One idea for more troops in Iraq.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I dont agree with this as I dont see it happening, unless our will fails utterly and the Dems force us out.

Clever, in case of losing, you've got your scapegoat handy. It wasn't us, it was them. Classic

 

[JollyRoger]

Clever, in case of losing, you've got your scapegoat handy. It wasn't us, it was them. Classic

MobBoss apparently thinks that our Commander-in-Chief is so weak, that he will surrender his military decision-making to Democrats.

 

[MobBoss]

Probably not, but according to various sources, we're seeing more and more debt problems among our soldiers. Can't we capitalize on that somehow?

You overplay/overstate the problem. When I first joined the army, you had to go to a remedial check writing class right out of basic/ait training because so many young soldiers were so bad at managing their money. That hasnt changed much over the years and the number of business offering high interest loans to young soldiers around a base for cars and other such things still exist.

Sure. But there’s no way a total moron makes it that far up the ranks, and even a total moron could see that this plan would seriously affect recruiting and retention.

And yet we have people here who call the Commander-in-Chief a total moron. I have seen generals get relieved from command and get in trouble just like anyone else. Moronic? Most likely.

But MB, come on. You’re a smart guy. I know you’re a believer, but even you have to recognize that the writing is rapidly being written on the walls of DC. Bush is bringing in Baker, hoping for a magic bullet, and the only thing Baker is going to offer is withdrawal.

I think you might be wrong on that. Lets wait and see.

If we turn this into a battle of wills, we’re going to lose. We just don’t want it that bad.

Bingo. But its not us that is turning it into a battle of wills....its our enemy.

I understand…I think. I think Keane feels the same way…that’s why he’s willing to put it all on the line to try and make sure Iraq succeeds. But then, Keane obviously feels like our effort is doomed unless we radically change gears, which is I’m guessing is the biggest difference in your philosophies.

Well, let me just say it this way then. I think Keane's recommendation gurantees defeat in Iraq and in turn it will dismantle our military for about 2 decades after that because of the recruiting/retention problems it will cause.

 

[HawkeyeGS]

Let me guess, when there is a wild fire in your area your running around trying to put it out with petrol. This is a stupid idea. I realise that 'cut and run' has been given some bad connotations such as that is a surrender but you must realise that it won't stop till we leave. We will leave eventually when it becomes massively politically inconvenient so why not leave now and be done with it. It's just like taking a band aid off. While its on it looks reasonably pretty but leave it on too long and it starts to fester. Take it off and yes there may be some blood but you can't walk round wearing 100 band aids all your life.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,234318,00.html

(linked to foxnews to prevent outcries of liberal media)

During the open hearing, the nominee said the U.S. is neither winning nor losing the war in Iraq, and "all options are on the table" for a fix. He warned that if the situation doesn't improve soon, it could expand into a "regional conflagration."

"What we are now doing is not satisfactory," Gates said at his confirmation hearing. "In my view, all options are on the table, in terms of how we address this problem in Iraq.

"The next year or two will determine whether the American and Iraqi people and the next president of the United States will face a slowly but steadily improving situation in Iraq and in the region or will face the very real risk and possible reality of a regional conflagration. We need to work together to develop a strategy that does not leave Iraq in chaos and that protects our long-term interests in and hopes for the region," Gates told the Armed Services panel.

But Fox doesn't print the quote I was looking for, the liberal CNN of course did:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/05/gates.confirmation/index.html

Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, who will chair the Senate Armed Services Committee when the new Congress convenes in January, asked Gates if he thought the U.S. was winning the war, to which the nominee succinctly replied, "No, sir."

But I'm sure he meant to add, "because the Dems are allready forcing us out"

 

[CartesianFart]

Un pour tous, tous pour un! The mousquetaires of CivFanatics strike again!

I hope that you are just jokin or if not...please don't flatter yourself.

Look mate, I'm not bashing the US, in fact I myself was in favor of going into Iraq. Be defensive and roll your eyes at someone else.

Was?Are you saying that now you are not in favor of US being in Iraq?

I guess you believe Iraq is going 'swimingly' as well

Not swimingly well but somewhat less than adequate.In time,it will be better as long as we are still maintaining military bases there.

 

[IglooDame]

Bingo. But its not us that is turning it into a battle of wills....its our enemy.

Damn, our enemy must be pretty smart, turning it from a battle of firepower (which he'd lose) to a battle of wills (which it's looking like he's going to win).

I mean, most modern insurgencies can't defeat the occupying troops straight-up and so instead they aim for inducing the distant power's government to give in to domestic pressure to withdraw, so clearly our national command authority must have seen it coming a mile away this time...

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

It is true that America is more willing to go to war and fight for their ideals than some other countries, and al-Qaeda used this to its advantage. They thought, "hey, if we can give them a bit of a bloody nose, they will be willing to do something really stupid, like attack Iraq".

