Bush's New Iraq Plan

[Balta1701]

So Balta, let me get this accurate. Let's "talk" to Iran and Syria, both of whom want to destroy everything we stand for. Let's "talk" to Iran, who openly says they want nuclear weapons. Let's "talk" to all these people who don't give a rat's ass about how we live in a free society when they oppress and kill their own people who dare have disagreements with their philosophical points of view. Let's "talk" to people who say the holocaust never existed. YEA! Let's BE NICE! :) Please.

 

Let's also ask the question another way. Semantics aside, how come we never see a poll from CBS asking "do you want to win the war in Iraq"? I bet that answer is a resounding yes. But we can't show THAT in the arena of public opinion, now can we?

 

It IS a surge, because as the president said, none of this is a blank check for an unlimited period of time. Somehow, you don't want to ever listen to that, do you?

 

So, do YOU want to win the war in Iraq?

 

(waiting for the quibble of "what's winning"?) - and yes, I have an answer, and so did the president last night, if you wanted to listen to it. Most of you do not want to listen to it, because you don't agree with what "winning" is.

Yes.

[NorthSideSox72]

So Balta, let me get this accurate. Let's "talk" to Iran and Syria, both of whom want to destroy everything we stand for. Let's "talk" to Iran, who openly says they want nuclear weapons. Let's "talk" to all these people who don't give a rat's ass about how we live in a free society when they oppress and kill their own people who dare have disagreements with their philosophical points of view. Let's "talk" to people who say the holocaust never existed. YEA! Let's BE NICE! :) Please.

 

Let's also ask the question another way. Semantics aside, how come we never see a poll from CBS asking "do you want to win the war in Iraq"? I bet that answer is a resounding yes. But we can't show THAT in the arena of public opinion, now can we?

 

It IS a surge, because as the president said, none of this is a blank check for an unlimited period of time. Somehow, you don't want to ever listen to that, do you?

 

So, do YOU want to win the war in Iraq?

 

(waiting for the quibble of "what's winning"?) - and yes, I have an answer, and so did the president last night, if you wanted to listen to it. Most of you do not want to listen to it, because you don't agree with what "winning" is.

A poll asking "do you want to win the war in Iraq"? No one has had that poll because the answer is patently obvious. If the options are YES or NO, the answer will overwhelmingly be YES. Unfortunately, that would say nothing at all about the reality of the situation, or the reality that other more logical polls have shown - that people are tired of the direction of the war and of being lied to about everything about it by our government.

Edited January 11, 2007 by NorthSideSox72

[kapkomet]

A poll asking "do you want to win the war in Iraq"? No one has had that poll because the answer is patently obvious. If the options are YES or NO, the answer will overwhelmingly be YES. Unfortunately, that would say nothing at all about the reality of the situation, or the reality that other more logical polls have shown - that people are tired of the direction of the war and of being lied to about everything about it by our government.

If a mistake was made, (which there was, duh), IMO this speech should have been January 10, 2006 instead of last night. The cards needed to be played long before now.

 

Having said that, a lot of Democrats and Republicans were saying as late as August that we would be drawing down troops, because even according to Congressional visits this time last year, "it was getting better".

[NorthSideSox72]

If a mistake was made, (which there was, duh), IMO this speech should have been January 10, 2006 instead of last night. The cards needed to be played long before now.

 

Having said that, a lot of Democrats and Republicans were saying as late as August that we would be drawing down troops, because even according to Congressional visits this time last year, "it was getting better".

I don't know about politicians, but the people I know that are journalists or soliders who have spent time in Iraq haven't seen things going even remotely well since a month or two after it all started. And it certainly isn't getting better. I guess I have trusted their judgement, as well as the studies published on crime and death rates, more than I have the word of any politician.

[Balta1701]

Having said that, a lot of Democrats and Republicans were saying as late as August that we would be drawing down troops, because even according to Congressional visits this time last year, "it was getting better".

