Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Two choices: leave Iraq now or draft 300,000 Americans

Two choices: leave Iraq now or draft 300,000 Americans
Thread Tools
spindler
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Beverly Hills
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2007, 10:19 AM
 
Right now here are only two moral options in the war in Iraq.

(a) leave now. We've had four years to train the Iraqis and that is enough. They aren't getting any better.

(b) draft 300,000 additional Americans to eradicate the insurgents and get the job done.

It's one or the other.

There are two kinds of military actions:

(1) One that is small enough that the volunteer forces can handle.
(2) A larger one, like WW2 or Vietnam where you need larger numbers

The situation in Iraq fits into number 2. Right now, the troops are being cheated and victimized by conservatives. Conservatives leave them there just because it feels good to have some vague hope the situation will get better.

The troops are being cheated by everyday Americans. It is obvious that to win this war, if you want to attempt to win it, we need 300,000 more Americans to patrol those streets. It is obvious, and has been obvious, that what we are mainly missing is the numbers of troops to solve the problem.

Why should the current military get shot at and killed all day with no results, when with 300,000 more Americans, they could really get the job done?

Americans go into this ra-ra bullshit, but the truth is that they have put the troops in a situation where you have two waiters running back and forth trying to wait on 75 customers. And they don't want to come in and lend a hand, and they don't want to end the situation. Why should the troops be in this kind of struggle when what they clearly lack is simply more people to get the job done? Why do Americans get to sit by and keep their fingers crossed that the troops will pull it out when they could easily change the situation?

If a military situation is easy with the 120,000 volunteer troops, that's fine. If it is going to be really tough, then that means we need 300,000 more people to make it less tough.

It's like firefighters. They have an obligation to take some risk to put out fires before everyone else. But they don't have to risk their lives running into burning buildings because the other Americans weren't willing to grab a bucket of water and contribute to putting out the fire.

Volunteer troops are meant to fight FIRST, in LIMITED scenarios, not INSTEAD of everyday Americans. So we can debate which of the two choices to take, but there are only two choices.
( Last edited by spindler; Mar 10, 2007 at 10:47 AM. )
     
Zeeb
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Manhattan, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2007, 11:09 AM
 
where do you get your 300,000 figure? If you feel this way, get out from in front of your computer and sign your ass up! Iraq needs more fresh hamburger meat.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2007, 11:10 AM
 
Number one, false dichotomy.

Number two, I think that Viet Nam was proof that sheer number aren't necessarily the way to victory.

Iraq needs TIME. You throw out there that we have had four years…as if four years is a long time?! It's not!
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
spindler  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Beverly Hills
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2007, 11:24 AM
 
Zeeb, I never said I was for the Iraq war. You are assuming that. I am simply stating that the current situation is unfair. I was initially against the Iraq war. Once it started and we were there, I was willing to give it one single good solid year to get results and that's all.

Smacintush, you are simply insane. It does not take four years time to police an area, it takes numbers.

Let's say you are trying to police the bad areas in Detroit, but there is a tremendous amount of crime going on. What does that mean? It means you don't have enough coverage. There is too much free space available for criminals to connect or be out of site of police. There are two ways of getting more coverage. The most likely way is to increase numbers. The other way is if you can somehow find a more efficient plan to police the area. That is unlikely since you already have had 1000s of expert think through the best way to police an area.

What SPECIFICALLY do you think improved between 2004 and 2006? Do you think the situation in Iraq is like a fine wine? You just leave it there and it gets better with age magically?

The idea that four years is not enough is ridiculous. If you have the plan and the resources to get a job done, you should see steady, MEASURABLE improvement. If not, you try a second plan and a third plan. If they fail then you decide whether you have any more plans that can reasonably do any better.
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2007, 11:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by spindler View Post
Zeeb, I never said I was for the Iraq war. You are assuming that. I am simply stating that the current situation is unfair. I was initially against the Iraq war. Once it started and we were there, I was willing to give it one single good solid year to get results and that's all.
Have you no sense of time?! Even conquered nations take more than a year to build.
The idea that four years is not enough is ridiculous.
Show me even one historical example of a nation being conquered and restabilized in four years or less. Show me even one. Here's a hint: Japan and Germany didn't manage it in that short a time.
( Last edited by Millennium; Mar 10, 2007 at 12:16 PM. )
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2007, 11:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by spindler View Post
I was willing to give it one single good solid year to get results and that's all.

Smacintush, you are simply insane.
Yes.

You were willing to give it a WHOLE YEAR yet I am the insane one.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2007, 12:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by spindler View Post
The idea that four years is not enough is ridiculous.
Based on what? Because YOU say so? Because the POLITICAL OPPONENTS of the current administration say so?

Given history, and the history specific to the region etc., one year is absurd. The only people who are stupid enough to give it only a year are the ones who simply want to oppose this administration for political reasons.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
spindler  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Beverly Hills
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2007, 12:34 PM
 
I am not saying "The entire situation must be solved in one year."

