[quote]pookie wrote:
pat36 wrote:
His point is absolutely incorrect, unless you consider the annihilation of 2 country’s militaries and the disestablishment of their governments a defeat.
That part was done rather well. Unfortunately, it’s the after part that counts. The end result the world will have to live with when you go.
We are bogged down, but to get the hell out of Iraq, we need to escalate not pull out.
I agree.
We need to assassinate some radical imams and disperse the crowds and bit; separate them from their muse.
I disagree here. Attacking religious targets would lend only more credibility to their claims that this is a holy war.
As for dispersing the crowds, those people live there. You want to force them away from their homes? What, send them to die en masse in the desert? Unless the whole thing turn into a genocide, I don’t see order emerging from what you propose.
Once we do this then we can leave. I wish we were not in Iraq, but we are so we have to finish the job.
That’d be nice. Unfortunately, I think you’d need more troops for that; either yours or from allies who would accept to join your cause. I don’t really see how either case could realistically be implemented, so I’m not optimistic.
Saying we’re losing is just idiotic, or perhaps wishful thinking on the part of the left and the America haters.
Well things aren’t going very well; goals are not being met; violence is escalating rather than diminishing and civil war would probably break out today if your troops pulled out. Calling it winning or losing does nothing to help solve the situation at any rate.
The problem is that there are too many politicians and politics involved. Once the decision has been made to go to war, you turn it over to the Generals.
Why do that when Rumsfeld is smarter than everyone and he’s got a brand new doctrine for the army to implement?
When the conduct of war is derived from partisan bickering, it will result in more deaths then there should be. War is a good time for politicians to shut the fuck up.
Now that’s wishful thinking.
War is seldom fought for good reasons, but if the decision is made, you can’t pussy-foot around you have to win and win decisively as quickly as you can.
We agree on this point. I think democratic nations have a problem here. The public has no stomach for “real” wars. As soon as the videos and pictures of dismembered kids come rolling in, popular supports melts away like snow in an oven. People want clean wars where soldiers don’t die and when civilians aren’t involved. That doesn’t work and probably lenghtens the time it takes to accomplish the goals while putting both soldier and civilians in worse situations.
[/quote]
I sould be more clear about going after Imams. I don’t mean radomly, I mean those who use their position as a rallying point for insurgents, like Al-sadr, or what ever his name is. Get those guys not just any Imam. I see as a strike the shepard and disperse the flock. After all they are not religious anymore; they made themselves political when they rally people to start killing others. My other stream of logic behind this thought that these Imams aren’t the ones who want to die for their cause, they want others to do this; so we make it a scary occupation for those who do not want to die.
My other thought, Rumsfield is an asshat and should shoot himself for the good of the country. His intervention has made this a much more difficult war. The boots on the ground know what needs to be done much more than he does, yet he keeps putting presure with unrealistic expectations on the military so that they will make him look like a hero. What a dick.