If you're counting Lieberman, sure. And the rest were probably trying to save their Congressional seats from the voters who are fed up with this mess. But aside from that, anyone who has paid any attention at all has seen beyond a shadow of a doubt that things have been going straight into the toilet for the past year.

 

Hell, in August, the trends were obvious and bad. And they've just kept up.

 

Graph from GAO Report Detailing Enemy Attacks against U.S. and Its Allies in Iraq, Jan. 2007

01-11-2007

Updated: 01-11-2007

[kapkomet]

Lieberman wasn't the only one saying that we would be drawing down by this time.

[Balta1701]

Lieberman wasn't the only one saying that we would be drawing down by this time.

And any and all of them were clearly wrong, and were obviously so at the time. There are folks on the left who are almost making a game out of recording what date people in the media or government say "give us another 6 months" or "Give us until the end of the year" and calling them on that when that deadline passes and withdrawal hasn't even come close to starting. Joe Lieberman was an "End of the year" guy during the election campaign, and immediately afterwards became an "increase troops" guy.

Edited January 11, 2007 by Balta1701

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I really dont think this troop surge is a good idea at all. Far as I can see we should be stepping back into a training role and letting the Iraqi's deal with these insurgents. They've got to do it sometime and the longer we hold their hand at it the worse off we're gonna be in the long run.

 

Im defenitely not for cutting and running but it's time we pulled back.

[kapkomet]

One of the things that's being forgotten is Iraq has to step up as well...

[KipWellsFan]

Lets get this straight. This a surge because of all the words that could have been used to describe Bush's plan it's the one that's viewed most positively by focus groups.

[kapkomet]

Lets get this straight. This is an escalation because of all the words that could have been used to describe Bush's plan it's the one that's viewed most negatively by focus groups and Cindy Sheehan used it in a protest last week.

 

Fixed that for you.

[Greg The Bull Luzinski]

I really dont think this troop surge is a good idea at all. Far as I can see we should be stepping back into a training role and letting the Iraqi's deal with these insurgents. They've got to do it sometime and the longer we hold their hand at it the worse off we're gonna be in the long run.

 

Im defenitely not for cutting and running but it's time we pulled back.

 

I could not have said it better myself.

[Balta1701]

Lets get this straight. This a surge because of all the words that could have been used to describe Bush's plan it's the one that's viewed most positively by focus groups.

Got a new one today I kinda like:

 

Sen. Hagel: “Putting 22,000 new troops, more troops in, is not an escalation?”

Condoleeza Rice: “I would call it, senator, an augmentation."

[NorthSideSox72]

So, Senator Chuck Hagel calls this surge/escalation/augmentation one of the biggest foreign policy blunders since Vietnam. Sort of strident, but maybe true.

 

Then Senator Reid, our new Senate majority leader, making an ass of himself again, says nay, its the biggest blunder in our nation's history.

 

I intensely dislike Reid. I really do. Making outrageous statements like that is no better than Bush's brainless cowboy crap.

[kapkomet]

So, Senator Chuck Hagel calls this surge/escalation/augmentation one of the biggest foreign policy blunders since Vietnam. Sort of strident, but maybe true.

 

Then Senator Reid, our new Senate majority leader, making an ass of himself again, says nay, its the biggest blunder in our nation's history.

 

I intensely dislike Reid. I really do. Making outrageous statements like that is no better than Bush's brainless cowboy crap.

Look, people. THIS IS NOT ABOUT GEORGE BUSH, HARRY REID, NANCY PELOSI or ANY of these f***tard politicians!

 

We HAVE to win this war. I don't care what the reasons for starting it was, I don't care anything else... but now that we are there, Somolia was a walk in the park compared to what will happen. Furthermore, we will HAVE to go back in to the region 5-10 years from now on what will be the bloodiest war this world has ever seen if we don't keep what balance we have now, even as fragmented as it is.

 

These political hacks from BOTH sides need to shut the f*** up and figure out how to get this done. PERIOD. Bush put forward a plan, now either try it, come up with something better, OR SHUT THE f*** UP.

[NorthSideSox72]

Look, people. THIS IS NOT ABOUT GEORGE BUSH, HARRY REID, NANCY PELOSI or ANY of these f***tard politicians!

 

We HAVE to win this war. I don't care what the reasons for starting it was, I don't care anything else... but now that we are there, Somolia was a walk in the park compared to what will happen. Furthermore, we will HAVE to go back in to the region 5-10 years from now on what will be the bloodiest war this world has ever seen if we don't keep what balance we have now, even as fragmented as it is.

 

These political hacks from BOTH sides need to shut the f*** up and figure out how to get this done. PERIOD. Bush put forward a plan, now either try it, come up with something better, OR SHUT THE f*** UP.

Look people. We started beating up this helpless slob who was threatening us in the pub, and we can't give up now. No no, we can't leave it be and go home. We need to WIN. We need to beat this guy to a bloody pulp, otherwise, we'll just have to come back into this bar again next week and get into another bloody fight!

 

I'm sorry, but... no.

[Balta1701]

Look, people. THIS IS NOT ABOUT GEORGE BUSH, HARRY REID, NANCY PELOSI or ANY of these f***tard politicians!

 

We HAVE to win this war. I don't care what the reasons for starting it was, I don't care anything else... but now that we are there, Somolia was a walk in the park compared to what will happen. Furthermore, we will HAVE to go back in to the region 5-10 years from now on what will be the bloodiest war this world has ever seen if we don't keep what balance we have now, even as fragmented as it is.

 

These political hacks from BOTH sides need to shut the f*** up and figure out how to get this done. PERIOD. Bush put forward a plan, now either try it, come up with something better, OR SHUT THE f*** UP.

The problem is, there simply may be no way to come up with anything that would resemble victory. It's entirely possible, and I believe it is true, that the U.S. has unleashed a mess in Iraq that there is no way out of.

 

The U.S. is in a position where further escalation of the conflict in Iraq seems to do no good. When we pushed additional forces into Baghdad last summer in Operation Together Forward, Together Forward 2, and Together Forward: Electric Boogaloo, the violence just kept getting worse and worse. And it wasn't just that the violence turned against the Americans when there were more of them there; there was more violence against the U.S. and at the same time more Iraqi-Iraqi violence. The U.S. increased its presence and it was simply unable to even slow the tide of war; it went the wrong way.

 

On the other hand, there's an obvious mess if the U.S. pulls out. Everyone recognizes this; it hands Iran near total control of the Iraqi government, removes the only thing keeping the Kurds as part of the national government, and essentially destroys any hope for an effective police force.

 

My point of view on this whole mess right now is that there seems to be really nothing left that the U.S. can do which will help. The U.S. forces are totally inadequate to provide security in Iraq. There simply aren't enough of them to turn the tide. An increase in force by less than 15% simply isn't going to provide enough strength to do the job, and there just aren't more troops available. We're pulling troops out of Afghanistan to send them to Iraq as part of the augmentation for crying out loud.

 

If winning is so bloody important, the most important thing in U.S. history, then it is absolutely irresponsible and stupid for this nation to keep this up without finding itself 500,000 more ground troops. Or pick your number, whatever it takes, as long as it's huge. But if it's not important enough to do that, it's not important enough for the President to sacrifice his Presidency on it and restart the draft, then the only questions I see remaining are: how much more will America give before it pulls out, and what can America do to mitigate some of the consequences of backing out? Because if we're not going to go all-in, if we're just going to go piecemeal and think that a 15% increase will do the job (it won't), then that is all that is left to do.

[Rex Kickass]

Did anyone else notice that Bush's new plan has American soldiers fighting under Iraqi commanders?

[Texsox]

Look, people. THIS IS NOT ABOUT GEORGE BUSH, HARRY REID, NANCY PELOSI or ANY of these f***tard politicians!

 

We HAVE to win this war.

 

If we left tomorrow, would it be a defeat? What events have to occur for it to be a "win"? How are you measuring defeat and victory?

