Military victory is no longer possible in Iraq

[Gunny]

Now that is the question of the hour, are WE willing to actually go to war? Europe isn't, not now and since they really haven't the capability, w/o nuclear weapons, I suppose the point is moot.

Are we willing? Right now, I don't think so-the will comes from the top, it's not there.

The American people won't support a war unless it can be ended within the 3-hour timeslot alloted, and there must be a half-time for a beer-run.

 

[dilloduck]

The American people won't support a war unless it can be ended within the 3-hour timeslot alloted, and there must be a half-time for a beer-run.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to GunnyL again.


Sad but true-----I really would like to walk up behind Kissinger and kick him in the ass. Several times. And then see if he can stand up and tell me I can't whip his ass !!!

 

[Annie]

The American people won't support a war unless it can be ended within the 3-hour timeslot alloted, and there must be a half-time for a beer-run.

I actually think the people do get it, the failure is in leadership. The electorate are not happy with the prosecution of the war, but in no way are they for leaving like Vietnam, Somalia, etc.

If Bush does what it looks like he's going to do, we are in real deep shit.

 

[dilloduck]

I actually think the people do get it, the failure is in leadership. The electorate are not happy with the prosecution of the war, but in no way are they for leaving like Vietnam, Somalia, etc.

If Bush does what it looks like he's going to do, we are in real deep shit.

Never thought I'd live to see the day where you would blame Bush. Just exactly who do you think can lead this divided mob into a mud pie fight?

 

[Gunny]

I actually think the people do get it, the failure is in leadership. The electorate are not happy with the prosecution of the war, but in no way are they for leaving like Vietnam, Somalia, etc.

If Bush does what it looks like he's going to do, we are in real deep shit.

Most people only know what the MSM tells them to think. So, for the majority who give a cursory glance to news and world events, we're losing.

As far as leadership goes, pointing a finger at President Bush is like blaming one ant for the anthill. He's a product of OUR political system, and WE put him in the position.

A politician that is politically incorrect (see Trent Lott), isn't long for the political world in this Nation. They eat sleep and breathe in fear of slipping up instead of flipping the PC crowd and the MSM the bird. Is it any wonder A professional politician in this Nation is trying to build a government in PC fashion using the military to do so? Which politician would not do so and could actually make it past city hall in politics?

You hear us military guys get on here and bitch and say what we'd do, but we were almost all enlisted, and don't think in terms of political concession. It's accomplish the mission as simply and soundly as possible losing as few people as possible. And chair-polishing sissies whining is just music to our ears.

But the reality is, the odds are VERY slim you will EVER see anyone like as President for those very reasons.

What does it look like Bush is going to do?

 

[Dr Grump]

No shit, Sherlock.

Why pick on Syria and Iran? What threat do they have towards the US? You gonna join up for said bloodbath?

 

[Dr Grump]

Yeah, I think they call it "war."

Wow...

 

[Bullypulpit]

The American people won't support a war unless it can be ended within the 3-hour timeslot alloted, and there must be a half-time for a beer-run.

You give most Americans too little credit. Americans will suppory a war when it is in response to an attack on the US, when it is a just war, and they will support it to its end. Had Chimpy and Co stayed the course in Afghanistan, had they actually worked to undermine and curb terrorist activities, had they actually done anything to make this country safer, had they worked with nations in the region and the world to shut down terrorist networks, had they pursued a simply competent policy with regards to terrorism, Chimpy and Co would have the full support of the American people. I would not be calling the Bush administration "Chimpy and Co". America and the world would be safer.

But such is not the case, through incompetence, malificence or some combination of the two, on the part of Chimpy and Co in misleading America into Iraq, we are where we are. Caught in a quagmire of Chimpy and Co's making...Our troops caught in the middle of a brutal internecine struggle, a civil war by any other name...The Administration floundering ineffectually trying to fnd a way out, trying to justify further expenditure of blood and treasure in the region. But Chimpy and Co are stuck on the tar-baby they created with our troops paying the price for their (Chimpy and Co's) incompetence and lack contact with reality. So Chimpy and Co have lost the support of the American people in their continued pursuit of failed policy. People of all stripes will follow competent leadership, something America is unfortunately lacking at this point. Only rigidly dogmatic true believers will follow wherever they are led, without question, and bitterly defending the object of their faith, Chimpy and Co in this case, regardless of the cost.

 

[Annie]

Never thought I'd live to see the day where you would blame Bush. Just exactly who do you think can lead this divided mob into a mud pie fight?

Then you haven't been reading my posts. I think a leader who would use the bullypulpit to hammer home the threat posed by radical (?) Islam, the lack of the rest of the West, excepting Australia, to recognize the threat, would go a long way in gathering the electorate on their side, regardless of political affiliation of the leader or most of the electorate.

