A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into. - Page 220

Spanky · 01-15-2007, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I'm still not clear on a) what the specific action of bringing in 30,000 more troops will bring, and b) what the ultimate goal is (and there's also the question of c) what we're willing to live with if b) cannot be met for political, strategic, or practical purposes.)

I watched the Senate Hearings on CSPAN over the weekend with Gates and the Four Star Marine. I have to say, I support the administration, and what they said made sense to me but I couldn't believe how accommodating the Senators were. The freshman senator from Virginia was almost obsequious to the two of them. I was expecting some real fireworks, but I guess next time I need to watch the foreign affairs committee to see some real debate.

Anyway, the argument seemed to be that the Iraqi government was not ready to take charge of Baghdad, but that they would be ready in like six to nine months. In order to give them a fighting chance when they took over, it would be a lot better if Baghdad was more pacified when we turned it over. According to these guys, we could do that if they had those troops. They said they didn't want to pull the troops out of other parts of Iraq because they wanted to keep those places at the status quo, and that status quo was OK for when those places were turned over to the government, but Baghdad needed to be more pacified before we turned it over.

Both these guys said that they (and they also spoke for Patreus) could get the job done in Baghdad with those troops.

Did I miss anything?

Penske_Account · 01-15-2007, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Perhaps, but if the mission is not properly identified and targetted and the objectives are not achievable before the manpower is deployed, you can end up with a real mess on your hands.

I see why you like Clinton so much. Same lack of control problem.

Tyrone Slothrop · 01-15-2007, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Meaning you think that is the situation we are in? Do you think the strategic goal of a unified Democratic Iraq is unachievable?

You have a unified Iraq with a democratically elected government right now. So, no, that's not an unachieveable goal.

Tyrone Slothrop · 01-15-2007, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Would you support the idea of sending 500,000 troops in?

Presumably you're talking about the UN.

Tyrone Slothrop · 01-15-2007, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I'm still not clear on a) what the specific action of bringing in 30,000 more troops will bring, and b) what the ultimate goal is (and there's also the question of c) what we're willing to live with if b) cannot be met for political, strategic, or practical purposes.)

21,000, actually, which net of the troops the UK is about to withdraw is an additional 17,000.

Tyrone Slothrop · 01-15-2007, 08:58 PM

Each state is labeled with a country with comparable GDP:

more

Penske_Account · 01-15-2007, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Each state is labeled with a country with comparable GDP:

more

Sacre bleu! I bet the French are pissed, npi, to be associated with home of boxed wine.

Spanky · 01-15-2007, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You have a unified Iraq with a democratically elected government right now. So, no, that's not an unachieveable goal.

Do you think a stable, democratic and unified Iraq is possible?

Spanky · 01-15-2007, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tables R Us
There are three realistic options:

A. Pick a militia leader we find tolerable, and help him murder his way to a dictatorship.

B. Leave the militia leaders to fight it out on their own, until one murders his way to dictatorship.

C. Put in 500,000 troops to impose martial law for several years, so democracy can emerge.

So far you are the only one on this board critical of Bush's policies whose had the balls to come up with an alternative specific plan of action. Althought I disagree with you that these are the options, you are the only critic of Bush's current policy who is not spewing B.S. and expecting other people to take their B.S. seriously.

Gattigap · 01-15-2007, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
So far you are the only one on this board critical of Bush's policies whose had the balls to come up with an alternative specific plan of action. Althought I disagree with you that these are the options, you are the only critic of Bush's current policy who is not spewing B.S. and expecting other people to take their B.S. seriously.

Wait, now. Did you ask him whether he wanted America to win in Iraq? Until he answers that question, I'm not sure we can read Tables' comments with the fresh eye it might otherwise deserve.

Spanky · 01-15-2007, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
Wait, now. Did you ask him whether he wanted America to win in Iraq? Until he answers that question, I'm not sure we can read Tables' comments with the fresh eye it might otherwise deserve.

He said that he would support sending in 500,000 US troops in. That says to me that he wants us to win.

Adder · 01-15-2007, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
He said that he would support sending in 500,000 US troops in. That says to me that he wants us to win.

Wants and believes it is possible are different things, my simple friend.

Tyrone Slothrop · 01-16-2007, 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Do you think a stable, democratic and unified Iraq is possible?

Not with anything like the troop levels or strategies we're talking about, and I'm having a hard time seeing how you get there at all.

The problem at this point is not a military one. It's a political one. There is no appreciable constiuency in Iraq now for a stable, democratic, and unified Iraq. There are Kurds, Sunnis and Shi'ites, fighting each other. We don't have the troops or the strategy to impose an end to the fighting.

Spanky · 01-16-2007, 03:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Adder
Wants and believes it is possible are different things, my simple friend.

Listen you moron, the issue was whether he wanted us to succeed. Full Stop. What he said indicated he wanted to us succeed. Whether or not 500,000 is possible is an issue we were not addressing.

Spanky · 01-16-2007, 03:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Not with anything like the troop levels or strategies we're talking about, and I'm having a hard time seeing how you get there at all.

The problem at this point is not a military one. It's a political one. There is no appreciable constiuency in Iraq now for a stable, democratic, and unified Iraq. There are Kurds, Sunnis and Shi'ites, fighting each other. We don't have the troops or the strategy to impose an end to the fighting.

So you don't think we can succeed. Why don't you just say that? So from your perspective there is nothing we can do so why even discuss different options?

Pelosi this morning claimed that the Democrats have a plan and that the VP knows it. She is lying. They don't have a plan. Like people on this board they don't think success is possible but they don't have the balls to say it.