[quote]Brad61 wrote:
100meters wrote:
Luckily though, this thing is only gonna cost us 1.5 billion when all said and done.
oh. damn.
You mean 1.5 trillion total, not billion.
We spend 1.5 billion a week there, more or less. Hard to say exactly because nobody is keeping close track. It’s just money, and the Congress doesn’t want to bust anyone’s balls at the White House, about how money is getting spent. Congress just closed the office that was supposed to oversee spending, not that ever did anything anyway:
But anyway, 6 billion tax dollars a month, for Bush’s Fabulous Disaster in Iraq. Comes out to be 1.5 billion a week. Don’t worry, your kids and grandkids will pay for it later. Small price to pay, in order to prop up Dear Leader’s ego, so he can brag that he didn’t back down. Let the next president clean up the mess.
[/quote]
I was kind of making a sarcastic comment on Natsios’ predicted cost of Iraqi reconstruction to U.S. taxpayers:
TED KOPPEL: You?re saying the, the top cost for the US taxpayer will be $1.7 billion. No more than that?
ANDREW NATSIOS, director of U.S. Agency for International Development: For the reconstruction. And then there?s 700 million in the supplemental budget for humanitarian relief, which we don?t competitively bid ?cause it?s charities that get that money.
TED KOPPEL: I understand. But as far as reconstruction goes, the American taxpayer will not be hit for more than $1.7 billion no matter how long the process takes?
ANDREW NATSIOS: That is our plan and that is our intention. And these figures, outlandish figures I?ve seen, I have to say, there?s a little bit of hoopla involved in this.
Please start your own thread. I suggest, due to your recent comments, it be titled, “America losing in Iraq, and we love it!!!” Or, “I was right all along, I am fantastic.”
Don’t pollute my thread. I can smell you from here.
Imagine, your very own forum to bash the U.S. and cheer on defeat!!!
In other news, saddam is going to be hanged after being convicted by his own people.
He had a trial by Iraqi’s and he will be hanged.
That sends one hell of a strong message to the rest of the world.
For all you guys who think “Iraq would be better off without saddam,” eat that.
In case you don’t know it, that is winning!!! Iraqi’s choosing to hang their former murderous, dictator.
Someone please make the assertion that the trial was done at the behest of halliburton, GWB, the Saudi’s or whoever the flavor of the month villian is for you.
The funny thing is that the Military isn’t even close to losing. The Jihadist recognize this. Their war is waged upon the minds of the American public. They know they can’t defeat us militarily. Its the soft, well fed, trendy clothing wearing, short attention span american public they have to defeat. That’s easy enough.
Maybe it would be best if the military was given real military objectives?
Seriously, you guys took over the place and declared victory almost instantaneously, but it has been downhill ever since then. However, it appears that nation-building isn’t taught at West Point.
I blame top leadership for naivety and an unwillingness to take the advice of competent professionals who are grounded in reality.
Anyway, I am still waiting for some clear definition of winning. We’d better define it soon because the longer we don’t, the more things will continue in their current direction… which is not a good one.
Oh, and saying that winning involves the nation of Iraq suddenly and spontaneously holding hands and singing a peaceful chorus of kumba-ya isn’t going to cut it. We heard the “we’ll be greeted as liberators” speech before, and I don’t think that kind of bullshit is going to fly twice.
As for Jerffy, he still has his eyes closed, fingers crossed and Foley’s dick up his butt, so I don’t think he’s actually noticed any realities of the situation.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
The funny thing is that the Military isn’t even close to losing. The Jihadist recognize this. Their war is waged upon the minds of the American public. They know they can’t defeat us militarily. Its the soft, well fed, trendy clothing wearing, short attention span american public they have to defeat. That’s easy enough.[/quote]
Pretty sure there’s more involved than jihadists war on american minds. Turns out there’s an Iraqi public with minds too. Also we’re dealing with Iraqi’s fighting Iraqi’s, so yeah, obviously we can loose.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Sloth wrote:
The funny thing is that the Military isn’t even close to losing. The Jihadist recognize this. Their war is waged upon the minds of the American public. They know they can’t defeat us militarily. Its the soft, well fed, trendy clothing wearing, short attention span american public they have to defeat. That’s easy enough.
Pretty sure there’s more involved than jihadists war on american minds. Turns out there’s an Iraqi public with minds too. Also we’re dealing with Iraqi’s fighting Iraqi’s, so yeah, obviously we can loose.
[/quote]
No sir, our military has not lost. They are not being pushed out of Iraq, nor is there any hope that it will happen. The loss will be handed down through the american public. Oh, I agree, America has lost this war. But again, it’s a victory handed out through the public, not by anything even remotely resembling a military defeat. Oddly, Al Qaeda got their victory in Iraq without much of a fight.