I am saying "There must be a noticeable difference between this year and last year."

It is much like solving the Rubik's Cube. The task at first seems impossible. You don't have control over the situation. There are too many unknowns. That is what the situation is like. Terrorists obviously can roam around and take shots and plant bombs.

Now after a year of trying to solve the Rubik's Cube, you either have some measurable progress and ideas or you don't. You should be able to do the second layer at least. You should have ideas of how to eventually nail the problem.

If after a year you have NOT EVEN 1% PROGRESS, then you probably have no chance.

Iraq is NOT EVEN 1% LESS chaotic than on the day Bush said "Mission Accomplished"

Why is it so extraordinarily hard for you to believe that maybe there just isn't enough American troops there too match all the bad guys moving around in all those square miles with all those weapons?

If they could drop off 250 roadside bombs a day 4 years ago and it's still at 250 roadside bombs a day, why would you think that there is some sort of magical progress going on?

Remember people are losing their lives while all this is happening.
     
spindler  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Beverly Hills
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2007, 12:36 PM
 
I would respect you guys if you were anxiously working on Plan B and you had the courage to admit that Plan A isn't working. But you seem to be happy to say "I'll check back in 20 years." to the whole thing.
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2007, 01:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by spindler View Post
I would respect you guys if you were anxiously working on Plan B and you had the courage to admit that Plan A isn't working. But you seem to be happy to say "I'll check back in 20 years." to the whole thing.
Well, then, give us a Plan B that doesn't reduce to cut-and-run.

Actually, let me revise that: give us a plan that wouldn't violate current international law six ways from Sunday, and doesn't reduce to cut-and-run.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
spindler  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Beverly Hills
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2007, 03:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Millennium View Post
Well, then, give us a Plan B that doesn't reduce to cut-and-run.
This response is a good indication that you might be a kook. I gave a Plan B. I said that if you are for the war then you should be for drafting 300,000 more soldiers. I raised an entire moral issue of whether Americans are sitting back and cheating the current soldiers out of the contributions that Americans should be making.

You apparently skipped all that. You didn't argue for it or against it. You just picked two sentences I wrote to respond to and then threw in the old "cut an run" slogan.

So again I ask you, since you are a person who is for the war.

(a) Do you agree or disagree that this current situation is too large for 120,000 soldiers too handle?
(b) If you agree, then do you think Americans have a moral REQUIREMENT to help fight the war if they intend for the volunteer forces to fight it?
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2007, 04:43 PM
 
We could put a million soldiers in Iraq, or a million cops in Detrot, but that does nothing except lock the places down. The problem isn't that we're fighting against "insurgents," but that we're fighting against competing ideologies and beliefs. We can't even be sure who these "insurgents" are, because we can't possibly know what every citizen of Iraq believes, yet there are those who hold the fallacious beliefs that simply sending more troops is going to solve the problem. It's as obvious as the nose on my face that we didn't understand what we were getting into in the first place, as Saddam only held power through military might, and there was a simmering tension under the surface, from many who felt oppressed, and who, given the chance, would have liked nothing better than to see him fall. It doesn't matter who's army is there, or how many in number they are, as that still doesn't address the underyling issues. There are tribal groups, which, thrown into the mix of Shia, Sunnis, and Kurds all having their own agendas, make this an inordinately complex problem, that we're simply not capable of handling. I believe that, had we not interfered in someone else's problem, it would have happened anyway; Saddam Hussein wasn't going to live forever. Iraq now has millions fleeing the country, many of whom are their best educated doctors, lawyers, professors, etc. Their infrastructure is now worse than when we invaded, they have less consistent electricity and water availability than when we invaded, and with their best people fleeing, it's going to be harder to rebuild the country in any event. Unfortunately, we accelerated the beginning of a process that would have taken place anyway. We need to get out now, stop pretending that we went there to give democracy to a region that has a history of anything but democracy, stop allowing our sons and daughters to be killed for someone else's problems, and let them sort out their own mess.
     
Nicko
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cairo
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2007, 04:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by Millennium View Post
Well, then, give us a Plan B that doesn't reduce to cut-and-run.

Actually, let me revise that: give us a plan that wouldn't violate current international law six ways from Sunday, and doesn't reduce to cut-and-run.
What's wrong with 'cut and run'?
If you think about it, the US has 'cut and run' from every conflict since WWII. It seems to me that 'cut and run' is infact the most successful and long term tactic to use right now.
     
spindler  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Beverly Hills
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2007, 04:58 PM
 
"We could put a million soldiers in Iraq, or a million cops in Detrot, but that does nothing except lock the places down."

The situation in Iraq is definitely complex and could be hopeless even with enough troops but that is not necessarily true.

