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

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
How many soliders did we use in Gulf War I.

As I said, these countries don't even have armies. And when they do send them they are useless. In Afghanistan most NATO countries won't let their troops go to the south because it is too dangerous.

If the number of troops was the mistake, what would be wrong with bulding up our troop strenght to 500,000 in Iraq now? Leave a skeleton crew every where in the world (including the United States) except for Korea and Afghanistan?

Over 500,000 were actively deployed in Gulf I, in addition to over 100,000 each being deployed by Turkey and Iran on their borders (but not attacking). Franks 500,000 didn't come out of thin air. His argument was, last time with 500,000 we didn't feel we were in a position to take Baghdad and effectively police the country, but all the stuff Rumsfeld is citing about increased efficiency means we might be able to do twice the job with the same number of boots. But he didn't think we could do twice the job with less than 1/3 the number of boots.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Much of the reason that the protestants in the north fear becoming part of the repulic is because they are afraid that the catholics will seek revenge upon them as new minorities. But the protestants in the republic (who dominated the politics and economics of the southern counties before independence) remained in much the same social position they did prior to the revolt. Trinity and Christchurch are still Anglican, not Catholic. The point I was alluding too is that at some point enough protestant leaders in the north are going to remind tehmselves/discover that maybe its not so bad to be a protestant in the republic. This will occur about the same time that an economic crisis hits the UK but not Ireland.

Got it.

But don't the protestants in the south resent the ban on abortion and birth control?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Over 500,000 were actively deployed in Gulf I, in addition to over 100,000 each being deployed by Turkey and Iran on their borders (but not attacking). Franks 500,000 didn't come out of thin air. His argument was, last time with 500,000 we didn't feel we were in a position to take Baghdad and effectively police the country, but all the stuff Rumsfeld is citing about increased efficiency means we might be able to do twice the job with the same number of boots. But he didn't think we could do twice the job with less than 1/3 the number of boots.

So why not throw in 500,000 now?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by nononono
(I am in month 4 (?) of reading Infinite Jest, if this is familiar to anyone.)

Among my favorite books ever. I wish I could re-read it but I don't expect to have a few weeks off again anytime soon.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
How would that have that helped? It could have meant more troops but we could have also provided more troops. And besides these troops, outside of the British, were pretty much useless in Gulf War I. The only countries that didn't support us that supported us in Gulf War I were Germany, France and Syria. Where they a lot of help in Gulf War I? Isn't help from France kind of like having a knitting convention on your side?

Don't you think it would be helpful to have Turkey behind us? We may not need German, French, or Russian troops, but it would be helpful to have them apply pressure on Iran and Syria to behave. Hell, if we'd played this right, we probably could have gotten Syria to seal its border. And where are all the foreign fighters coming from? How is that being allowed to happen?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
If the number of troops was the mistake, what would be wrong with bulding up our troop strenght to 500,000 in Iraq now?

We've been through this before, but what we needed the 500,000 for was to secure ammunition, hold captives (on the assumption we'd be capturing large segments of an army of 300-400,000), and process captives to ensure we got the potential terrorists/insurgents on day one.

These bells can't be unrung. The cake is in the oven, so we can't sift the flour. The baby's in the basket and the ring's on the finger. We can't put Humpty Dumpty together again.

We need a President who can identify for all of us objectives that are winable. Then we should figure out what we need to do to win them.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Over 500,000 were actively deployed in Gulf I, in addition to over 100,000 each being deployed by Turkey and Iran on their borders (but not attacking). Franks 500,000 didn't come out of thin air. His argument was, last time with 500,000 we didn't feel we were in a position to take Baghdad and effectively police the country, but all the stuff Rumsfeld is citing about increased efficiency means we might be able to do twice the job with the same number of boots. But he didn't think we could do twice the job with less than 1/3 the number of boots.

And, let's remember: We didn't occupy Iraq after Gulf War I. This time, everyone knew that an occupation would be necessary (well, everyone but the sweets-and-flowers crowd that planned the fucking thing).

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
We can't put Humpty Dumpty together again.

BTW, I really liked The Big Over Easy. How was The Fourth Bear, Slave?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
BTW, I really liked The Big Over Easy. How was The Fourth Bear, Slave?

POTY.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Iraq didn't fuck itself up.

Yes it did. It allowed Saddam Hussein to take over. And all polls show that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis prefer that Saddam is gone (only among the Sunnis is it the majority and a slim one).

We made the place better, just not as good as everyone would like. But getting rid of Saddam was a good move no matter how you slice it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
So why not throw in 500,000 now?

To analogize, there was a point before Katrina when better levees would have helped. After the storm hit, not so much.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Don't you think it would be helpful to have Turkey behind us? We may not need German, French, or Russian troops, but it would be helpful to have them apply pressure on Iran and Syria to behave. Hell, if we'd played this right, we probably could have gotten Syria to seal its border. And where are all the foreign fighters coming from? How is that being allowed to happen?

I don't think any of these guys were ever going to help us. Support for a US invasion of Iraq was the 9% in Turkey. They liked having Saddam there. Syria was never going to go for a US invasion of Iraq where we would end up on their borders.

Foreign fighters are coming in because as much as Syria and Iran would like a stable Iraq they want to see us fail more.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Yes it did. It allowed Saddam Hussein to take over. And all polls show that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis prefer that Saddam is gone (only among the Sunnis is it the majority and a slim one).

We made the place better, just not as good as everyone would like. But getting rid of Saddam was a good move no matter how you slice it.

A substantial majority of Iraqis want us gone now. Do you have some principle about when you look to polls of Iraqis?

I'll return to the other convo in a few hours. That's a promise to Spanky and some others, and a threat to the rest of y'all.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
I don't think any of these guys were ever going to help us. Support for a US invasion of Iraq was the 9% in Turkey. They liked having Saddam there. Syria was never going to go for a US invasion of Iraq where we would end up on their borders.

And yet they both supported us in GW I. Hmmmmm, I wonder what the difference was.

Foreign fighters are coming in because as much as Syria and Iran would like a stable Iraq they want to see us fail more.

And also, the Saudis are looking to counter the expanding influence of Tehran.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061207/...surgency_saudi

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
To analogize, there was a point before Katrina when better levees would have helped. After the storm hit, not so much.

I like that one.