Just go home already, you are embarrassing yourselves.

 

[MobBoss]

It is true that America is more willing to go to war and fight for their ideals than some other countries, and al-Qaeda used this to its advantage. They thought, "hey, if we can give them a bit of a bloody nose, they will be willing to do something really stupid, like attack Iraq".

Just go home already, you are embarrassing yourselves.

Are you saying that Al Qaeda did the 9/11 attacks to provoke the USA to attack Iraq?

I think you just embarrassed yourself with such a silly idea.

Damn, our enemy must be pretty smart, turning it from a battle of firepower (which he'd lose) to a battle of wills (which it's looking like he's going to win).

Did you assume our enemies were idiots?

I mean, most modern insurgencies can't defeat the occupying troops straight-up and so instead they aim for inducing the distant power's government to give in to domestic pressure to withdraw, so clearly our national command authority must have seen it coming a mile away this time...

Not much they can do about the press, no matter how far away they see it coming.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Are you saying that Al Qaeda did the 9/11 attacks to provoke the USA to attack Iraq?

Definitely to provoke an attack, yes. Whether they thought America was crazy or stupid enough to attack Iraq, I don't know. That was probably beyond their wildest dreams.

Come on, why do you think they attacked? Because they hate MobBoss' freedom? They wanted a huge American response.

They certainly didn't attack just to keep the status quo. For them, the most disappointing thing would have been if America did nothing but triple the CIA's funding and hunt them down that way.

Jesus, they were like a matador waving a red sheet in front of a bull to make it charge. Ashame the bull has no brains.

 

[IglooDame]

Not much they can do about the press, no matter how far away they see it coming.

Yeah, how dare the press fail to plan and have insufficient force levels on hand for dealing with Iraq after Hussein's regular army units got routed.

 

[MobBoss]

Definitely to provoke an attack, yes. Whether they thought America was crazy or stupid enough to attack Iraq, I don't know. That was probably beyond their wildest dreams.

Well, it most certainly wasnt to provoke an american attack. Especially on Iraq.

Come on, why do you think they attacked? Because they hate MobBoss' freedom? They wanted a huge American response.

That is not what Bin Ladin said the reason was. Basically, yes, they DO hate our freedoms and view us as a degenerate society.

They certainly didn't attack just to keep the status quo. For them, the most disappointing thing would have been if America did nothing but triple the CIA's funding and hunt them down that way.

No, they had hoped to start a religious war of Islam vs everyone else. A jihad.

Jesus, they were like a matador waving a red sheet in front of a bull to make it charge. Ashame the bull has no brains.

Tell that to the matador that gets gored. And the Taliban sure as hell got gored. As the old saying goes "mess with the bull....get the horn".

Yeah, how dare the press fail to plan and have insufficient force levels on hand for dealing with Iraq after Hussein's regular army units got routed.

Eh? Come on Igloo...you know as well as I do that bad news = ratings. And in turn ratings = more money. Thats why the news stories always focus on Pvt Snuffy getting shot as opposed to soldiers building schools or hospitals.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Well, it most certainly wasnt to provoke an american attack. Especially on Iraq..

Why are you so sure? What better way to rouse support for a religious war than to draw foreign troops onto Middle Eastern soil. Sounds like a great way to radicalise more secular countries like Iraq.

That is not what Bin Ladin said the reason was. Basically, yes, they DO hate our freedoms and view us as a degenerate society.

Who says bin Laden was telling you the whole truth? Wow, if America takes everything its most hated enemy says at face value, then it is more gullible than I thought. And as much as they may detest your freedom and lifestyle, they detest the freedom and lifestyle of secular Iraqis like Saddam more.

It is called a "cats paw". You get someone else to do your dirty work for you (taking down secular Arab regimes: Iraq), and then you step in afterward looking like a hero.

No, they had hoped to start a religious war of Islam vs everyone else. A jihad.

Again, it is much easier to start a religious war when there are foreign occupiers in your land. Not to mention it is a hell of a lot easier to fight them when you are on your own turf amongst your own religious/linguistic/ethnic kin.

Tell that to the matador that gets gored. And the Taliban sure as hell got gored. As the old saying goes "mess with the bull....get the horn".

You are right, the bull almost won in Afghanistan. Except instead of consolidating its victory (stepping on the matador's head), it went after the red sheet that was still fluttering in the wind (Iraq), and the matador has been able to ram a few swords into the bull's back. And besides, Taliban was just another "cats paw". Even if al-Qaeda leaders are rounded up and executed, they have already succeeded in drawing a major western nation into an quagmirish middle eastern war. An astounding success, no?

Come on MobBoss, you know not to underestimate your enemy.

 

[IglooDame]

Eh? Come on Igloo...you know as well as I do that bad news = ratings. And in turn ratings = more money. Thats why the news stories always focus on Pvt Snuffy getting shot as opposed to soldiers building schools or hospitals.