I think that 80% of people are sane enough to choose peace over endless conflict and the groups did previously live together in neighborhoods and were relatively peaceful. While it may be impossible for them to live together, it would have been nice to have seen if a democracy could have formed without the extremists on all sides. It MIGHT have happened. I think if a democracy were held in place for three years or so that the sane people among them would have gotten the idea that democracy does work.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2007, 05:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Nicko View Post
What's wrong with 'cut and run'?
If you think about it, the US has 'cut and run' from every conflict since WWII. It seems to me that 'cut and run' is infact the most successful and long term tactic to use right now.
Because we made a mess, and now we have a responsibility to clean it up. I've never been in favor of this war, but having started it we owe it to the Iraqi people to finish it properly.

We owe the same to the people of Afghanistan, but that's a different thread altogether...
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2007, 05:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by spindler View Post
"We could put a million soldiers in Iraq, or a million cops in Detrot, but that does nothing except lock the places down."

The situation in Iraq is definitely complex and could be hopeless even with enough troops but that is not necessarily true.

I think that 80% of people are sane enough to choose peace over endless conflict and the groups did previously live together in neighborhoods and were relatively peaceful. While it may be impossible for them to live together, it would have been nice to have seen if a democracy could have formed without the extremists on all sides. It MIGHT have happened. I think if a democracy were held in place for three years or so that the sane people among them would have gotten the idea that democracy does work.
Where do you get these time frames from? A PhD program in political science? Or are you just pulling them out of thin air because they sound good to your uninformed gut?
     
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2007, 05:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by spindler View Post
"We could put a million soldiers in Iraq, or a million cops in Detrot, but that does nothing except lock the places down."

The situation in Iraq is definitely complex and could be hopeless even with enough troops but that is not necessarily true.

I think that 80% of people are sane enough to choose peace over endless conflict and the groups did previously live together in neighborhoods and were relatively peaceful. While it may be impossible for them to live together, it would have been nice to have seen if a democracy could have formed without the extremists on all sides. It MIGHT have happened. I think if a democracy were held in place for three years or so that the sane people among them would have gotten the idea that democracy does work.
The reason that these groups "previously live[d] together in neighborhoods and were relatively peaceful" is because Saddam Hussein was a vicious tyrant, and viciously efficient at putting down any internal conflict. The kind of sectarian animosity/hostility we see nowadays in Iraq between Sunni and Shi'ia has always existed, but before it was always just below the surface. Now it has burst out into the open and very few in the US military have a clue how to deal with this centuries-old animosity.

More troops will help in the fight against those engaged in the sectarian battles--as well as those fighting due to simple, anti-US/western hostility--but it will NOT bring about an end to this centuries-old animosity between Sunni and Shi'ia nor will it bring about a stable democratic political structure in Iraq. The people of Iraq have to want that and I don't think they do. Or, more directly, I don't think they want a stable democratic political structure more than they want to see their religious opponent harmed and/or suppressed. Among the Iraqi people I think the desire for the triumph of religious ideology is still more important than the desire for the triumph of political ideology.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2007, 05:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Millennium View Post
Well, then, give us a Plan B that doesn't reduce to cut-and-run.

Here is my plan B from a post in December of 2005.

Originally Posted by subego
Send over more troops.
Increase troop pay thereby encouraging recruitment.
Good god man, sack some of these peacetime Generals already.
Get the UN to help, through bribery if necessary.

I'd also like to point out to you armchair generals that the Army's new counter-insurgency manual states that we need about a half-million boots on the ground.

I'm not going to play the game of what is inside the head of the people who say we don't need a ridiculous amount of troops to pull this off, but know that the other guy who kept saying this, Donald Rumsfeld, got fired for a reason. I believe the technical term for this reason is ****ing things up.

Note that the figure quoting the number of troops needed is conspicuously absent from drafts of the manual prior to his dismissal.
( Last edited by subego; Mar 10, 2007 at 05:28 PM. )
     
Nicko
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cairo
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2007, 05:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Here is my plan B from a post in December of 2005.




I'd also like to point out to you armchair generals that the Army's new counter-insurgency manual states that we need about a half-million boots on the ground.

I'm not going to play the game of what is inside the head of the people who say we don't need a ridiculous amount of troops to pull this off, but know that the other guy who kept saying this, Donald Rumsfeld, got fired for a reason. I believe the technical term for this reason is ****ing things up.

Note that the figure quoting the number of troops needed is conspicuously absent from drafts of the manual prior to his dismissal.
It's too bad your country lacks the political will and public support to even fathom carrying out such a plan. Cut and run IS the only option left (pending the immanent failure of the 'temporary surge' of course)
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2007, 05:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'd also like to point out to you armchair generals that the Army's new counter-insurgency manual states that we need about a half-million boots on the ground.
Hmm. 500,000 boots on the ground would be 250,000 men. Maybe Spindler does know what he's talking about!
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2007, 05:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Here is my plan B from a post in December of 2005.