Actually jihadists is an appropriate term, even when discussing Muslim on muslim violence. Killing heretics is a matter of Jihad (shiite/sunni).
[quote]Sloth wrote:
No sir, our military has not lost. [/quote]
I’ve got an analogy for you…
Our military is in a situation where the soldiers are playing strip poker with their grandmothers.
Even if you win, you aren’t going to be very happy about it.
Dude, it’s not about the fact that the military can kill people at will, it’s about achieving things. Not everyone is willing to continue to throw away the lives of US soldiers unless that loss of life is gaining something for the US.
Unfortunately, I don’t think anyone knows how to make Iraq a safe and peaceful place through the use of a US military presence. If they did, hopefully they’d tell someone and we could make it happen.
Nobody is polluting this thread, but it’s not -it never was- a serious debate.
You don’t have to be a military expert to know that this wasn’t about the better tank, better trained soldiers etc.
Did you know that in Afghanistan, evil Russia didn’t “lose” a single battle.
Yet they got their ass handed on a plate.
And it’s not about booing the US. As for this, it’s idiotic to automatically assume one is radically against when one has a different opinion. You’re either with us or against us is Taliban credo. I think I am entitled a different opinion when it comes to judging a friend’s action.
This is about exposing the false premises of the war. These were rotten and hilarious to the core - I mean, occupying Iraq to find WoMD and installing democracy, repacifying the whole middle east by the way? Can this get any more foolish?
I’m not the guy who finds delight in being a smart ass when it comes to giving advice to friends but here a whole nation was apparently (willingly, for some part?) deceived. So, yes, those who were/are still praising the US Army (we’re winning!!!)haven’t understood a thing.
You’re not winning.
You’re losing: money, reputation, self esteem, people, security as well as a “war”.
(Not really) sorry (to wake you up).
T_T
[quote]vroom wrote:
Sloth wrote:
No sir, our military has not lost.
I’ve got an analogy for you…
Our military is in a situation where the soldiers are playing strip poker with their grandmothers.
Even if you win, you aren’t going to be very happy about it.
Dude, it’s not about the fact that the military can kill people at will, it’s about achieving things. Not everyone is willing to continue to throw away the lives of US soldiers unless that loss of life is gaining something for the US.
Unfortunately, I don’t think anyone knows how to make Iraq a safe and peaceful place through the use of a US military presence. If they did, hopefully they’d tell someone and we could make it happen.
Maybe playing pedantic games makes you happy… ?[/quote]
Which is why ultimately the US doesn’t intend to make Iraq a safe place, directly. The goal, yet again, is to train Iraqi Security forces to do so. Even they will have many years of fighting in front of them. But, they will have a damn good chance. Here’s some options for you.
Cut and run. Seriously, how can you honestly believe the US won’t be worse off? Or, that average Iraqi won’t? I’m talking about the vast majority of Iraqies. The ones trying to go to school, university, live the life of a common businees owner, etc.
Inject another, let’s say, 300,000 troops into Iraq. Antagonize the public (if not outright polarize) even more, with our increased presence. Watch troop and civilians deaths go up, even more. Yeah, yeah, I know the popular theory is that more troops would actually help. I seriously believe this to be mistaken.
I think the US has to balance a fine line of helping to provide security (for now) and having as small of a footprint in Iraq as possible, while doing so.
Balance that smaller foot-print, with the increasing numbers and readiness of Iraqi-security forces. Continue to hand over territory as Iraqi Units are deemed ready. This is exactly what we’ve been doing. And it is the ticket out, while leaving behind a reasonably trained native force to continue to secure and pacify.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I think “winning” needs to be defined. What would you call winning?
Here’s my definition:
-Crushing the Iraq Army
-Capturing Saddam
-Planting a democracy
Having accomplished all of the above, we are certainly winning in my opinion.
The only thing left for total victory would be to leave and then have the democracy run on it’s own.
If this final event happens then I think we won.
As of right now, we are most definitely winning. And anyone who questions Jeff’s assertion should indeed open their eyes to the reality of the situation.
I wonder how many haters on this thread would be acting this way if a democrat were occupying the White House.
Am I now a cheerleader for realistically assessing what has happened? Yet, I am NOT a cheerleader for disagreeing with President Bush on other matters…right?
You far lefties are actually good to have around…Cheap entertainment! [/quote]
[quote]vroom wrote:
Sloth wrote:
No sir, our military has not lost.
I’ve got an analogy for you…
Our military is in a situation where the soldiers are playing strip poker with their grandmothers.
Even if you win, you aren’t going to be very happy about it.
Dude, it’s not about the fact that the military can kill people at will, it’s about achieving things. Not everyone is willing to continue to throw away the lives of US soldiers unless that loss of life is gaining something for the US.
Unfortunately, I don’t think anyone knows how to make Iraq a safe and peaceful place through the use of a US military presence. If they did, hopefully they’d tell someone and we could make it happen.
Maybe playing pedantic games makes you happy… ?[/quote]
I also think it’s quite sad that hardly anyone - if anyone - mentions the lives of innocent Iraqi’s in these forums. It’s as if they aren’t human beings. It is rarely mentioned in mainstream media as well.
The American military will win every battle, and yet loose the war.
America cannot afford (1.5 billion $ a week) to continually have significant troop numbers in Iraq. American troops will have to be withdrawn at some point (sometime in the next few years at the very least). As soon as US troops are gone, Iraq will be lost to US hating extremists.
America has spent alot of money and thousands of lives to replace one scary monster with another.
That’s called loosing.
I would like to be proven wrong, but I doubt I will be.
Cut and run. Seriously, how can you honestly believe the US won’t be worse off? Or, that average Iraqi won’t? I’m talking about the vast majority of Iraqis. The ones trying to go to school, university, live the life of a common business owner, etc.[/quote]
Probably the worse option of all. Show the world you’re able to make a big mess and then leave when the going gets tough. It’ll be a long time before you’re able to get any kind of coalition behind you on another “operation.”
I disagree. At this point, the chaos is so out of hand that you need to impose martial law and bring back order by the most efficient method available.
Soldiers on every street corners will do that.
You can then train and have the Iraqi security forces slowly replace you as the civilian populace is able to go about their normal (or close to it) daily lives. Work, go to school, etc.
The danger here is to leave Iraq a police state when you leave; so safeguards would have to be put in place so that martial law is not enforced indefinitely.
It’s a complex issue, but basically you need for the Iraqis to stop seeing you as those who incite the violence, yet are unable to do anything about it; to those who are keeping order so that they may lead their lives.
I’m sure they wouldn’t like it at first, but once they see that you’re preventing violence and helping with rebuilding efforts and helping them put in place a modern, working government in which they can participate, my guess is that they’d come around. They might even actually see you as “liberators.”
That’s not working. Too few Iraqi forces are actually ready, and many of them have been infiltrated by militias. Those units actually compound the problem rather than reduce it. And your small footprint means it’s easy for the insurgency to operate freely and it also means that a disproportionate amount of your resources are allocated to covering your own asses rather then getting the situation under control.
Too little troops has always been the problem. The fact that Rummy and his cronies have always refused to acknowledge that fact, no matter how many military experts (from your own and other nations) have repeated it; has lead to the current situation of extreme chaos and near civil war.
Keeping on doing the same thing that has not been working for the last three years and hoping that it will suddenly, miraculously start working as planned is unrealistic.
I disagree. At this point, the chaos is so out of hand that you need to impose martial law and bring back order by the most efficient method available.
[/quote]
One thing is certain, in my opinion. If you try to put that many troops throughout sunni/shia neighborhoods and declare Martial Law, troop and civilian deaths will far exceed the present figures. This will absolutely destroy any ability to convince the general populace the US does intend to turn over Iraq, to the Iraqis.
Iraqis must see less and less of our troops, as quickly as Iraqi units come online. The majority of Iraq is not near as heavily conflicted, as 4 specific provinces.
I think, and I’d be very happy to be proven wrong, that initial screw ups have left us in an untenable situation.
I don’t see the US deciding to double troop levels and simply ignore the current Iraqi governments protestations in the process.
I don’t see the Iraqi government suddenly free of internal politics and influence by the extremist groups and militias.
I don’t see the US being able to justify spending as much money as they are, losing as many soldiers as they are without seeing visible progress.
I don’t think the Iraqi forces will be ready fast enough as they seem to be infiltrated to some degree and have very low morale.
I don’t see the US being taken seriously again for decades. Every country knows that their military will fold to a US invasion, but that their populace will be able to fight unconventionally until there is no point in staying any longer.
I don’t think the Iraqi civilians will stop dying in droves whether or not the US leaves Iraq. If the US is there it will happen “because” of their presence in some way. If they aren’t there, it will be because of internal power struggles.
To sum up all this winning that we are doing, I think the phrase “you can’t get there from here” is very applicable. Yes, of course, there are paths that could be taken, but they are not paths that anybody will actually take.
The reality is very sad and the blood is on the hands of the leaders of the administration.
In the coming years don’t be fooled by partisan politics and try to place the blame on whoever comes next. At this point I suspect that is the Rovian strategy… unless of course you can find a way to blame Canada.
[quote]schwarzfahrer wrote:
Nobody is polluting this thread, but it’s not -it never was- a serious debate.[/quote]
I disagree. You may not like the alternative viewpoint. However, that doesn’t make the conclusions any less serious.
[quote] You don’t have to be a military expert to know that this wasn’t about the better tank, better trained soldiers etc.
Did you know that in Afghanistan, evil Russia didn’t “lose” a single battle.
Yet they got their ass handed on a plate.
And it’s not about booing the US. As for this, it’s idiotic to automatically assume one is radically against when one has a different opinion. You’re either with us or against us is Taliban credo. I think I am entitled a different opinion when it comes to judging a friend’s action.[/quote]
First of all, please remember that your viewpoint (highlighting failures, difficulties) is exactly what the taliban and al qaeda is hoping you do. Second, I have serious doubts that you are friendly towards the United States. There may be some in Germany who are genuinely interested and supportive of the United States. However, I don’t think you are one of those people.
Before you call anyone foolish who believes in this concept, I want you to read official press releases from the British Government circa 1780. Go ahead. Read about the Convential Wisdom at the time. If you are too lazy, you’ll find things like, “The colonoists are a bunch of farmers that cannot govern themselves.” Or if you are a pure Anti-American, take a peek at Louis XI’ Ministers circa 1789. Things like, “mobs cannot rule.”
If you take the time to give this any thought. If there is anything remotely critical in your thinking. You will realize that the best way to fight an idea, is with another idea.
It’s worth noting that the previous M.O. when dealing with the Middle East was NOT working. Sectional, religious strife ready to spill out across the region and the world. Throw in our dependence on oil, and you get a clear picture of how radioactive this situation could be.
If you are truly a “friend” you will stop casting aspersions on a large number of Americans. Many of us came to the same conclusions about the need for this conflict. Don’t be fooled by what you hear from the democratic party. They seem to be more interested in power than principle. Is this harsh? Yes, but true. Read their statements at the time.
Part of being a “friend” is the ability to accept that there are alternative viewpoints that “may” (gasp) be different from your own.
I readily acknowledge, and did at the time, that Iraq was and is a huge gamble. It could fracture into three or more pieces and spill out across the region. I also acknowledge the tactical and strategic errors.
However, as opposed to you and others, I ALSO can see and will highlight the good things that are happening.
What happened with saddam is HUGE. The elections were HUGE. The building programs in Iraq are HUGE. The Iraqi Prime Minister meeting the the iranian nutjob was HUGE. Maliki publically differing with Bush is HUGE.
In summary, unless you are willing to acknowlege and think about an alternative viewpoint, you are not a friend.
[quote]You’re not winning.
You’re losing: money, reputation, self esteem, people, security as well as a “war”.
(Not really) sorry (to wake you up).
T_T[/quote]
Thanks for the thought. We are losing money and people. However, as long as there have been wars, there have been naysayers. People who want to quit. I’m reminded of the democrats in 1864. “We can’t suppress the rebellion by force.” “We’d do better to make a negotiated peace with slavery intact.”
There is a reason we lionize the guys who stood strong against this defeatism.
I hope I haven’t completely wasted my time on another Anti-American with no ability to think critically.
If so, too bad.
Signed,
A friend of all Germans who don’t automatically assign nefarious motives to anything the United States does.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
One thing is certain, in my opinion. If you try to put that many troops throughout sunni/shia neighborhoods and declare Martial Law, troop and civilian deaths will far exceed the present figures.[/quote]
Having more troop presence should make it more difficult for the various militias/insurgents/etc. to operate. If you have soldiers on every street corner, it becomes a lot more difficult to organize any significant attack. There’s more chances you’ll be caught when stashing explosives in a car.
There is a lot of technology that exists for surveillance. Cameras, night-vision, unmanned drones, etc. The idea is to detect suspicious activity and prevent violence. While the people won’t like the lack of privacy, they’d surely appreciate a reduction in daily deaths.
Once a semblance of order is restored, then you can replace US troops with Iraqi forces. You’re not under as much pressure, so you can do a better job of it, too. You can root out any militia element from the Iraqi SF before they’re deployed.
Well, start with martial law in those 4 provinces.
Either that or another solution, but to keep on doing what you’ve been doing is simply to keep on losing.
And while you seem very attached to the distinction of “losing militarily” vs. “losing because the public is sick of the situation,” it’s really a defeat either way.
“Don’t I want America to win? Are we talking about a war between Sunnis and Shiites, or the Winter Olympics? I thought we wanted democracy to win. 103 Americans died in Iraq last month. Was that winning? Would 1000 be a blow out? Also, didn’t we already win? I remember reading about it on an aircraft carrier.”
“Don’t I want America to win? Are we talking about a war between Sunnis and Shiites, or the Winter Olympics? I thought we wanted democracy to win. 103 Americans died in Iraq last month. Was that winning? Would 1000 be a blow out? Also, didn’t we already win? I remember reading about it on an aircraft carrier.”
[/quote]
Thanks, dem. Figures you’d quote that clown.
For the 1,000,000,000 time, Bush declared victory over the Iraqi Military.