SilverNRed Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 Funny how things come full circle. In the '80s when it was convienent for the U.S. we backed Saddam against Iran. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.510256[/snapback] I mean this in the nicest way possible, but DUH! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 Say your friend from Toledo dropped by to help fix your bathroom without you asking and then stayed for 3 years and your bathroom still wasn't fixed. If you then told him that you'd prefer to do it yourself and you'd like them to leave soon or at least say when they were going, it would be slightly odd if he then beat you up, told you that he'd fix it whether you liked it or not, and refused to say when he'd leave. 509560[/snapback] You need to add that he also stripped your wife naked, put a trash bag over her head, made her stand on a bucket and snapped photos of her which he later sent to the Toledo Herald. Now we have a complete analogy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 Actually, neither of those goals is amorphorous or immeasurable. I don't think, however, the measurables for those have been published, and most people don't have the knowledge to estimate them for themselves. But just because you can't measure them and haven't heard anyone else do so, doesn't mean it hasn't been done. I'd bet large sums of money it has been done, if only because it's integral to the planning of the training schedules for the Iraqi forces, and that planning has been done. The real problem is that, once again, the administration's marketing sucks. Sure, there's an overall strategic goal with intermediate milestones, at least some of which are being met...but the administration can't, for a variety of reasons (including but hardly limited to: "they're idiots"), explain them. 509426[/snapback] So they have answers but they are secret answers. I don't trust that they make sense. Again, I think the question is a legitimate one to put to those who say we must stay until we have "won". The publicly stated goals and the ones mentioned here are indeed shapeless, immeasurale and amorphous. If I responded in an argument here to anyone with something along the lines of "there are some great points which totally support my position, I just don't know what they are right now...", I think you could imagine the response I'd get. I remember in the lead up to the war, there were those on this board who opined that there was rock solid intel on WMD's and terrorists in Iraq that the administration couldn't share with us so we should just trust them on that one. I think we are there until it is politically tenable for the country and the Republican party to leave. That doesn't necessarily require defeating the insurgency. It doesn't even require a viable democratic government in place. It may be enough to be asked to leave by the Iraqis themselves. Then we are not running, we haven't been defeated, we would simply be respecting their sovereignty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 So they have answers but they are secret answers. I don't trust that they make sense. Again, I think the question is a legitimate one to put to those who say we must stay until we have "won". The publicly stated goals and the ones mentioned here are indeed shapeless, immeasurale and amorphous. If I responded in an argument here to anyone with something along the lines of "there are some great points which totally support my position, I just don't know what they are right now...", I think you could imagine the response I'd get. I remember in the lead up to the war, there were those on this board who opined that there was rock solid intel on WMD's and terrorists in Iraq that the administration couldn't share with us so we should just trust them on that one. I think we are there until it is politically tenable for the country and the Republican party to leave. That doesn't necessarily require defeating the insurgency. It doesn't even require a viable democratic government in place. It may be enough to be asked to leave by the Iraqis themselves. Then we are not running, we haven't been defeated, we would simply be respecting their sovereignty. 510406[/snapback] Let me make this very clear: just because you haven't heard the answers, doesn't mean they are secret. And just because the sound of the answers is muffled by the speakers' having their heads stuck firmly up their asses when speaking, doesn't mean they're secret either. There IS a difference between "We're not telling", "you're not listening", and "We are telling, but we're too damned stupid to make ourselves understood." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 22, 2005 Share Posted November 22, 2005 Let me make this very clear: just because you haven't heard the answers, doesn't mean they are secret. And just because the sound of the answers is muffled by the speakers' having their heads stuck firmly up their asses when speaking, doesn't mean they're secret either. There IS a difference between "We're not telling", "you're not listening", and "We are telling, but we're too damned stupid to make ourselves understood." 510475[/snapback] Speculate. What are they? I'm trying to understand this. I'm reading what I can from books to blogs to speeches. Does anybody here know? I'm not fishing for an argument to knock down here. I just want to know from those who say we should stay until we "win" or until the "Iraqis can defend themselves" etc, what in the world that means. The reality is that we are definitely going to leave at some point. I think we all agree that we shouldn't stay there forever. Once that is conceded, it just becomes a question of "when" and that is the focus of my inquiry, such as it is. It remains unanswered or, from your description, undecipherable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 Speculate. What are they? I'm trying to understand this. I'm reading what I can from books to blogs to speeches. Does anybody here know? I'm not fishing for an argument to knock down here. I just want to know from those who say we should stay until we "win" or until the "Iraqis can defend themselves" etc, what in the world that means. The reality is that we are definitely going to leave at some point. I think we all agree that we shouldn't stay there forever. Once that is conceded, it just becomes a question of "when" and that is the focus of my inquiry, such as it is. It remains unanswered or, from your description, undecipherable. 