I'd also like to point out to you armchair generals that the Army's new counter-insurgency manual states that we need about a half-million boots on the ground.

I'm not going to play the game of what is inside the head of the people who say we don't need a ridiculous amount of troops to pull this off, but know that the other guy who kept saying this, Donald Rumsfeld, got fired for a reason. I believe the technical term for this reason is ****ing things up.

Note that the figure quoting the number of troops needed is conspicuously absent from drafts of the manual prior to his dismissal.
And you are an armchair what? IMO, it doesn't matter what the Army's new counter-insurgency manual states. They don't understand what we got into, and they don't understand that more troops aren't going to solve the problems. You can't bring democracy to a people just by pointing a gun at them.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2007, 06:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by KarlG View Post
And you are an armchair what?

Never claimed I wasn't.


Originally Posted by KarlG View Post
You can't bring democracy to a people just by pointing a gun at them.

The manual is named "Counterinsurgency" not "Nation Building".
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2007, 06:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
Hmm. 500,000 boots on the ground would be 250,000 men. Maybe Spindler does know what he's talking about!

No, I don't think it ever said anything about something being in the boot, I think the idea is that if we drop enough boots, they'll hit the insurgency in the head.
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2007, 06:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by spindler View Post
This response is a good indication that you might be a kook.
As opposed to the person who thinks nations can be built in a year or four?
I gave a Plan B.
No, you did not. You bumped up troop numbers using what amounts to slave labor, but that's not a plan.
I said that if you are for the war then you should be for drafting 300,000 more soldiers.
When have I said that I was "for the war"? It's possible to neither oppose nor support; the world is not so black and white.

I do, however, oppose slave labor, as a draft is. If a nation cannot protect itself entirely through volunteers then it does not deserve to be protected.
I raised an entire moral issue of whether Americans are sitting back and cheating the current soldiers out of the contributions that Americans should be making.
And I say that they are not, and you have yet to support your own claim.
You apparently skipped all that. You didn't argue for it or against it.
It's impossible to argue for or against your claim, because you made no claim: you just said to use slaves to throw more manpower at the problem. That's not a Plan B, just an expansion of Plan A.
(a) Do you agree or disagree that this current situation is too large for 120,000 soldiers too handle?
I disagree. The current set of tactics is certainly not the best, but that can be dealt with through new tactics, not an army of slaves.
(b) If you agree, then do you think Americans have a moral REQUIREMENT to help fight the war if they intend for the volunteer forces to fight it?
Not applicable, since I do not agree.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2007, 07:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Millennium View Post
I do, however, oppose slave labor, as a draft is. If a nation cannot protect itself entirely through volunteers then it does not deserve to be protected.

Not that I support a draft, but you miss two key points.

Firstly, I assume you do not believe the above when it is not practical to raise the necessary volunteer force? World War II comes to mind.

Secondly, conscripts get paid, slaves don't. Indentured servitude is a more apt descriptor.
     
Nicko
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cairo
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2007, 04:23 AM
 
War is a funny thing.

The US continues to occupy Iraq and loses more soldiers everyday to a hopeless cause.
or
The US withdraws and the soldiers that have already died, did so in vain.

It's unwinnable either way you look at it.

Of course... military contractors and corporations reap the $BILLIONS$ in contracts either way - they are laughing.

As for the so called 'terrorists'? They are on a jihad, live or die they have already won.
     
- - e r i k - -
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2007, 10:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
No, I don't think it ever said anything about something being in the boot, I think the idea is that if we drop enough boots, they'll hit the insurgency in the head.



[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
spindler  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Beverly Hills
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2007, 11:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by Millennium View Post
As opposed to the person who thinks nations can be built in a year or four?
Again, I did not say that the entire job of nation building had to be done in four years. Step one in nation building is obviously to stabilize the country. What I said was that when you attempt to put down an insurgency, you should be able to see some at least small results in one year. If not, you should try a different set of tactics. Right not with the Patraeus guy it appears we are trying a different set of tactics for the very first time. Any person who was not completely against the ware should have been demanding this one year after Bush said "Mission Accomplished."

I have some questions for you. Please don't hide behind the general idea that "It takes a long time to build a nation."

(1) Step 1 in building a nation is to stabilize it and get it free from violence. Do you agree or disagree that when you try a general plan to do that, or to police an area in general, that you can tell within one year whether that specific plan has any real hope of working? And if you see not even 1% measurable results, you should move onto a different set of tactics (not meaning quitting, but a different strategy for policing the area)? I'm wondering what SPECIFICALLY makes you believe there is at least a 30% chance this can work.

(2) Do you agree or disagree that Bush and company had one plan that was not working for 3.5 years and attempted nothing different at all?