[southsideirish71]

If we left tomorrow, would it be a defeat? What events have to occur for it to be a "win"? How are you measuring defeat and victory?

 

 

The perception after Somalia was simple. If you kill Americans and draw blood, the american public will not have the stomach for it, and will want to get out. Its what our adversaries count on. This is why withdrawing right now is a bad idea.

 

IMO this war was fought wrong. Bush wanted it both ways, he wanted to topple the dictator, and then make nice with the natives. So instead of just going in and winning this thing. We fought it enough to get the "technical" win, but left too much of the infrastructure of war up that could be used against us. When you fight a war it should be to win. You dont embed reporters in your army if you are trying to win a war. Now its just a mess, and we have 2 problems.

[Texsox]

The perception after Somalia was simple. If you kill Americans and draw blood, the american public will not have the stomach for it, and will want to get out. Its what our adversaries count on. This is why withdrawing right now is a bad idea.

 

Somalia was *in* Somalia, did they ever attack us on soil other than theirs?

Iraq is in Iraq.

 

Perhaps the American public cannot stomach sending our kids to these places to die? I here the above repeated as if Tanzania will see this and march on Florida to take over the country if we leave Iraq. We will not be attacked on US soil from these countries, China isn't going to lob bombs at Oregon, We can leave Iraqis to kill each other and like Vietnam, our lives will go on just fine except we'll have a few extra billion to spend at home to build schools instead of rebuilding schools we've destroyed around the world.

[southsider2k5]

The perception after Somalia was simple. If you kill Americans and draw blood, the american public will not have the stomach for it, and will want to get out. Its what our adversaries count on. This is why withdrawing right now is a bad idea.

 

IMO this war was fought wrong. Bush wanted it both ways, he wanted to topple the dictator, and then make nice with the natives. So instead of just going in and winning this thing. We fought it enough to get the "technical" win, but left too much of the infrastructure of war up that could be used against us. When you fight a war it should be to win. You dont embed reporters in your army if you are trying to win a war. Now its just a mess, and we have 2 problems.

 

I agree with this, and would add to it, the PR front. We have been so worried about glossing over war in the press, that we have never once tried to confront this thing from head-on like we should have. The right has been too worried about what the Dems are saying in the press, instead of ignoring them, and worrying just about the war, they keep trying to fight the war and the Dems. Forget the Dems, and win the war. Its like Hawk always said about trying to hit Johan Santana. You can't sit on both pitches, or you will always be in between. You either have to sit on the fastball or the change up. Well I guess you could call the right, the Sox, because they have been inbetween the whole time. Sit on the fastball, and give yourself a chance.

[kapkomet]

I agree with this, and would add to it, the PR front. We have been so worried about glossing over war in the press, that we have never once tried to confront this thing from head-on like we should have. The right has been too worried about what the Dems are saying in the press, instead of ignoring them, and worrying just about the war, they keep trying to fight the war and the Dems. Forget the Dems, and win the war. Its like Hawk always said about trying to hit Johan Santana. You can't sit on both pitches, or you will always be in between. You either have to sit on the fastball or the change up. Well I guess you could call the right, the Sox, because they have been inbetween the whole time. Sit on the fastball, and give yourself a chance.

Exactly.

 

Balta, yea, 500,000 troops. Git' er done.

 

And another thing that is different this time then last time - WE have enough troops there to do the job. WE have been securing areas, and then releasing them to Iraqis, who let it all go to hell again. That's the one point of this "new" plan that hopefully defeats the ills of the past and that is, Iraq MUST KEEP THE SECURITY unlike the past. I think that was pretty clear. If they can't do that, then you're right, there's nothing we can do. But, we need to make it CRYSTAL clear to them that they have to do certain things to keep their side of the bargain up, and that also includes not releasing assholes who blow s*** up just because they're friends with (insert public figure here).

[Texsox]

So *we* are dying (literally) to give Iraq back to the them. And it will be a victory when we are out?

[kapkomet]

So *we* are dying (literally) to give Iraq back to the them. And it will be a victory when we are out?

What would YOU do to "win"?