Certainly bad news sells. But given the current circumstances in Iraq, there has apparently been a lot more bad news over the past few years than good news. Even the new SecDef says "we're not winning", and presumably he's going by better intel than your average mainstream media report, so I don't think that American will has been unduly sapped by a press biased toward reporting on destruction rather than construction.

Anyway, my point was that it didn't have to turn into a battle of wills in the first place - that it did reflected a failure by our planners to anticipate a historically valid redirection of the conflict and thus a loss of initiative by our strategists.

 

[MobBoss]

Why are you so sure?

Because Bin Ladin said as much and there is absolutely no proof to back up your assumption.

Who says bin Laden was telling you the whole truth? Wow, if America takes everything its most hated enemy says at face value, then it is more gullible than I thought. And as much as they may detest your freedom and lifestyle, they detest the freedom and lifestyle of secular Iraqis like Saddam more.

Conspiracy theorists unite! Free Koolaid! And no....I am sorry, but the "great satan" is the west....not Iraq under Saddam.

Come on MobBoss, you know not to underestimate your enemy.

I also know its stupid to attribute him plans/abilities that are unfounded.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Because Bin Ladin said as much and there is absolutely no proof to back up your assumption..

"Whatever you say, oh great bin Laden!"

Conspiracy theorists unite! Free Koolaid! And no....I am sorry, but the "great satan" is the west....not Iraq under Saddam..

Conspiracy theorists? There was a reason the French, Germans, Russians, Chinese, Canadians, and all sorts of other people were telling the Americans not to do this. It isn't that America is a great Satan, just a great big dimwit.

EDIT: The French had their fun in Algeria, so they understood what this kind of war might entail. Hundreds of thousands of French troops couldn't keep that country in the fold either.

I also know its stupid to attribute him plans/abilities that are unfounded.

It doesn't take a great genius to realize that trying to fight a war against Muslim insurgents in that area of the world leads to quagmire and ruin for even the strongest of countries. All you have to do is look at Israel in Palestine, and Russia in Chechnya.

Based on that, getting America to try to invade and occupy a country many times larger than either of those must have been a wet dream for bin Laden.

 

[MobBoss]

Conspiracy theorists? There was a reason the French, Germans, Russians, Chinese, Canadians, and all sorts of other people were telling the Americans not to do this. It isn't that America is a great Satan, just a great big dimwit.

Do you think those are the only nations that count? Do you know how many countries supported the USA in its decision?

It doesn't take a great genius to realize that trying to fight a war against Muslim insurgents in that area of the world leads to quagmire and ruin for even the strongest of countries. All you have to do is look at Israel in Palestine, and Russia in Chechnya.

Are the Israelis still around? Are the Russians still in Chechnya?

Based on that, getting America to try to invade and occupy a country many times larger than either of those must have been a wet dream for bin Laden.

Did he tell you that?

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

I should point out that I don't think bin Laden will ultimately succeed, simply because most Muslims don't want to live under sharia law. They would rather have an educated and modern society. However, this will be despite bumbling American efforts, not because of them.

After all, despite his strategic intelligence, bin Laden is a religious crackpot and most Muslims are not.

Do you think those are the only nations that count? Do you know how many countries supported the USA in its decision?

Besides Tony Blair (the British people were not exactly enthusiastic)? Well the Italians were there because Berlusconi was just crooked politician currying favour with the American. Most of the rest of your support was from central and eastern European countries who were also trying to curry American favour to help solidify their positions in NATO. Believe it or not, those countries are still paranoid about Russian influence.

Are the Israelis still around? Are the Russians still in Chechnya?

The Palestinians are no where near being pacified, and if anything are becoming more radicalized. As for the Russians in Chechnya, they have lost over 10,000 troops killed in their wars there in the last 15 years and only the complete destruction of Grozny and the displacement of much of the local population (out of a country of only 800,000) has managed to calm things down. Is this your plan for Iraq? It might not work considering there are 33 times as many people there.

Did he tell you that?

Well I guess you are the one who listens to and believes everything he says, so perhaps you might know better than I.

 

[MobBoss]

simply because most Muslims don't want to live under sharia law.

Proof please. I think you are directly incorrect on this issue and your statement completely insupportable.

They would rather have an educated and modern society. However, this will be despite bumbling American efforts, not because of them.

Again, proof please. I think the vast majority of them think they can have a educated and modern society with sharia in place.

After all, despite his strategic intelligence, bin Laden is a religious crackpot and most Muslims are not.

Yeah, I can tell that from how the Sunnis and Shia treat each other in Iraq.

Also, you ignored my questions. How many countries supported the USA into Iraq? And are the Israelis and Russians still going strong?

 

[Steph]

Do you think those are the only nations that count? Do you know how many countries supported the USA in its decision?

49 countries, according to the US