Originally Posted by Millennium View Post
I do, however, oppose slave labor, as a draft is. If a nation cannot protect itself entirely through volunteers then it does not deserve to be protected.
Well that's all nice and romantic, but the bottom line is that no American has any right to be gung ho or accuse the other side of "cut and run" if they themselves wouldn't be REQUIRED to fight if necessary. If an American isn't REQUIRED to make fight in a war (if needed) , then they are at most just some casual observer to this like someone watching a Yankee game. I'm a pansy liberal and even I think I would be REQUIRED to fight in WW2. It would not be optional.

No American that isn't REQUIRED to fight if necessary has any right to be making decisions with the troops lives. No one who isn't REQUIRED to fight should be making decisions for their own self gain that involve someone else doing the sacrifice.

Originally Posted by Millennium View Post
I disagree. The current set of tactics is certainly not the best, but that can be dealt with through new tactics, not an army of slaves.
OK. This is really what I am wondering in terms of anyone who isn't for bringing the troops home. What is there SPECIFICALLY that makes you think the situation in Iraq can be stabilized? Tell me specifically. Please don't tell me "Just wait. It takes like 20 years to build a nation." It seems like a chaotic situation. Lots of groups that hate each other. Lots of weapons available. Lots of square miles to drive around taking shots out of your car window. And they can't even raise an army of Iraqis that is dedicated and not either scared shitless or in league with the bad guys. What gives you any hope that this can be won. The clock is ticking. American soldiers die every day. Am I really crazy to think that this appears to be a hopeless situation?
     
Buckaroo
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 11, 2007, 09:39 PM
 
This works here.

     
Powerbook
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: München, Deutschland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2007, 05:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by Millennium View Post

Show me even one historical example of a nation being conquered and restabilized in four years or less. Show me even one. Here's a hint: Japan and Germany didn't manage it in that short a time.
Huh??? Unrest and civil war in the Germany / Japan of 1949??? Now that's news to me.

Regards
PB
Aut Caesar aut nihil.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2007, 07:25 AM
 
I followed along with the OP and believed the point at its core had merit. That is until the whole; "mission accomplished" bit and the tired old "Conservatives did it" nonsense.

- "Mission Accomplished" referred specifically to the ousting of Saddam Hussein. Read the speech or stop misquoting the context of it. This is disingenuous to the nth degree.

- There is absolutely nothing at all, given the numerous speeches and comments by those on the left prior to our invasion of Iraq, to suggest that they'd have done this any differently or not at all. The call to action against Iraq was not an exclusively "Conservative" ideal. Not everything in this world is "Conservative" or "Liberal" regardless of what they're teaching in Jr. Highschool.

That said; when in doubt do something. I think the American people are calling for some sweeping change in strategy that will make all the difference in the world. I pop open my browser every morning to see another 30 Iraqis dead to some bomb and I wonder if this will ever stop. The problem is there might be few things (short of massive military build-up) that can make a significant difference. I believe an awesome military presence can do this. I'm not certain of the overall troop numbers, but I don't think a draft is necessary for making this presence known. We have to measure the Iraqi contribution to this effort within the next year and make some tough decisions soon.

I'm for a massive military buildup and presence in Iraq for approximately one year with several key goals and an unannounced, phased withdrawal after that year is expired.

I'm not privy to news accounts of our media blitz in Iraq, but something tells me this could be better. We need to muster as many peaceful clerics from all sides of the fence with an ability to appeal and get them in front of cameras as early and often as possible. We need to literally envelope the Iraqi people with messages of hope for a better future and urge them to contribute to the effort. We can't do it without their help and we cannot accommodate their desire for us to leave without some semblance of security in the area.
ebuddy
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2007, 07:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
- "Mission Accomplished" referred specifically to the ousting of Saddam Hussein. Read the speech or stop misquoting the context of it. This is disingenuous to the nth degree.
Not only that, this has been proven time and time and time again in this forum.

People who still try to treat it otherwise don't care about the truth. Just bashing.

Mission Accomplished = Toppling over of the Saddam led Gov. Nothing more.
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2007, 07:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by Powerbook View Post
Huh??? Unrest and civil war in the Germany / Japan of 1949??? Now that's news to me.
Resistance groups did in fact persist that long. They were weaker, but the methods the US used to ensure that would be completely unacceptable today.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2007, 07:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by spindler View Post
OK. This is really what I am wondering in terms of anyone who isn't for bringing the troops home.
Loaded out of the gate. Who is against "bringing troops home"? I believe there is not one single, solitary individual with voting rights in the US who doesn't want our troops home. The questions are; Is there a job to be done and when is that job complete? i.e. When to bring troops home?

What is there SPECIFICALLY that makes you think the situation in Iraq can be stabilized?
The knowledge that Iraqis are just like us. Human. They want peace, they want security, they want prosperity, and they want freedom. I believe rhetoric like yours says; "those barbarians of the Middle East are incapable of civility, lawfulness, and freedom."

I believe your notions are xenophobic to their very core. You won't admit this, but it is so in everything you say.

Tell me specifically. Please don't tell me "Just wait. It takes like 20 years to build a nation."
A sustained, punishing presence in Iraq would eventually erode the hostile elements. The problem is, the presence has not been punitive enough and the hostiles are enjoying a little too much success.

It seems like a chaotic situation. Lots of groups that hate each other.
Most don't hate at all. They want to live in peace, worship as they wish, go to work, make money, get nice things for themselves and their family. Just like you. Your statement tells me that Americans haven't a clue what "chaotic" is.

Lots of weapons available. Lots of square miles to drive around taking shots out of your car window.
Crime will always exist. There are ways of handling it, but it will take a grassroots effort which you allude to (but conclude impossible) below.

And they can't even raise an army of Iraqis that is dedicated and not either scared shitless or in league with the bad guys. What gives you any hope that this can be won. The clock is ticking. American soldiers die every day. Am I really crazy to think that this appears to be a hopeless situation?
From the Administration;

Victory Will Take Time
Our strategy is working: Much has been accomplished in Iraq, including the removal of Saddam's tyranny, negotiation of an interim constitution, restoration of full sovereignty, holding of free national elections, formation of an elected government, drafting of a permanent constitution, ratification of that constitution, introduction of a sound currency, gradual restoration of neglected infrastructure, the ongoing training and equipping of Iraqi security forces, and the increasing capability of those forces to take on the terrorists and secure their nation.


Yes. In fact, the number of security forces is what... 300,000? I've got several links to successful missions accomplished by exclusively Iraqi security forces. Good news is not news worthy. The difficulty?

Yet many challenges remain: Iraq is overcoming decades of a vicious tyranny, where governmental authority stemmed solely from fear, terror, and brutality.
It is not realistic to expect a fully functioning democracy, able to defeat its enemies and peacefully reconcile generational grievances, to be in place less than three years after Saddam was finally removed from power


Time is not all they're asking for. Time is what is important here because resolve here in the US is critical, but again no one is asking for time alone. It might also interest the OP that those serving in uniform are not the only ones serving the military or the efforts abroad. There are many things going on here in the US that support our military abroad and the military is thankful for those things. Care packages, Commercial assistance, donations, information dissemination... and the list goes on.
ebuddy
     
Sky Captain
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Second star to the right, and straight on till morning
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2007, 08:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by Millennium View Post
Resistance groups did in fact persist that long. They were weaker, but the methods the US used to ensure that would be completely unacceptable today.
Bingo.

Line up the suspects and publicly execute them.
Gitmo should be empty.
AbuGarib should be empty.
Eventuelly you run out of troublemakers.
Saddam understood this.
All men are created equal, but what they do after that point puts them on a sliding scale.
     
Powerbook
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: München, Deutschland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2007, 10:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by Millennium View Post
Resistance groups did in fact persist that long. They were weaker, but the methods the US used to ensure that would be completely unacceptable today.
From all I can get from sources and people of that time, that was not the case. Please show me any incidents etc., after 1945. I've found different remarks of the American/ British high command, that they had no signs of organised underground activities, the SS tried to create. The only people trying to stick to the "Werwolf"-myth (apart from some SS crazies) were the Sovjets, simply to justify all their anti-"fascist" course of action.

Regards
PB
( Last edited by Powerbook; Mar 12, 2007 at 10:29 AM. )
Aut Caesar aut nihil.
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2007, 10:53 AM
 
plan C: keep shopping!
     
Macrobat
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Raleigh, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2007, 12:31 PM
 
It should also be noted that neither Germany nor Japan had outside instigator nations interested in continuing to foment violence, unlike Iraq.
"That Others May Live"
On the ISG: "The nation's capital hasn't seen such concentrated wisdom in one place since Paris Hilton dined alone at the Hooters on Connecticut Avenue." - John Podhoretz
     
Nicko
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cairo
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2007, 12:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The knowledge that Iraqis are just like us. Human. They want peace, they want security, they want prosperity, and they want freedom. I believe rhetoric like yours says; "those barbarians of the Middle East are incapable of civility, lawfulness, and freedom."

I believe your notions are xenophobic to their very core. You won't admit this, but it is so in everything you say.

A sustained, punishing presence in Iraq would eventually erode the hostile elements. The problem is, the presence has not been punitive enough and the hostiles are enjoying a little too much success.
Hmmm Iraqis just want freedom, so that is why the US has to continue to occupy and massacre the innocents. That is some great kool aid you're drinking.

In other news, Halliburton (Dick Cheney's baby) announced today that it is making so much money they are moving their corporate headquarters from Texas to Dubai (oil capital of the middle east) to better compete with the likes of China. Oh the irony, giant corporation that profits a record $13 billion last year from no-bid contracts in Iraq, formerly headed by the current vice-president, its success helped by the blood of US soldiers... moves offshore to avoid paying taxes, among other things

But wait...you're bringing the Iraqis freedom...
     
Sky Captain
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Second star to the right, and straight on till morning
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2007, 12:41 PM
 
Massacre the innocents?
Talk about drinking KoolAid™. Tell Jim I said HI.
The last that I checked it was other Arabs on a wholesale slaughter.
All men are created equal, but what they do after that point puts them on a sliding scale.
     
Macrobat
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Raleigh, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2007, 02:30 PM
 
Please never confuse Nicko with facts, it makes his head hurt. He does much better with dogmatic insults, conspiracy theories and sophmoric views.
"That Others May Live"
On the ISG: "The nation's capital hasn't seen such concentrated wisdom in one place since Paris Hilton dined alone at the Hooters on Connecticut Avenue." - John Podhoretz
     
RAILhead
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2007, 02:43 PM
 
I thought everyone knew that the problem isn't with "the troops" or their numbers, it's with all the back-seat politicos that keep the troops from doing their job: killing those we deem Bad Guys.
"Everything's so clear to me now: I'm the keeper of the cheese and you're the lemon merchant. Get it? And he knows it.
That's why he's gonna kill us. So we got to beat it. Yeah. Before he let's loose the marmosets on us."
my bandmy web sitemy guitar effectsmy photosfacebookbrightpoint
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2007, 03:01 PM
 
No RAILhead, it's the media's fault. If the media would just stop reporting the bad news, and only report the good news, then things would be much better. We should start censoring news organizations.
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
Nicko
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cairo
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2007, 03:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by tie View Post
No RAILhead, it's the media's fault. If the media would just stop reporting the bad news, and only report the good news, then things would be much better. We should start censoring news organizations.
You mean like this?

"(AP) String of Afghan Deaths Cause Outrage"

By JASON STRAZIUSO
Associated Press Writer
KABUL, Afghanistan

On a trip to the market, Haji Lawania says he drove his gray SUV into a hail of U.S. gunfire that shattered his windshield and killed his father, nephew and a village elder.

The three companions, who died Sunday in the aftermath of a suicide bombing in eastern Nangarhar province, are among 40 civilians whose deaths this year could be attributed to NATO or U.S. action, according to an Associated Press tally based on figures from military and Afghan officials.

The high number of casualties and fresh accusations that Marines fired on civilians along miles of...
...highway have sparked rage everywhere from dusty streets to the halls of parliament, threatening to turn the support of wavering Afghans against U.S. and NATO troops and, more ominously, President Hamid Karzai's fledgling Western-backed government.

NATO spokesman Col. Tom Collins said civilian casualties are caused "overwhelmingly" because militants operate in populated areas, hiding in civilian homes after attacks and setting off suicide bombs in public.

But he acknowledged the harm the deaths do to the international mission's image.

"It would seem to me that the enemy benefits when (NATO) forces take what we consider appropriate action againstthreatening behavior," Collins said. "Nonetheless, the enemy is able to gain from that because there is this perception that we're shooting people, civilians."

Karzai has pleaded repeatedly for Western troops to operate with care, but the long list of civilian deaths since 2001 seems only to grow. The U.S.-based Human Rights Watch estimates that more than 100 Afghan civilians died as a result of NATO and coalition assaults in 2006.

In three separate incidents Sunday and Monday, Afghan witnesses and officials said U.S. military action may have killed up to 20 civilians _ up to 10 shot by Marines after the suicide bombing, nine killed in an airstrike afterTaliban fighters sought refuge in a home, and one shot and killed after driving too close to a convoy.

At the site of the suicide bombing and gunfire in Nangarhar province, police estimated that 4,000 Afghans staged an angry but peaceful demonstration Tuesday. One sign read: "Killer Bush! Stop the Killing of Afghans. Down with America."

"Afghan civilians are angry about the security situation today," said John Sifton, a researcher on terrorism for Human Rights Watch. "All parties need to work harder to ensure that the conflict doesn't fall heavy on civilians."

Lawmakers in Afghanistan's upper house of Parliament expressed outrage Tuesday at therecent killings, and lawmaker Mohammad Hassan Otak said they would summon the NATO commander, the defense and interior ministers and a U.N. representative to address the matter.

"If it happens again, we will not sit by quietly," Otak said. "This kind of action ruins the dignity of the government, and if it is repeated the coalition will lose the trust of the Afghan people, and they may not sit by quietly either."

A senior Afghan official said the government has repeatedly told the U.S. and NATO that civilians must not be harmed during operations, and that top generals have always agreed with those demands.

"To what extent that is followedthrough down the chain of command I can't say," the official said on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

The militant attacks are specifically designed to provoke an overreaction that proves counterproductive, said Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University.

"The suicide attacks, I believe, are calculated to raise tensions, place troops in the desperate life-or-death situations that give rise to random fire," he said.