 

[CSM]

You give most Americans too little credit. Americans will suppory a war when it is in response to an attack on the US, when it is a just war, and they will support it to its end. Had Chimpy and Co stayed the course in Afghanistan, had they actually worked to undermine and curb terrorist activities, had they actually done anything to make this country safer, had they worked with nations in the region and the world to shut down terrorist networks, had they pursued a simply competent policy with regards to terrorism, Chimpy and Co would have the full support of the American people. I would not be calling the Bush administration "Chimpy and Co". America and the world would be safer.

But such is not the case, through incompetence, malificence or some combination of the two, on the part of Chimpy and Co in misleading America into Iraq, we are where we are. Caught in a quagmire of Chimpy and Co's making...Our troops caught in the middle of a brutal internecine struggle, a civil war by any other name...The Administration floundering ineffectually trying to fnd a way out, trying to justify further expenditure of blood and treasure in the region. But Chimpy and Co are stuck on the tar-baby they created with our troops paying the price for their (Chimpy and Co's) incompetence and lack contact with reality. So Chimpy and Co have lost the support of the American people in their continued pursuit of failed policy. People of all stripes will follow competent leadership, something America is unfortunately lacking at this point. Only rigidly dogmatic true believers will follow wherever they are led, without question, and bitterly defending the object of their faith, Chimpy and Co in this case, regardless of the cost.

You are soooo wrong...the citizens of this country have not supported a military action by the US military since WW II ended...

As for the rest of your rhetoric...well you already know what I think so just play that response in your head. Should be easy since there is nothing else in there...


your statement:
"Only rigidly dogmatic true believers will follow wherever they are led, without question, and bitterly defending the object of their faith, Chimpy and Co in this case, regardless of the cost."
explains why many in this country are ready to surrender to any petty third world dictator that comes along...they don't believe in anything; nothing is worth defending, and there is nothing worthy of faith.

 

[Annie]

Most people only know what the MSM tells them to think. So, for the majority who give a cursory glance to news and world events, we're losing.

As far as leadership goes, pointing a finger at President Bush is like blaming one ant for the anthill. He's a product of OUR political system, and WE put him in the position.

A politician that is politically incorrect (see Trent Lott), isn't long for the political world in this Nation. They eat sleep and breathe in fear of slipping up instead of flipping the PC crowd and the MSM the bird. Is it any wonder A professional politician in this Nation is trying to build a government in PC fashion using the military to do so? Which politician would not do so and could actually make it past city hall in politics?

You hear us military guys get on here and bitch and say what we'd do, but we were almost all enlisted, and don't think in terms of political concession. It's accomplish the mission as simply and soundly as possible losing as few people as possible. And chair-polishing sissies whining is just music to our ears.

But the reality is, the odds are VERY slim you will EVER see anyone like as President for those very reasons.

What does it look like Bush is going to do?

I think when the 'Baker' report comes out, we will use Iran and Syria to provide cover for cut and run.

Instead they could increase the troops, stop the 'infrastructure building', focusing instead on enforcing security. Do what is necessary to weed out bad police and get the training going on a faster level.

It seems to me, that only security for all factions is going to avoid civil war.

 

[red states rule]

Hey, some people show their support for the troops more then others....

 

[dilloduck]

I think when the 'Baker' report comes out, we will use Iran and Syria to provide cover for cut and run.

Instead they could increase the troops, stop the 'infrastructure building', focusing instead on enforcing security. Do what is necessary to weed out bad police and get the training going on a faster level.

It seems to me, that only security for all factions is going to avoid civil war.

It depends, as Newt points out, what's in it. People who did not support Bushs' handling of the war were NOT all people who wanted to cut and run only to leave a total disaster left behind that we will have to deal with for years to come. IMHO a much better way to get the Iraqi muslims to cooperate is to threaten them with a lengthy and severe occupation.

 

[Annie]

It depends, as Newt points out, what's in it. People who did not support Bushs' handling of the war were NOT all people who wanted to cut and run only to leave a total disaster left behind that we will have to deal with for years to come. IMHO a much better way to get the Iraqi muslims to cooperate is to threaten them with a lengthy and severe occupation.

Great, you just restated what I've been saying. Many are unhappy with the prosecution of the war, which does not necessarily infer that they want to cut and run. However, the idea of turning to the most destabalizing states in the area, to bring stability is just foolishness.

 

[Annie]

What it looks like is happening:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20061128-120350-4705r.htm

Iran vows to help Iraq with security
By Edmund Blair
REUTERS NEWS AGENCY
Published November 28, 2006

TEHRAN -- President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran would do whatever it could to help provide security to Iraq amid warnings the country was on the brink of civil war.

Mr. Ahmadinejad made the pledge at the start of a visit to Iran by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, whose trip was delayed for two days because of a curfew imposed after bombings Thursday that killed 202 persons in a Shi'ite Muslim stronghold. The curfew was lifted yesterday.

The United States is facing calls to engage Tehran in direct talks to help end the bloodshed, which U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said had pushed Iraq closer to civil war.

"The Iranian nation and government will definitely stand beside their brother, Iraq, and any help the government and nation of Iran can give to strengthen security in Iraq will be given," Mr. Ahmadinejad said, Iranian Students News Agency (ISNA) reported.

"We have no limitation for cooperation in any field," he said.

Mr. Ahmadinejad was speaking shortly after Mr. Talabani's arrival and just before the two presidents held formal talks.

Mr. Talabani said he would discuss improving ties between the neighbors, which fought an eight-year war in the 1980s.

"In this trip, we will also talk about Iraq's security file because Iraq needs the comprehensive assistance of Iran to fight terrorism and create stability," ISNA quoted Mr. Talabani as saying.

Political analysts said Iran might try to use talks with Mr. Talabani to show off its influence to the United States and bolster its position ahead of any talks with its old enemy. They also said Iran's ability to stem the bloodshed was limited.

U.S. officials have said the violence is being spurred by Iran's backing for Shi'ite groups and its weapons exports. Iran dismisses the charges.

Mr. Annan, making a rare comment on the Iraq situation, said he thought the country was nearly in civil war -- something Iraqi and U.S. politicians have refused to say despite mounting deaths.

"Given the developments on the ground, unless something is done drastically and urgently to arrest the deteriorating situation, we could be there. In fact, we are almost there," Mr. Annan told reporters in response to a civil war question.

Earlier, King Abdullah II of Jordan, who will host a summit in Amman between Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and President Bush this week, said "something dramatic" must come out of it because Iraq was "beginning to spiral out of control."

The New York Times said a draft report to be debated by the Iraq Study Group, co-chaired by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, would urge an aggressive regional diplomatic initiative to include direct talks with Iran and Syria.

The group's recommendations will be sent to the White House, which is considering a change in strategy in Iraq to allow the U.S. to start pulling out some of its 140,000 troops.

Britain, the United States' main ally in Iraq, said yesterday it hoped to withdraw thousands of troops by December 2007, while Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi said the last Italian troops would leave next month.

But Poland appeared to push back the deadline for withdrawal of its 900 troops from Iraq, saying the force would leave by the end of 2007, not by mid-2007 as previously stated.

 

[dilloduck]

Great, you just restated what I've been saying. Many are unhappy with the prosecution of the war, which does not necessarily infer that they want to cut and run. However, the idea of turning to the most destabalizing states in the area, to bring stability is just foolishness.

I think it's silly too and hasn't happened yet. The phrase "turning to" Syria and Iran doesn't have much meaning yet and Bush is still making speeches showing his determination to stay in Iraq.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061128/ap_on_re_eu/bush

 

[Annie]

I think it's silly too and hasn't happened yet. The phrase "turning to" Syria and Iran doesn't have much meaning yet and Bush is still making speeches showing his determination to stay in Iraq.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061128/ap_on_re_eu/bush

We'll see. Seems the leadership in Iraq is already doing the courting of Iran, Syria is just a puppet anyways.

http://www.hindu.com/2006/11/22/stories/2006112204551600.htm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2460033,00.html

 

[Redhots]

I know--It's stupid to try to rally people around a good cause with PC bullshit that you think might play but we're all past that now.

PC bullshit?

You mean like, "Saddam has WMD and hes going to kill us all tomarrow"?

Thats why we went there, thats what sold the war. Not "let freedom reign", that sounds too much like Clinton during Bosnia, Somalia, and Haiti all of which were unpopular with many of the same people who were so gungho over Iraq.

No, it was lies and fearmongering that got us into Iraq, and the powers that be do not get a free pass on that regardless of weather or not you think the situation in Iraq has changed.

Are you claiming that everything is all safe and we can retreat? No worries

Safe for whom, the Iraqis or the US?

 

[jillian]

I actually think the people do get it, the failure is in leadership. The electorate are not happy with the prosecution of the war, but in no way are they for leaving like Vietnam, Somalia, etc.

If Bush does what it looks like he's going to do, we are in real deep shit.

It's not a function of "failure of leadership". It's because it's failed policy and the ex post facto attempts to justify it make the bullshit meter go off in spades. And that's why 2/3 of this country has said enough is enough. It's also because it was clear to everyone that, even if you support the war, it wasn't being handled properly, so the refusal to fire Rummy earlier just looked unaware and ignorant..... that makes people not "follow the leader".

 

[Annie]

It's not a function of "failure of leadership". It's because it's failed policy and the ex post facto attempts to justify it make the bullshi* meter go off in spades. And that's why 2/3 of this country has said enough is enough. It's also because it was clear to everyone that, even if you support the war, it wasn't being handled properly, so the refusal to fire Rummy earlier just looked unaware and ignorant..... that makes people not "follow the leader".

Sorry, you are just wrong. Has to ahppen once to everyone.