510546[/snapback] "Undecipherable" is probably a better word for it...though I think it's a bit strong, as I've managed to decipher parts of it. Maybe. Sort-of. Do I have to explain it now? As best I can tell, it's complicated...and I have a headache...and I just lost the train of thought anyway. Am I supposed to speculate on intermediate- and long-term goals ("measurable" goals, of course) of the occupation, or the timeline for achieving such? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 "Undecipherable" is probably a better word for it...though I think it's a bit strong, as I've managed to decipher parts of it. Maybe. Sort-of. Do I have to explain it now? As best I can tell, it's complicated...and I have a headache...and I just lost the train of thought anyway. Am I supposed to speculate on intermediate- and long-term goals ("measurable" goals, of course) of the occupation, or the timeline for achieving such? 510654[/snapback] In other words, you haven't got a whisper of a suspision of a clue, but you don't want to admit that publicly because that would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you've been blowing smoke up an elephant's ass all along. Not that we couldn't tell that from thirty five or so nautical miles away or anything... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pope zimli Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 You really hit the nail on the head there. The truly tragic thing about Iraq is that much of the insurgency could actually have been avoided and Iraq could now be relatively stable. There was actually quite a lot of goodwill towards the US, even in the so-called "Sunni triangle". Unfortunately the appalling decisions made in the first few months following the fall of Saddam created ideal conditions for the insurgency to take hold. The decision to disband the Iraqi army gave the insurgency hundreds of thousands of military trained men with no stake in the new Iraq and a major grudge against the occupation. The failure to secure military bases meant that many of them were looted and almost certainly much of that weaponry is now in the hands of the insurgents. I know that in the town where my relatives were living, there was a military base nearby and the townsfolk were begging the US soldiers to do something about it due to the dubious characters walking off with all sorts of military hardware. They were told that since they had no orders on this subject, they could do nothing. The decision to sack baathists from jobs even when there was no evidence that they had committed any crimes also alienated the Sunni community and helped recruitment to the insurgency. Many teachers, doctors etc ... were sacked simply because they were members of the Baath party and the fact of the matter is that many people joined the party because it was the only way to get a better job. As you referred to, heavy-handed tactics in central Iraq also caused a lot of bad feeling, as was admitted by US commanders. Things did improve but by then the damage was done. As far as Iraq splitting into three entities go, the Kurds certainly want their own state (but Turkey would never allow this) but I don't really think the differences between Sunni and Shiite Arabs in Iraq are so great. Certainly Zarqawis lot have been doing their best to stir up trouble, but for years the communities were very close with intermarriage being common. 507174[/snapback] But where does "could have been" get us? We are where we are through, as Ghost points out a major failing of the present administration to understand who we are up against. The Kurds, theSunnis, and the Shiites will inevitably have a civil war as soon as we leave, regardless of what we do UNLESS we appoint and continue to support a new dictator, probably a Sunni. A new Saddam. He'll probably be Chalabi, who already had demonstrated that the only thing worse than having him as an enemy is to have him as a friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 510801[/snapback] If a civil war is inevitable, come what may, then surely it's better to get out now rather than later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 Let me make this very clear: just because you haven't heard the answers, doesn't mean they are secret. And just because the sound of the answers is muffled by the speakers' having their heads stuck firmly up their asses when speaking, doesn't mean they're secret either. There IS a difference between "We're not telling", "you're not listening", and "We are telling, but we're too damned stupid to make ourselves understood." 510475[/snapback] If the adminstration is too damned stupid to be capable of explaining their own policy, why should a policy devised by them be any less stupid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 23, 2005 Share Posted November 23, 2005 In other words, you haven't got a whisper of a suspision of a clue, but you don't want to admit that publicly because that would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you've been blowing smoke up an elephant's ass all along. Not that we couldn't tell that from thirty five or so nautical miles away or anything... 510734[/snapback] No...I just had a headache. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts