006/09...of-attacks.html

oh yeah, what civil war?:

quote:

Civil war is raging through the Iraqi countryside. Sunni insurgents have largely taken control of the province of Diyala, where local leaders believe the insurgents are close to establishing a 'Taleban republic'. Officials in the strategically important, mixed Sunni and Shia province with a Kurdish minority, have no doubt about what is happening. Lt Col Ahmed Ahmed Nuri Hassan, a weary looking commander of the federal police, says: "Now there is an ethnic civil war and it is getting worse every day." At the moment the Sunni seem to be winning it. As the violence has escalated in Iraq over the past three years it has become too dangerous for journalists to find out what is happening in the provinces outside the capital. The UN said last week that 5106 civilians were killed in Baghdad in July and August and 1493 in the provinces outside it. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/s...jectID=10402824

And BTW, it's not just the insurgent violence that we have to worry about, just in case anyone forgot:

quote:

WASHINGTON -- A declassified government intelligence report says the war in Iraq has become a "cause celebre" for Islamic extremists, breeding deep resentment of the U.S. that is likely to get worse before it gets better. In the bleak report, released Tuesday on President Bush's orders, the nation's most veteran analysts conclude that despite serious damage to the leadership of al-Qaida, the threat from Islamic extremists has spread both in numbers and in geographic reach. "If this trend continues, threats to U.S. interests at home and abroad will become more diverse, leading to increasing attacks worldwide," the document says. "The confluence of shared purpose and dispersed actors will make it harder to find and undermine jihadist groups." http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl...cs/4216583.html

And about those Iraqi police folks:

quote:

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- The plan was simple: Iraqi troops would block escape routes while U.S. soldiers searched for weapons house-by-house. But the Iraqi troops didn't show up on time. When they finally did appear, the Iraqis ignored U.S. orders and let dozens of cars pass through checkpoints in eastern Baghdad -- including an ambulance full of armed militiamen, American soldiers said in recent interviews. It wasn't an isolated incident, they added. Senior U.S. commanders have hailed the performance of Iraqi troops in the crackdown on militias and insurgents in Baghdad. But some U.S. soldiers say the Iraqis serving alongside them are among the worst they've ever seen -- seeming more loyal to militias than the government. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6092400345.html

quote:

why? tax revenues are up 18% this year preceded by increases last year. if there is a reason why fighting the Iraq war and raising my taxes shouldn't be mutally exclusive i'd like to hear it. i'll stand by what i said previously, and that is monetary costs should be considered the lower priority.

You'd really like to have it that way, wouldn't you? Funny thing about those tax revenues, when put in full context they really haven't made up for the losses in which the cuts created in the first place. And this is acknowledged even by folks within this Administration, no less:

http://www.cbpp.org/9-27-06tax.htm

But hey, it's not like our troops are begging for more $ over there or anything:

quote:

WASHINGTON -- The Army's top officer withheld a required 2008 budget plan from Pentagon leaders last month after protesting to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that the service could not maintain its current level of activity in Iraq plus its other global commitments without billions in additional funding. The decision by Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army's chief of staff, is believed to be unprecedented and signals a widespread belief within the Army that in the absence of significant troop withdrawals from Iraq, funding assumptions must be completely reworked, say current and former Pentagon officials. "This is unusual, but hell, we're in unusual times," said a senior Pentagon official involved in the budget discussions. Schoomaker failed to submit the budget plan by an Aug. 15 deadline. The protest followed a series of cuts in the service's funding requests by both the White House and Congress over the last four months. According to a senior Army official involved in budget talks, Schoomaker is now seeking $138.8 billion in 2008, nearly $25 billion above budget limits originally set by Rumsfeld. The Army's budget this year is $98.2 billion, making Schoomaker's request a 41% increase over current levels. "It's incredibly huge," said the Army official, who, like others, spoke on condition of anonymity when commenting on internal deliberations. "These are just incredible numbers." http://www.latimes.com/news/printed...rack=crosspromo

quote:

im defending our role so far in this by pointing out that we control the battlefield and can take the fight to any place, any time and yes, i do guage some success by our defensive operations. the strategy handing over territory to Iraqi forces has to imply some sort of defensive posture on our part. this is why i attribute a lot of this current violence to a young Iraqi military. like i said, some territory will have to be re-assessed and handed back again.

Yes, it really is their age and lack of maturity that's causing all these problems, rather than the asinine plan or lack thereof instead. Got it.

quote:

the enemy wants more violence to be successful and their status quo, like you said, can be percieved as a success. i don't think that staus quo can be sustained given the position we have over the country but there's gonna be some adjustment needed for sure.

Welp, that position of ours really hasn't quelled the "status quo" very well now, has it? In fact you're right, it isn't a status quo at all - it's declined.

quote:

look the enablers are there, it's just gonna take some time is all im saying

If the situation is getting worse and not better, if the violence continues to spread instead of become more isolated, the reality must eventually be conceded that time is not a factor if we cannot maintain control at all.

quote:

the ones who are fighting to reduce that.

Ahh, once again it's just shocking to see that you give a free pass to the civilian nutsacks who enabled this sincere lack of a post-war plan in the first place and have instead placed the blame solely on our military fighters and Iraqi citizens.

Bush.

Is.

Never.

Wrong.

Everyone got that?

This is what they want to do. We can't compare the two wars because they were both fought for different reasons. Vietnam=communist, and Iraq=oil and a lot of OIL.

Stop referring to the past. We have already repeated the past and we need not look to the past to fix the problem. As we will be likely to make the same mistake in the future again.

Oh, BTW, another little tidbit part of the country just got handed over to Sadr. An entire city, perhaps, but it's just a speck:

quote:

Since British troops left Amarah in August, residents say the militia has been involved in a series of killings, including slayings of merchants suspected of selling alcohol and women alleged to have engaged in behavior deemed immoral by militiamen. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/wor...artner=homepage

Not to worry, we'll get it back, and THEN we'll win the hearts and minds of all those people. They might be dead, but they'll thank us later.

As one blogger pointed out, just clap louder folks. Clap louder! It helps us win!!!

I come back here and am not surrised seeing Q5echo being truly ass raped by OCC. Good Job rider!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo i'm trying not to. you said- "The goal of the insurgency isn�t to win the hearts and minds". ...followed directly by- "All the insurgency needs to do to win is foment sectarian strife to the point of civil war". i simply say thats contradictory.

Very well, please explain how that's contradictory? The causes for sectarian strife are prevalent within groups regardless of any external influence. The only thing an external group need do is provide the provocation to instigate violence. Something Al-Qaeda seems to be doing quite succesfully in Iraq without winning hearts and minds.

quote:

no. i'm saying that not all Sunni and not all Shia are willing to go to war with eachother no matter who is in power and no matter what outsider is forcing their hand.

No not all are willing to go to war. But that would be the most useless barometer for failure of all time. Al qaeda need only encourage enough chaos and violence to prevent US success, create an environment that encourages terrorism to kill Americans and make us spend a shitload of money.

quote:

at the moment, yes i am. im far from willing to be proven wrong.

Que?

quote:

they've aknowledged failure tactically. yes.

So Al-Qaeda and the insurgents are acheiving their goals while we are not.

quote:

it was something i wanted to address on my own because no one seems to talk about it. maybe i should have been more concise. there is a certain, separate element to all of this violence that, IMO, can only be explained by shear homicidal brutality. a criminal side to this issue that is common in all walks of life on a limited scale but due to the lack of a civilian authority in certain parts is for some reason extremely exagerated. where police are effective in most of Iraq upholding the law and protecting it's citizens, this criminal homicidal behavior is shocking to say the least and was not anticipated by normal people Anglo or Arab. it's only blessing is that it is shocking and would put anyone off to any organized effort fostered by it...you would think.

No, you see many people were not shocked by these developments. One of these people was George H.W. bush who anticipated this back in 1993 and was justification for him not invading Iraq. This "homicidial brutality" and "criminal behavior" that you allude to is actually sectarian strife to anyone with common sense. Are people killing other people to rob them of money??? Are they killing them because they wronged them in some fashion?? Or are people killing each other because one group are Sunnis, one group are Shiites, and the other group Kurds??? Hmmmmm I wonder what that could possibly mean!

quote:

why? tax revenues are up 18% this year preceded by increases last year. if there is a reason why fighting the Iraq war and raising my taxes shouldn't be mutally exclusive i'd like to hear it. i'll stand by what i said previously, and that is monetary costs should be considered the lower priority.

Sigh ... great, taxes revenues are up. Please tell me this isn't your argument for why we shouldn't raise taxes to support a costly war effort? Ok whatever dude I'm financially secure, and I'm never having kids. I really don't have to worry about future generations.

quote:

im defending our role so far in this by pointing out that we control the battlefield and can take the fight to any place, any time and yes, i do guage some success by our defensive operations. the strategy handing over territory to Iraqi forces has to imply some sort of defensive posture on our part. this is why i attribute a lot of this current violence to a young Iraqi military. like i said, some territory will have to be re-assessed and handed back again. the enemy wants more violence to be successful and their status quo, like you said, can be percieved as a success. i don't think that staus quo can be sustained given the position we have over the country but there's gonna be some adjustment needed for sure.

This is not conventional war. This is a guerilla campaign. Us controlling the battlefield means nothing if we can't stop them from killing us or making us spend a shitload of money. Us keeping them from "winning" in the traditional sense is useless because they are preventing us from winning. The status quo of no one winning means failure for us, because it's unsustainable on our part. Do you understand the differences between a conventional war and a guerilla campaign?

quote:

the ones who are fighting to reduce that.

I'm surprised that you're willing to place the blame for failure on the troops that are fighting over there. Wow. Well fine. The Bush administration didn't do a thing wrong. The marines ... the army ... the navy ... the airforce, they're the ones to blame. Jesus, never thought you would have went there.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.