[besson3c]

So,

Do you buy into what he says about Iraqis needing to sink or swim on their own, and the Iraqi security forces being too dependent on us as long as we are there?

At what point do we need to make the Iraqis fight on their own? When is the mission actually accomplished? At what point have we accomplished everything that we can?

[James L]

Originally Posted by besson3c

When is the mission actually accomplished?

According to Dubya, it was accomplished on May 1st, 2003:

[Uncle Skeleton]

No, fool, that was the mission to start the REAL mission, which we finished starting on that day

Life is a journey, a neverending journey of death and destruction. Learn to love it.

[zizban]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

No, fool, that was the mission to start the REAL mission, which we finished starting on that day

Life is a journey, a neverending journey of death and destruction. Learn to love it.

I am all over it. It's all sad, day after day, the death and destruction wrought by those who misled us, who never saw combat, had other priorities, wont send their children into harm's way, have no clue, no plan for any. Day by day, it goes on and on.

[chabig]

Originally Posted by zizban

I am all over it. It's all sad, day after day, the death and destruction wrought by those who misled us, who never saw combat, had other priorities, wont send their children into harm's way, have no clue, no plan for any. Day by day, it goes on and on.

Tap your heels together three times and repeat..."Bush lied, the administration misled us". After you do this, you might wake up in the real world. It is irrelevant whether the President say combat. At least he served. What did you do?

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by chabig

Tap your heels together three times and repeat..."Bush lied, the administration misled us". After you do this, you might wake up in the real world. It is irrelevant whether the President say combat. At least he served. What did you do?

Hmmm... an Oz-like solution to a realistic issue...

Hmmm...

[Spliffdaddy]

I still say if we'll kick ass for no reason whatsoever - there's really no limit to what we'll do if given a reason.

That ought to keep our enemies in line.

[besson3c]

So, anybody want to tackle the questions in the original post?

[Spliffdaddy]

you always ask tough questions.

I'll pass on that one.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

you always ask tough questions.

I'll pass on that one.

Well, if I said that I think the troops should come home within 6 month phases like Murtha recommended, would you disagree?

[Spliffdaddy]

I'd agree that a gradual phase-out of our troops is a good idea. But we need to have a military presence there for at least the next 5-10 years.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Because it will take 5-10 years to train Iraqis to defend their own country? Or because in 5-10 years the oil will be used up and so will our interest in the region?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Because it will take 5-10 years to train Iraqis to defend their own country? Or because in 5-10 years the oil will be used up and so will our interest in the region?

The latter.

[Spliffdaddy]

Mostly because Iraqis deserve an opportunity to enjoy the blessings of liberty. If we don't make it possible, I doubt anybody else is gonna step up to the plate.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Mostly because Iraqis deserve an opportunity to enjoy the blessings of liberty. If we don't make it possible, I doubt anybody else is gonna step up to the plate.

So do several other countries, including many we've turned a blind eye to.

[Spliffdaddy]

Indeed. So where do we go next?

[loki74]

WHY does everyone want a timetable?

I think we need to phase out once X, Y, and Z happens. And when X, Y, and Z happen is up to the Iraqi people. We can only help so much. But the least we can do is see it through with them, instead of saying "youve got till april and then you're on your own."

If we hi-tail it outta there when the Iraqi people are not stablized and able enough to fight on thier own, we will have faild and all those deaths you speak of will be in vain.

Basically, if we put a timetable out, all the enemy has to do is stall until that time, and victory will be theirs.

I think that phasing out our direct assistance may be a good idea, but NOT on a public timetable. It would have to stay on the DL. And this does NOT mean we bring them home. This just means we shift more and more responsibility to the Iraqis, and do so slowly. They do need to learn to "swim on their own," but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be right there to catch them if they begin to sink.

[spacefreak]

What's the timetable for a US pullout from South Korea?

[osiris]

The Iraqis have an election on December 15, maybe they should vote on the pullout question.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by loki74

WHY does everyone want a timetable?

I think we need to phase out once X, Y, and Z happens. And when X, Y, and Z happen is up to the Iraqi people. We can only help so much. But the least we can do is see it through with them, instead of saying "youve got till april and then you're on your own."

