X. Benedict Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 What's wrong with it is that its a pipe dream. We need to stay there for a long time and let them evolve into a democracy. 830957[/snapback] There is no shortage of pipe dreams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 My question was whether or not a draw down necessarily equaled more exposure,initially it would seem counter-intuitive that less people would by necessity make you more exposed. It could be argued that our presence there is only slowing an inevitable Darwinian process. (although I am not about to argue that.) 830945[/snapback] What troops do you want to draw down? Armor and any forward push to clear areas of insurgents? So you expose more Iraqi's who don't have the equipment and years of some of the hardest fighting experience needed. Yup, and they'll all quit within 6 months. Troop training? Who else is going to teach their troops? Police duties have already pretty much been turned over with US troops only providing support roles. Air support? I don't know if the Iraqis have the capability or pilots to do that? So that leaves security of the greenzone? Again, that's where the HQ troops, diplomates, training and planning is. Do you want to hand over complete security of that area to basically troops with no senior officers and elisted men? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 What troops do you want to draw down? Armor and any forward push to clear areas of insurgents? So you expose more Iraqi's who don't have the equipment and years of some of the hardest fighting experience needed. Yup, and they'll all quit within 6 months. Troop training? Who else is going to teach their troops? Police duties have already pretty much been turned over with US troops only providing support roles. Air support? I don't know if the Iraqis have the capability or pilots to do that? So that leaves security of the greenzone? Again, that's where the HQ troops, diplomates, training and planning is. Do you want to hand over complete security of that area to basically troops with no senior officers and elisted men? 830965[/snapback] So what you're saying is, it's too dangerous for our troops to even attempt to leave. Twenty one kids have been killed since last wednesday, but it's unsafe to attempt to even get the rest of the troops out. That's your reasoning for staying in Iraq? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 So what you're saying is, it's too dangerous for our troops to even attempt to leave. Twenty one kids have been killed since last wednesday, but it's unsafe to attempt to even get the rest of the troops out. That's your reasoning for staying in Iraq? 830969[/snapback] You'll have to excuse me but I don't remember any "kids" being killed in Iraq. I know of some men and women who volunteered to go there. At this point we have been there so long that if anyone didn't know that they would go they are lying. Enlistments are 2-6 years, and the US can only extend you for a short time. Therefore anyone still in, is very aware of their situation, and none of them are "kids". Secondly, I asked you. You and Pelosi, and all your liberal buddies ran on this stuff. You tell me where they can be drawn down. I know where and how, but the Iraqis aren't ready for that yet. And if you think you can build general and field grade offiers, and senior staff enlisted guys in 4 years you are living in fantasy land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 What troops do you want to draw down? 830965[/snapback] I never said I wanted to draw down. But I don't think keeping 145,000 troops there is sustainable either. I have an impression (nothing more than that), that our presence there is suppressing a large scale sectarian war, and that all sides are posturing for the day we leave. Probably drawing down will increase civil violence, but staying may be suppressing the conditions that make some kind of reconciliation and rudimentary nation state possible. I really don't know. Wish I did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 But I don't think keeping 145,000 troops there is sustainable either. 830976[/snapback] There is also the idea I mentioned a couple years ago that, in a counter-insurgency campaign, more troops = more targets. One can hypothesize that reduced troop strengths could reduce the violence. Or one could, back when it was actually an insurgency and not sectarian religious violence. There's nothing inherently bad about reducing troop strength...it's the "because war is bad!" justification that so many pudding-heads use for it that I have problems with personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 And if you think you can build general and field grade offiers, and senior staff enlisted guys in 4 years you are living in fantasy land. 830972[/snapback] And if you think you can invade a country with no plan, no goal but to eliminate terrorism, and think it is all going to turn out great, you are living in fantasy land. Right next to the Bush administration. You could wage an equally effective war on jealousy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_fumbles Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Oh great, look at the emotional knee jerk reaction of the far left lib leadership! I told ya! http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061109/ap_on_...emocrats_iraq_4 WASHINGTON - Emboldened by their congressional election triumph and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's resignation, Democrats say they will use their new clout to force a change in Iraq policy and demand that President Bush start bringing troops home. 830776[/snapback] Sure, let's just stay and spend ourselves into bankruptcy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 What's wrong with it is that its a pipe dream. Can't you see through her little game. Everyone knows the iraqis can't run that place, not for a long time. We need to stay there for a long time and let them evolve into a democracy. This will outlast the Bush presidency just like he said it would. 