[quote]vroom wrote:
I know what I wrote, you still haven’t bothered to answer the question.[/quote]
Again…this is the third time.
Hedo wrote:
The easy answer is when defeat is immenent and our forces would suffer a crushing loss in the face of an overwhelming enemy.
That’s a pretty clear answer. What about that is a sidestep?
If your just going to play dumb I probably won’t respond anymore.
vroom’s accusing hedo of dancing?
Dude - you are embarassing yourself. I am even felling sorry for you right now. Give it up and concede. Hedo has you beat at every turn.
Your mouth has gotten you into trouble that even your thinking tree can’t get you out of.
Hedo, I was expecting to see something with respect to time, so basically you are saying “never”.
I don’t have any issue with that being your viewpoint.
I don’t agree. I think the cost in terms of lives and money is eventually too high to bear. I’d imagine that some type of deadline can be given for the Iraqi people to be responsible for their own well-being.
A hasty withdrawal, probably a bad idea. Staying forever, probably another bad idea. Reasonable people will start to put the answer somewhere in between… all that remains now is for the administration to figure out where it wants that point to be.
Will you disagree with the administration, now that your viewpoint is essentially documented as never, if they decide a pull out before the next election is appropriate?
What about you Rainjack, since you’ve interjected yourself into other peoples business once again?
[quote]vroom wrote:
What about you Rainjack, since you’ve interjected yourself into other peoples business once again?[/quote]
Watching you be systematically dismantled is my business.
I say we don’t come home until we are finished training a sufficient Iraqi defense force, there is a stable and freely elected government in place, and said Iraqi Government feels confident that our services are no longer needed.
I cetrtainly don’t subscribe to the idea of telling the insurgency our plans, nor do I think that the same congress that voted to give the President the right to go to war should change their minds like a bunch of women trying on shoes.
Re-Deploy is a funny choice of words. Is that the new politicaly correct term for pulling out?
Why can’t the guy just say “I think we should pull out.”. That would be a more honest and straight forward statement.
Sounds real mission oriented though, alot like the sciency names for useless substances that some supp companies come up with. It even allows enough wiggle room for more double talk. If pushed the guy can even say that he didn’t move for an immediate withdrawl- He moved for a Re-Deployment! HaHa big difference!
Who votes for someone like this? You would have to be an idiot to buy soft served bullshit like that.
Hold onto your hat Rainjack, there are points of agreement between us.
I don’t think the insurgency needs to be told of our plans either.
However, given that the people who voted for the war have learned that they apparently had bad intel (sidestepping the political hot-potato that represents), perhaps they should be allowed to reassess their stance given the information now available?
What if they honestly don’t feel that a WMD free Iraq was worth the loss of any American lives? Are you suggesting they should throw good blood after bad just to stay the course? What if the course takes ten years due to the ineptness of Iraqi forces?
If you would rather not answer because you don’t feel it is appropriate to discuss, I’d understand. However, those are reasonable questions that don’t have to be viewed as partisan.
Republicans are starting to ask those same questions as well…
[quote]vroom wrote:
However, given that the people who voted for the war have learned that they apparently had bad intel (sidestepping the political hot-potato that represents), perhaps they should be allowed to reassess their stance given the information now available?[/quote]
I have my doubts that they recieved bad intel. I don’t doubt that the intel that was used turned out to be wrong - but the argument is that they recieved different intel info than the President had. This argument has been debunked sufficiently, in my opinion.
Additionally - believe it or not, WMD was not the only reason the President asked for the authority to go to war. To use WMD’s as a reason for an immediate pull out is a cop out.
My personal opinion is that the left has politicized this war for no other reason than petty partisan politics. I can think of no worse reason to pull out.
There will come a time when the resolve of the Iraqis must be questioned. But not this soon. It takes years to make the rank of Captain. Even longer to make LTC, longer still to get be a full Bird.
Hell - it tales a while to train a decent Seargent. We haven’t even been there long enough to train a decent butter bar, yet. I think it was a mistake for Rumsfeld to try and short track training.
To bail out now because we fear what might or might not happen in 10 years is being a little too hasty.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
There will come a time when the resolve of the Iraqis must be questioned. But not this soon. It takes years to make the rank of Captain. Even longer to make LTC, longer still to get be a full Bird.
Hell - it tales a while to train a decent Seargent. We haven’t even been there long enough to train a decent butter bar, yet. I think it was a mistake for Rumsfeld to try and short track training.
To bail out now because we fear what might or might not happen in 10 years is being a little too hasty. [/quote]
I think McNamara said the same thing a while ago, huh?
ARVN, anyone?
[quote]vroom wrote:
What if they honestly don’t feel that a WMD free Iraq was worth the loss of any American lives? Are you suggesting they should throw good blood after bad just to stay the course? What if the course takes ten years due to the ineptness of Iraqi forces?
Republicans are starting to ask those same questions as well…[/quote]
Vroom, now it looks like you are just fishing for something to be right about.
The first what if is invalid because that decision has all ready been made to the contrary.
Throwing good blood after bad? Are you implying that the blood that has been shed thus far is not good, but to continue would be?
The second what if has also been been explained by Bush several times very directly and succinctly. No one has ever said this was going to be a quickie. There may have been some unrealistic expectations on the part of people who weren’t listening too well, but that is not the fault of the administration.
As far as Republicans asking the same questions- Good. Reps and Dems alike should be asking questions and discussing a feasable exit strategy. Call it planning if you like. By the time they come to an agreement on it, it will probably be time to execute.
Where do people get the idea that dismantling an army, removing a malinant government and stopping a terrorist insurgency is gonna happen real quick and spiffy?
For those willing to take the time, the following has a lot of information about what is going on in some parts of Iraq with respect to transition/turnover/drawdown.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
I have my doubts that they recieved bad intel. I don’t doubt that the intel that was used turned out to be wrong - but the argument is that they recieved different intel info than the President had. This argument has been debunked sufficiently, in my opinion.[/quote]
Rainjack, thanks for the reasonable response. Note that I did not imply anything by use of the word “bad” intel, no need to go there.
I know that WMD’s were not the only reason asked, but that has nothing to do with whether or not it was the only reason someone voted to approve it. You can’t assume everyone voted on a total package and that they still feel it is justified in total. As with anyone else, I don’t have issue if that is your own opinion though.
Of course, you do know that many on the left felt that only WMD’s were a good reason for a preemptive war. The fact that there weren’t any (as admitted by the administration) changes things for those people.
In particular, those that did vote against the war, because they felt the evidence was too weak, should certainly be able to speak out now.
I also find it curious that nobody is ever allowed to change their opinion. Really, there is nothing wrong with (if you are a democrat) seeing that you made a mistake and then adjusting course when you find out you did so. It’s normal, but the fact this is a war adds a lot of restrictions to behaviors.
[quote]There will come a time when the resolve of the Iraqis must be questioned. But not this soon. It takes years to make the rank of Captain. Even longer to make LTC, longer still to get be a full Bird.
Hell - it tales a while to train a decent Seargent. We haven’t even been there long enough to train a decent butter bar, yet. I think it was a mistake for Rumsfeld to try and short track training.
To bail out now because we fear what might or might not happen in 10 years is being a little too hasty.[/quote]
On the other hand, I strongly suspect that the republicans will work very hard to be removing the troops from Iraq before the next election. It is really unknown, to all of us, what will happen when the troops do finally pull out.
If the troops stay, and then Iraq falls into civil war the minute they leave, five years from now, then it will be very sad indeed. I don’t know how to ensure that Iraq turns into the country that we want it to.
Staying or leaving might not make much of a difference. That is a harsh reality we eventually may have to face… whatever political stripe we may bear.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Vroom, now it looks like you are just fishing for something to be right about.
The first what if is invalid because that decision has all ready been made to the contrary.[/quote]
It’s called “discussion” Sky. Ask questions, get people to explain their reasons, understand it better.
Have you heard the phrase “throwing good money after bad”? The bad is the money that you’ve already lost. The good money is the money you still have. I think we all want to hold onto every life we can, but I’m questioning whether we will lose more because we’ve already lost some.
[quote]The second what if has also been been explained by Bush several times very directly and succinctly. No one has ever said this was going to be a quickie. There may have been some unrealistic expectations on the part of people who weren’t listening too well, but that is not the fault of the administration.
As far as Republicans asking the same questions- Good. Reps and Dems alike should be asking questions and discussing a feasable exit strategy. Call it planning if you like. By the time they come to an agreement on it, it will probably be time to execute.
Where do people get the idea that dismantling an army, removing a malinant government and stopping a terrorist insurgency is gonna happen real quick and spiffy?[/quote]
I don’t know, but as I suggested to Rainjack, I strongly suspect that the troops will be leaving Iraq before the next election. I don’t know if that is quick or spiffy, but I do know it is an arbitrary deadline…
[quote]hedo wrote:
They have no popular support, the basis of any irregular warfare.
[/quote]
They have popular support, in places. Enough to provide a basis for irregular warfare. Evidently. As the volume of insurgent attacks appears to increase.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I think McNamara said the same thing a while ago, huh?
ARVN, anyone? [/quote]
Different time. Different War. Different Enemy.
I know the ABB/anti war crowd gets a hard-on everytime they hear the newest death count, or comparisons of Iraq and Viet Nam.
But there’s really nothing to be getting the lotion and kleenex out for, Irish.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Hedo, I was expecting to see something with respect to time, so basically you are saying “never”.
I don’t have any issue with that being your viewpoint.
I don’t agree. I think the cost in terms of lives and money is eventually too high to bear. I’d imagine that some type of deadline can be given for the Iraqi people to be responsible for their own well-being.
A hasty withdrawal, probably a bad idea. Staying forever, probably another bad idea. Reasonable people will start to put the answer somewhere in between… all that remains now is for the administration to figure out where it wants that point to be.
Will you disagree with the administration, now that your viewpoint is essentially documented as never, if they decide a pull out before the next election is appropriate?
What about you Rainjack, since you’ve interjected yourself into other peoples business once again?[/quote]
Why surrender when you are winning? The illusion that the US is losing is largely a creation of the media and fabrication of the left to score political points.
If we were losing key battles, had no plan to win or sustain the battle I would think about exiting. When the defeat of the enemy is a foregone conclusion why hand them victory?
The vote was a brilliant political stunt by the Republicans to get the Democrats on the record against immediate pullout.
It makes it harder for the far left anti-war types to give their unconditional support for people that voted for the war and voted against immediate retreat.
By all but the most pessimistic accounts the Iraqi security forces are getting better by the day and are handling themselves well. Barring major setbacks we should be drawing down our presence in 2006.
It is a shame they have to play politics with such a crucial issue but in this day and age of the internet and 24 hour news anything and everything is fair game.
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
hedo wrote:
They have no popular support, the basis of any irregular warfare.
They have popular support, in places. Enough to provide a basis for irregular warfare. Evidently. As the volume of insurgent attacks appears to increase.[/quote]
Endgamer,
The popular support they used to enjoy is gone. They have no major strongholds left. It takes time but the insurgency has been out fought and is withering away.
Why do you say the attacks by the murderers are increasing? Can you cite a source on that. It seems to me that most attacks are now against civilians in an attempt to imtimidate. What I have read seems to support that but I’d like to see the contrary evidence.
The media reports the one truck that gets hit on a road. Not the 999 that passed by that day? At that rate the battle has already been turned.
[quote]Why surrender when you are winning? The illusion that the US is losing is largely a creation of the media and fabrication of the left to score political points.
If we were losing key battles, had no plan to win or sustain the battle I would think about exiting. When the defeat of the enemy is a foregone conclusion why hand them victory?[/quote]
Hedo,
You paint a really nice picture. I don’t by any means intend to suggest that I think the US is losing. The questions I’m asking are not defined by win and loss.
The point is that at some point the troops are actually going to leave Iraq. Whenever that is, there is going to be risks as to what will then happen there afterwards. Get beyond the win/lose mentality here.
All you are doing is echoing talking points when you call leaving a surrender… at some point the US will leave, that doesn’t make it a surrender by any means. If the mission is already accomplished, why stay?
What is the mission now? What will be the next mission? When will there stop being more missions?
Again, I ask you, if the current administration decides to remove the forces from Iraq prior to the next election, will you support that move?
Instead of chanting some propaganda, why don’t you just try to give an honest answer concerning when it is appropriate to leave and whether you would support the administration if it left just to help it’s chances in the next election?
We jumped into a situation that will take years to clean up if not decades. It is sad American lives are wagered against political battles. I personally wouldn’t want one more life lost over there in the name of Iraq. Unfortunately, because of football team politics, we care more about who “wins” than how many lives we lose.
Well, I see where the win/lose mentality talking points are originating…
Bush Rejects Early Exit From Iraq
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051129/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq
[i]
“Secondly, we want to win,” Bush said. “The whole objective is to achieve victory against the terrorists.”
“I’m interested in winning. I want to defeat the terrorists. And I want our troops to come home,” the president said. “But I don’t want them to come how without having achieved victory. We’ve got a strategy for victory.”
[/i]
However, Bush is setting himself for future trouble in at least two ways:
It is hard to “win” against “terrorism” by fighting in Iraq – no matter how long you stay. There will probably be violence and attacks for decades, how can you declare victory with this criteria?
I’m predicting that the troops will be mostly withdrawn before the next election.
No, instead he’ll flip flop into calling this a victory when Iraq can fight the battle, because it will be far from over when US troops finally do leave.
Then, after the troops do leave, there will be all kinds of strife and unrest in Iraq. Then, Bush will have left both too late and too early.
Honestly, Bush should just come right out and say what he intends to do without trying to couch this in terms of victory and defeat. He is digging his own grave with that language. All he needed to say was “we’ll leave as soon as Iraq can police itself competently”.
However, I understand the reason for it, after all nobody wants to surrender to the evil terrorists. Nobody wants to admit defeat. Nobody wants to encourage terrorism. Nobody wants to be unpatriotic or anti-american.
That’s why he is wrapping himself in such language. It’s a mistake.