If we hi-tail it outta there when the Iraqi people are not stablized and able enough to fight on thier own, we will have faild and all those deaths you speak of will be in vain.

Basically, if we put a timetable out, all the enemy has to do is stall until that time, and victory will be theirs.

I think that phasing out our direct assistance may be a good idea, but NOT on a public timetable. It would have to stay on the DL. And this does NOT mean we bring them home. This just means we shift more and more responsibility to the Iraqis, and do so slowly. They do need to learn to "swim on their own," but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be right there to catch them if they begin to sink.

Murtha has been saying that the Iraqi security forces are stalling for as long as we are there, and will only pick up the slack once we leave.

Besides, at this point, I'm not sure that we will have a clear victory in Iraq. Things are getting worse and worse, and our troop levels remain the same (despite the fact that many thought we should have put more troops on the ground from the get go).

Have we done all we can? I'm starting to think that we have.

We need a timetable for the benefit of the Iraqi security forces, and for our own planning. A timetable is inevitable. Keeping it low key will be the challenge.

I can understand the "no timetables" argument, but I also think that Bush and company are being vague about what it will take for them to leave. I sometimes wonder if they have a definite plan like Murtha came up with.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Indeed. So where do we go next?

Darfur. Afghanistan. There are many countries in need of freedom.

This is partially why I become frustrated with a set of objectives that has shifted from finding weapons, to ousting Saddam, to spreading freedom and democracy. It sounds good, but there is seemingly no end to it, a long checklist of countries in need of it, and little we can do to force it.

[Matius]

Originally Posted by KarlG

The latter.

Spoken like someone who truely has no idea what it takes to secure a nation

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Matius

Spoken like someone who truely has no idea what it takes to secure a nation

Is this necessary? You could at least enlighten us what it takes to secure a nation, since you seem confident in knowing how to do so.

[Matius]

Well first of all security of a nation requires patience. Unfortunately we Americans, in general, have short attention spans, and the kind of attention span this GWOT and Iraq in particular require may very well outlast most Americans. For any history buffs out there, how long did it take the US to draw up and implement the Constitution and government? Six years or so in the late 1700's? We are at less than three here, and thousands of miles away. Secondly, building democracy takes intestinal fortitude. Political changes on such a large scale, especially where war is concerned, are ugly. Plain and simple. While America is still one of the greatest nations on the planet, many people lack the intestinal fortitude to see the tough times through to the end. They find it easier to take a hands off approach because they don't want to offend anyone, or make anyone mad at them. Well, in my opinion, if you go through life with views that never offend anyone or anger anyone you are either 1. in a coma, or 2. a hypocrite. In my opinion this applies most to American youth. Most would rather sit at home and play video games and overeat, all the while complaining about how unfair things are and blaming everyone but themselves for their problems, but I digress. In the case of Iraq, a key to national security is getting the Iraqis to participate actively. One issue is that the Muslim faith is so dependant on the will of God, that many Iraqis simply let things happen around them. They will get a democratic government if God wills it, peace will come if God wills it, etc, etc. The issue is trying to convince them that God helps those who help themselves. Many are actively participating in the process (voting, less tolerance for insurgents in some towns, etc) but not enough yet. This is where patience also comes in. It will take time.

These are just a few of my opinions, so do with them as you will. Keep in mind that these don't necessarily apply to all Americans, or even the majority in some cases. But they do apply to too many. Was my particular reply to KarlG necessary? Maybe not. But it illustrates the point that we have too many people who find it easier to say that the government is evil, it's out for blood/revenge, it's greedy for oil, it doesn't have consideration for any others but itself, Bush is the anti-Christ, and so on, without contributing any useful opinions, let alone realistic or plausible solutions. So if the shoe fits, wear it. And if you are offended or angered by these opinions, we are mostly adults here so, well, deal with it.

[Matius]

On a much lighter note, however, everyone here are Mac fans. At least we can all agree we have good taste.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Matius

Well first of all security of a nation requires patience. Unfortunately we Americans, in general, have short attention spans, and the kind of attention span this GWOT and Iraq in particular require may very well outlast most Americans. For any history buffs out there, how long did it take the US to draw up and implement the Constitution and government? Six years or so in the late 1700's? We are at less than three here, and thousands of miles away.

Were we interested in democracy, or building our own constitution in the late 1700's? The problem here is that Iraqis are not on the same page, it isn't a given that they agree upon the same fundamental goals. I'm sure that many, are attracted to the notion of freedom, but political ideology like Democracy is not something that can be forced. It has to evolve in a very natural and organic way. Forcing any ideology has always resulted in bloody results. The same, unfortunately, applies to treatment of women, and other things that we desire for them.

The problem is, we simply cannot fathom why some Iraqis don't want what we desire for them. This is our own ethnocentristic view of them. Many Americans like to jump on soapboxes and proclaim that "everybody needs to be free and Democratic", but the truth is this has to come from THEM.

In the case of Iraq, a key to national security is getting the Iraqis to participate actively. One issue is that the Muslim faith is so dependant on the will of God, that many Iraqis simply let things happen around them. They will get a democratic government if God wills it, peace will come if God wills it, etc, etc. The issue is trying to convince them that God helps those who help themselves. Many are actively participating in the process (voting, less tolerance for insurgents in some towns, etc) but not enough yet. This is where patience also comes in. It will take time.

Forcing our religious beliefs upon them? Good luck. This has never worked, nor will it ever.

These are just a few of my opinions, so do with them as you will. Keep in mind that these don't necessarily apply to all Americans, or even the majority in some cases. But they do apply to too many. Was my particular reply to KarlG necessary? Maybe not. But it illustrates the point that we have too many people who find it easier to say that the government is evil, it's out for blood/revenge, it's greedy for oil, it doesn't have consideration for any others but itself, Bush is the anti-Christ, and so on, without contributing any useful opinions, let alone realistic or plausible solutions. So if the shoe fits, wear it. And if you are offended or angered by these opinions, we are mostly adults here so, well, deal with it.

It sounds like your problem is not that people have opinions, but that they differ from yours. The very foundation of Democracy, IMHO, depends upon this sort of dissenting opinion. How do you think we can create a free and Democratic Iraq when we struggle with it at home?

[Matius]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Forcing our religious beliefs upon them? Good luck. This has never worked, nor will it ever.

Perhaps this statement didn't come across as I intended. I am well aware that you will not be very successful in attempting to change the religious views of the Iraqi Muslims. My point was that they need to be prepared (and yes, in their own time) to act for themselves instead of letting it happen for/to them.

Originally Posted by besson3c

It sounds like your problem is not that people have opinions, but that they differ from yours. The very foundation of Democracy, IMHO, depends upon this sort of dissenting opinion. How do you think we can create a free and Democratic Iraq when we struggle with it at home?

I have no problem at all with opinions different than mine. In fact many people do have different opinions, as I am a pretty conservative guy on most topics (even abrasive to some if you can believe it...) People can believe and say what they want, that's what makes America so great. I agree that dissenting opinion is a basis for democracy because it brings about debate and causes people to think, rethink, and come to the table with an open mind. However, when someone makes a statement akin to saying "That's dumb" without offering up some type of explanation, that's where I have a problem.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Matius

Perhaps this statement didn't come across as I intended. I am well aware that you will not be very successful in attempting to change the religious views of the Iraqi Muslims. My point was that they need to be prepared (and yes, in their own time) to act for themselves instead of letting it happen for/to them.




I have no problem at all with opinions different than mine. In fact many people do have different opinions, as I am a pretty conservative guy on most topics (even abrasive to some if you can believe it...) People can believe and say what they want, that's what makes America so great. I agree that dissenting opinion is a basis for democracy because it brings about debate and causes people to think, rethink, and come to the table with an open mind. However, when someone makes a statement akin to saying "That's dumb" without offering up some type of explanation, that's where I have a problem.

I agree with everything you've said here, but I might add: why not set an example?

Spoken like someone who truely has no idea what it takes to secure a nation

Does not set an example of:

saying "That's dumb" without offering up some type of explanation