830957[/snapback] This will also take billions and billions in infrastructure costs in order to actually rebuild Iraq. Thats not something that the American people as a whole right now seemingly want to endure. Thinking that its going to evolve into a Democracy with what we have right now is also a pipe dream. It is going to require a great bit more resources then the people are willing to spend if it is even possible. This says nothing. What compromises do we want the Iraqis to make that will help unite the country? All three factions want the power and the one causes 99% of the issues is the smallest group who has always controlled others with an iron fist. Nothing less will be acceptable to that group. They have most of the money and will continue to import people to there cause for very little money. And? You're criticizing the Democrat's plan for the transfer of power to Iraqis, yet you are presenting the biggest issue that is facing the whole damn thing, whether you go with the Democrat's or the Republican's plan. This isn't isolated to the Democratic plan. On the second point see above, the insurgency is a lot of paid labor from the old ruling party. Unlimited money supply and unlimited idiots who go to a "cause". See point above. Regional diplomacy? With who, other than Iran and Syria we have wide open negotiations. The main issue seems to be the utter destruction of Israel and a homeland for the terrorists from Palestinians. Regional diplomacy is *HUGE* in attempting to create a Democracy. If the neighbors around Iraq don't play hands off, it would never become a democratic nation in the first place. This is something that is essential to both the Bush Administration's plan and the Democratic plan. What allies aren't there or in Afghanistan supporting the effort? France? France hasn't been our ally for years? England there, Australia there, Canada there, plenty of others. Actually, you forgot Poland. I took it to mean having a united diplomatic front for the nations surrounding Iraq, not military support. Other nations in a construction role. Why, who's going to pay for it? Right now the US is picking up most of the cost. Why should we pay other contries to help rebuild when they didn't help eliminate Sadaam? 830959[/snapback] Not constuction, constructive. This is part of the "ally" part that you were talking about in the quote above. There is also the idea I mentioned a couple years ago that, in a counter-insurgency campaign, more troops = more targets. One can hypothesize that reduced troop strengths could reduce the violence. Or one could, back when it was actually an insurgency and not sectarian religious violence. There's nothing inherently bad about reducing troop strength...it's the "because war is bad!" justification that so many pudding-heads use for it that I have problems with personally. 830981[/snapback] This has been an idea that I've heard of for a while as well. The counter-argument is that a small number wouldn't be strong enough to build up the Democratic institutions that start a Democracy. At this point, though, I think the best we can do is build a quasi-democratic state in which we give the appearance that we left the country in good shape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 The pipe dreams the dems have are crack pipe dreams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 There was this country that had great visions of democracy, that fought a war over eight years for its independence. Following this war, it took four years for those who emerged victorious to write and adopt a constitution. Two years after that, this fragile country elected its first president. About twenty years into its life, this nation was invaded by another. Over seventy years in, this nation still had slavery. It still didn't treat a good percentage of its population like human beings. It fought a perilous civil war. Women wouldn't have nationwide suffrage until 130 years into its existence. Basic freedoms for all were still up for debate long into its life. It's obvious what I'm talking about, but conceiving of this trajectory outside of the idea of "our nation" can really help us understand just how slow change is. We act like we just got here naturally and that it happened without much struggle at all. Fact is, big change occurs over time, with much struggle, even when the nation and the revolution that precedes it is homegrown as ours was. With Iraq, they don't even have the luxury of a case as precarious as ours was. Here, we imposed democracy on another nation. Forget that 'imposed democracy' is pretty damned close to the textbook definition of an oxymoron. We're there, now what? Well, the changes that we hope for will probably take a long, long time to happen. They will take much longer if we keep awarding contracts to companies that have no wherewithal to build an infrastructure in Iraq, if we allow the widespread corruption that has consumed that nation to continue, and if we continue to approach this issue with an impatient attitude. That's all I've got to say about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 There was this country that had great visions of democracy, that fought a war over eight years for its independence. Following this war, it took four years for those who emerged victorious to write and adopt a constitution. Two years after that, this fragile country elected its first president. About twenty years into its life, this nation was invaded by another. Over seventy years in, this nation still had slavery. It still didn't treat a good percentage of its population like human beings. It fought a perilous civil war. Women wouldn't have nationwide suffrage until 130 years into its existence. Basic freedoms for all were still up for debate long into its life. It's obvious what I'm talking about, but conceiving of this trajectory outside of the idea of "our nation" can really help us understand just how slow change is. We act like we just got here naturally and that it happened without much struggle at all. Fact is, big change occurs over time, with much struggle, even when the nation and the revolution that precedes it is homegrown as ours was. With Iraq, they don't even have the luxury of a case as precarious as ours was. Here, we imposed democracy on another nation. Forget that 'imposed democracy' is pretty damned close to the textbook definition of an oxymoron. We're there, now what? Well, the changes that we hope for will probably take a long, long time to happen. They will take much longer if we keep awarding contracts to companies that have no wherewithal to build an infrastructure in Iraq, if we allow the widespread corruption that has consumed that nation to continue, and if we continue to approach this issue with an impatient attitude. That's all I've got to say about that. 831108[/snapback] Yeah except you seem to forget that the country in question got a lot of help from the originals natives of said country, plus a lot of help from a major super power in it's infant years( France). Without that help said country would never have been able to get freedom and democracy in the first place nor protect itself from the first invasion. But let's forget facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Yeah except you seem to forget that the country in question got a lot of help from the originals natives of said country, plus a lot of help from a major super power in it's infant years( France). Without that help said country would never have been able to get freedom and democracy in the first place nor protect itself from the first invasion. But let's forget facts. 