Afghan witnesses in Nangarhar province say Marines opened fire along a six-mile stretch of road, wounding 34 Afghans, including Lawania, in addition to the 10 killed.

"We wereabout to turn onto the main road when we heard the suicide explosion," Lawania, 45, said by telephone from the hospital. "Suddenly on the main road I saw the Humvees. They opened fire on us even though we'd stopped on the side road.

"Maybe the Americans thought we were a second suicide attacker, so they opened fire. Otherwise there's no reason to shoot up civilian cars."

The U.S.-led coalition says militant gunmen shot at Marines and may have caused some of the casualties, but no Afghan officials or witnesses have yet corroborated that account.

"Did I see any militants? If you want to ask me this question, you must trust me first," said Lawania,who may lose his right hand because of the bullet injury. "No single shot was fired from our village or vehicle toward the Americans."

Lawania's SUV took about 100 bullets. A U.S. soldier made four Afghan journalists _ including two AP cameramen _ erase photos and videos of the car.

Still, new revelations about an attack later Sunday night in Kapisa province suggest that militants are indeed using civilian homes for cover.

Militants fired rockets at a U.S. base, then dashed into a nearby home. A U.S. airstrike then destroyed that home in an attack which killed nine people including four young children.

Sayed Mohammad Dawood Hashimi, thedeputy governor of Kapisa province, said the house's owner was a known militant named Mirwais who had fired rockets at the U.S. base. He was hurt in the strike but managed to flee.

Before the airstrike, Afghan elders had asked Mirwais and his associates to stop attacking the base, "but they're Taliban and they didn't listen. So the result is that Mirwais lost his family," Hashimi said Tuesday.

"We didn't know who was in that building, but we saw fighters move into that area who were legitimate targets," Collins said. "The building was struck and as we all know, unfortunately, civilians were killed."

Human Rights Watch researcher Sifton saidTaliban attacks that harmed civilians and excessive force by NATO troops in response were both inexcusable.

"It's legal to return fire during a conflict setting. We would never deny that," he said. "We're just saying international forces have to take additional precautions. ... It's simply not believable that so many civilians could be killed. You can't open fire and shoot anything and everything, 360 degrees around you."
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2007, 04:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by RAILhead View Post
I thought everyone knew that the problem isn't with "the troops" or their numbers, it's with all the back-seat politicos that keep the troops from doing their job: killing those we deem Bad Guys.

Every time someone says this I ask this question. I have yet to get a response, period, let alone a constructive one.

If the problem is our Rules of Engagement, and what we need to do is kick some ass, wouldn't a proper ass kicking benefit from more numerical superiority? If we have that numerical superiority, why not do it the "nice" way (as outlined in the new counterinsurgency manual)? If not, doesn't any ass kicking work out better if you have more dudes?

The analogy I use is the RoE that police have to use deadly force. The main metric (as I assume you are aware) is whether one is in fear for their life, or a civilian's life.

A 5'2" 125 pound cop will be put in that fear much more easily than three 6'2" 250 pound cops.
     
RAILhead
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2007, 06:04 PM
 
Well, we won't agree here because I'm the camp that would burn and pave the entire ME and pop up Wal-Marts, Targets, Starbucks and Barnes & Nobles. B-52s and napalm.
"Everything's so clear to me now: I'm the keeper of the cheese and you're the lemon merchant. Get it? And he knows it.
That's why he's gonna kill us. So we got to beat it. Yeah. Before he let's loose the marmosets on us."
my bandmy web sitemy guitar effectsmy photosfacebookbrightpoint
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2007, 06:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by RAILhead View Post
Well, we won't agree here because I'm the camp that would burn and pave the entire ME and pop up Wal-Marts, Targets, Starbucks and Barnes & Nobles. B-52s and napalm.

Well, if you were willing to do a rewind on Iraq, I'll let you pave Saudi Arabia.

Deal?
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2007, 08:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
Iraq needs TIME. You throw out there that we have had four years…as if four years is a long time?! It's not!
It's a lot longer than "six weeks or six months." But I guess you've forgotten about that.

(Hint: Rumsfeld)
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2007, 08:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Sky Captain View Post
Massacre the innocents?
Talk about drinking KoolAid™. Tell Jim I said HI.
The last that I checked it was other Arabs on a wholesale slaughter.
Try reading Railhead's posts. He's still looking for WMD and hasn't yet caught up with the post-war reason for the war.
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2007, 08:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by Powerbook View Post
From all I can get from sources and people of that time, that was not the case. Please show me any incidents etc., after 1945. I've found different remarks of the American/ British high command, that they had no signs of organised underground activities, the SS tried to create. The only people trying to stick to the "Werwolf"-myth (apart from some SS crazies) were the Sovjets, simply to justify all their anti-"fascist" course of action.
77 killed and 127 wounded in double suicide bomb attack
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:15 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,