831111[/snapback] No one's forgetting facts. Can you draw an analog to today's situation with these two points? France didn't invade the colonies and say "now go to it," and if you want to be so silly as to bring up the help of the natives, why not also bring up that the gracious revolutionaries and their descendents proceeded to almost entirely wipe out the native race? I'm not sure that's a precedent we'd like the Iraqis to follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 No one's forgetting facts. Can you draw an analog to today's situation with these two points? France didn't invade the colonies and say "now go to it," and if you want to be so silly as to bring up the help of the natives, why not also bring up that the gracious revolutionaries and their descendents proceeded to almost entirely wipe out the native race? I'm not sure that's a precedent we'd like the Iraqis to follow. 831115[/snapback] France was invited by people who started the revolution, just as the Kurds and Shiites were asking for our help since 91 to get rid of the Suni oppressers and Saddam. Very much a parallel. The native elimination would be like the Kurds killing the sunis. Overall I wouldn't say that would be a bad things in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 France was invited by people who started the revolution, just as the Kurds and Shiites were asking for our help since 91 to get rid of the Suni oppressers and Saddam. Very much a parallel. The native elimination would be like the Kurds killing the sunis. Overall I wouldn't say that would be a bad things in this case. 831117[/snapback] I can't help but notice all the gratitude that France gets around here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 I can't help but notice all the gratitude that France gets around here. 831137[/snapback] Don't forget the Poles! General Kosicuscio (sp?) came here to help us out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 France was invited by people who started the revolution, just as the Kurds and Shiites were asking for our help since 91 to get rid of the Suni oppressers and Saddam. Very much a parallel. The native elimination would be like the Kurds killing the sunis. Overall I wouldn't say that would be a bad things in this case. 831117[/snapback] Gee what a surprise. I raise a point-by-point discussion by you, and you ignore it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 Gee what a surprise. I raise a point-by-point discussion by you, and you ignore it. 831501[/snapback] Where? I asked what compromises, and you didn't answer? I asked what do you do about the money that the sunis are pumping into the insurgancy and you post noting? So you reitterate what I said on regional diplomacy being an issue. I stated that the US doesn't have "OPEN" talks with Iran or syria. You state they need to keep hands off Iraq. How do you do that without paying them off as well? BTW that is only part of the battle, which is external security. Small problem right now. Besides just because there are no "OPEN" negotiations doesn't mean there are no negotiations. Just not known in the public eye. Again, I forgot lots of countries involved, including Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Lybia, and others. You can only get neighboring countries involved so much. Right now some want nothing more then the destruction of Iraq, other want a piece and yet others want to see the coalition fail for one of the two above reasons. In addition, instability is good for OPEC as it gets them more for their oil. Again, we do not want Irani and Syrian soldiers marching around Iraq, and some of the other neighbors can only do so much without raising the ire of their neighbors. Construction / constructive, not sure of you point. But why should the US pay France to build a school, when France was and still is unwilling to offer troops for the security of their workers? Same with Germany? Again, if these allies want to be part of the solution then they need to help build and protect if nothing more then their own workers in country. Again, you added no substance, and still have not answerd me, on how you would draw down troops which is what you and Pelosi want. The only way you do that is one combat ready battalion at a time. Complete with senior enlisted and field grade officers. Again, it takes more then 4 years to make a Colonal and 1st Sergeant equivalents. Even if they find some shining stars , it has to be done one battalion at a time. Each one that is built up and supported by the armor, and air support will replace roughly 2000 reinenforced US troops. I'm guessing by the time it's all done the Iraqis need 50 or so combat ready battalions. That's 50 or more field grade officers, hundreds of junior officers (Lt - capt), thats hundreds of senior enlisted , and thousands of non-commissioned officers. To over see that you'll need a dozen generals, which will probably be done by US and coalition troops for at least 10+ years, which means a greenzone with diplomats at least that long. These combat ready battaltions have got to be trained in urban fighting as that is how moist insurgancy fighting is, and the armor and close air support to protect the units engaged. Figure at least half your troops for such a role. The other half are external security, basically as trip wire troops in case Iran, Syria and anyone gets grand ideas of invading. These are more traditional troops and probably eaier to stand up. This actually will be the first troops that allow US troops to come home. Again you still need senior enlisted and officers. It still will take another 4-5 years before these guys fully can take that role, with the first US troops probably not rolling home for another 1-2 years. However, this doesn't solve the problem of US troop casulties. Since the insurgant fighting is the one causing all the problems, the US still must engage until Iraqi troops are ready and not just sent to get slaughtered. So don't expect US troops injuries to slow down anytime soon. Again, that's a plan, and one I've pretty much said for 4 years, that's it's going to take to turn it back over. BTW, I am now asking for about the 4th time in your thread, what's you plan? I see a bunch of sound bites, but still no plan. Monkeys in zoo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 Sure, let's just stay and spend ourselves into bankruptcy! 831029[/snapback] Yeah, because the Iraq war is the only reason that's happening. You people really are precious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike1011 Posted November 14, 2006 Share Posted November 14, 2006 Yeah, because the Iraq war is the only reason that's happening. You people really are precious. 831529[/snapback] It's certainly aiding wouldn't you say? I'm more upset with Bush's proposal to increase Social Service spending to astronomical levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts