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

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Spanky
You guys are so out of it it blows me away. Either you are part of the solution or part of the problem. Something has to be done in Iraq. Some sort of decision has to be made. Yet the people on this board, (which is ironicly the same position as the Democrats in Congress) keep saying you can't do this, we shouldn't do this, but they have no alternate plan of action (and can explain the logic of the action).

Anyone can critisize anything. You all sit around and criticize the administration's policies and pat eachother other on the back as if you were accomplishing something a four year old couldn't accomplish.

If you are against the surge, just tell me what you think the United States should do, and why that plan of action would further our interests better than the surge.

As I said, if you don't provide an alternative for the plan, you are endorsing the plan.

I can tell you that it's stupid to put the bar right beside the front door of a party because it causes bottlenecks and crowds, and it prevents people from effectively using the rest of the party space. I can criticize the bar location and be perfectly right without telling you the six or seven other places that the bar would be better placed.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
You guys are so out of it it blows me away. Either you are part of the solution or part of the problem. Something has to be done in Iraq. Some sort of decision has to be made. Yet the people on this board, (which is ironicly the same position as the Democrats in Congress) keep saying you can't do this, we shouldn't do this, but they have no alternate plan of action (and can explain the logic of the action).

Anyone can critisize anything. You all sit around and criticize the administration's policies and pat eachother other on the back as if you were accomplishing something a four year old couldn't accomplish.

If you are against the surge, just tell me what you think the United States should do, and why that plan of action would further our interests better than the surge.

As I said, if you don't provide an alternative for the plan, you are endorsing the plan.

Spanky, the President doesn't have a plan for Iraq. He's sending back in a few of the troops he pulled out during the election cycle to deal with US PR. If he had a plan, it would tell us what its goals are, and he hasn't done that.

The Iraq Commission has a plan for Iraq. It's on-line, it's free, go read it.

You want my plan? I gave you the goals above, and the plan flows from them. I'd negotiatie for at least two long term military bases in Iraq, commit to pulling our troops from direct combat positions on a specific time-line (leaving us with combat support roles for the Iraqi police and military for a longer term), and launch a major diplomatic initiative as suggested by the Iraq Commission. I'd focus on building national constituencies for the long term by providing significant support for Iraqi institutions like educational institutions (run by Iraqis without interference from us), with that support conditioned on continued open markets. And I'd look to support many of those Iraqi refugees in enrolling in educational institutions abroad or otherwise improving themselves, on the assumption that the Iraqi expatriate community is going to be a big constituency supporting us in the future, especially if Iraq can stabilize enough for them to return.

Then I'd get out of the way as the militias start fighting each other, and try to support the ones that aren't going to end up as Iranian allies.

Now, where the hell are your goals - tell us just what Bush's so-called plan is going to accomplish, with troop levels below those of November 05?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I can tell you that it's stupid to put the bar right beside the front door of a party because it causes bottlenecks and crowds, and it prevents people from effectively using the rest of the party space. I can criticize the bar location and be perfectly right without telling you the six or seven other places that the bar would be better placed.

If what you are stating is obvious then it is not helpful. In addition, what if the bar needs an outlet and a sink and the only place that is possible is next to the front door. So unless you can figure a way to find water and electricity somewhere else, your statements don't help. You need to find a solution to the problem.

Lou Gerstner spoke at the school where I got an MBA and he said that there is nothing more useless than a person that only points out problems. Either you come up with solutions or you are useless. People that just come up with problems create intertia. It is good to be able to see problems ahead of time, but unless you can come up with ways to avoid those problems you are useless.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Spanky
If what you are stating is obvious then it is not helpful. In addition, what if the bar needs an outlet and a sink and the only place that is possible is next to the front door. So unless you can figure a way to find water and electricity somewhere else, your statements don't help. You need to find a solution to the problem.

Lou Gerstner spoke at the school where I got an MBA and he said that there is nothing more useless than a person that only points out problems. Either you come up with solutions or you are useless. People that just come up with problems create intertia. It is good to be able to see problems ahead of time, but unless you can come up with ways to avoid those problems you are useless.

You're fighting the hypo. Didn't you go to law school too?

Which is, I suppose, part of the problem. We're all trained to look out for liability and point out potential pitfalls with the plans and ideas that we're presented with. We can offer alternatives, but for the most part we're the people who say "No. You can't do that. Figure something else out." Do you not listen to your lawyers when they tell you that you can't do something because it may be illegal, expose you to unnecessary liability or fines?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
You're fighting the hypo. Didn't you go to law school too?

Which is, I suppose, part of the problem. We're all trained to look out for liability and point out potential pitfalls with the plans and ideas that we're presented with. We can offer alternatives, but for the most part we're the people who say "No. You can't do that. Figure something else out." Do you not listen to your lawyers when they tell you that you can't do something because it may be illegal, expose you to unnecessary liability or fines?

If you think of the training received by the guys in the White House, they essentially know how to spin PR. This is a PR issue for them, which is why they have come up with this "plan" or "decision" that really has no substance. We will return to troop levels in November 05, before the election motivated withdrawals began. Hurray!

This is why they never listened to Powell, who never bought the idea that the White House could "make its own reality".

And Spanky's posts are perfect examples of replacing spin for policy, and then sprinkling the spin with a healthy dose of "and if you criticize me you must be a traitor."

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
You guys are so out of it it blows me away. Either you are part of the solution or part of the problem.

So, which was Bush? Rumsfeld? Cheney?

Originally posted by Spanky
Something has to be done in Iraq. Some sort of decision has to be made.

Indeed. If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

Originally posted by Spanky
Anyone can critisize anything. You all sit around and criticize the administration's policies and pat eachother other on the back as if you were accomplishing something a four year old couldn't accomplish.

Who was it that said: "This is a Politics Board, not a Policy Board!"? Are you changing the rules now your ox is being gored?

Originally posted by Spanky
If you are against the surge, just tell me what you think the United States should do, and why that plan of action would further our interests better than the surge.

I am in favor of the surge -- though I think I'd like more troops for longer (not sure that is realistically possible given our force level and structure).

I'm not at all confident it will "work" -- and not at all sure how we will even define "success" -- but I hope it does. It sounds like the US is preparing to take a much more creative and flexible approach on the non-military side too, which is also critical.

I believe that an "immedate withdrawal" would likely lead to an even worse situation, and that announcing any kind of timetable for a phased withdrawal is a very bad idea insofar as it will cause the bad guys to hunker down and wait us out.

One of the biggest problems I see is that I'm not at all sure the Shia (including those in government) really want a pluralistic democracy anymore. I think many want to wait us out and then crush the Sunnis. If that is the case, and remains the case, nothing the US can do will "work."

Originally posted by Spanky
As I said, if you don't provide an alternative for the plan, you are endorsing the plan.

And anyone who opposed the invasion favored keeping Saddam Hussein in power.

Spanky, in some of your posts you have implied that you have formal education and/or training in logic and philosophy. But then you say things like this.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
mine was criticizing Ty's analog. Ty said he would want to get with as much as "he" could save, but it misses the point "he" wouldn't have walked in anyway.

you should be cautious about sounding smug about shit with me, because there is a fairly high chance you're whiffing.

Sorry, thought I was talking to Spanky.

But if everyone on the Board whiffs with me, are you really the one who whiffed? Philosophical question.

S_A_M

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
You guys are so out of it it blows me away. Either you are part of the solution or part of the problem. Something has to be done in Iraq. Some sort of decision has to be made. Yet the people on this board, (which is ironicly the same position as the Democrats in Congress) keep saying you can't do this, we shouldn't do this, but they have no alternate plan of action (and can explain the logic of the action).

Anyone can critisize anything. You all sit around and criticize the administration's policies and pat eachother other on the back as if you were accomplishing something a four year old couldn't accomplish.

If you are against the surge, just tell me what you think the United States should do, and why that plan of action would further our interests better than the surge.

As I said, if you don't provide an alternative for the plan, you are endorsing the plan.

222!!!

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I'd negotiatie for at least two long term military bases in Iraq,

Don't you think that would not be in our interest as that could be seen as a permanent occupation giving more fuel to the insurgents.

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
commit to pulling our troops from direct combat positions on a specific time-line

You don't think a public timelines will emboldent the insurgents?

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

(leaving us with combat support roles for the Iraqi police and military for a longer term),

How long do you see the support role lasting?

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy and launch a major diplomatic initiative as suggested by the Iraq Commission.

What do you think these will accomplish? Iran is training Shiite militias and is making the road side bombs. Do you think we can stop that? What good would this do?

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy I'd focus on building national constituencies for the long term by providing significant support for Iraqi institutions like educational institutions (run by Iraqis without interference from us),

How is that different from what we are doing right now? Are we not supporting educational institutions?

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
with that support conditioned on continued open markets.

So our support of the educational institutions would be conditioned on the fact that they keep a free market economy? That is an interesting connection. I like the idea of putting pressure on them to keep a free market economcy, but why do you think monetary support for their educational institutions is the best way to leverage this?

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
And I'd look to support many of those Iraqi refugees in enrolling in educational institutions abroad or otherwise improving themselves, on the assumption that the Iraqi expatriate community is going to be a big constituency supporting us in the future, especially if Iraq can stabilize enough for them to return.

How about giving them loans to go to school that will be forgiven if they move back to Iraq?

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Then I'd get out of the way as the militias start fighting each other, and try to support the ones that aren't going to end up as Iranian allies.

So you think we should pick sides in the civil war but only support our side with support troops?

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Now, where the hell are your goals - tell us just what Bush's so-called plan is going to accomplish, with troop levels below those of November 05?

As I stated above


"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."

In addition, I think they said they would put more money into education and infrastructure.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

I really like this part of your response:

Originally posted by Spanky

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Now, where the hell are your goals - tell us just what Bush's so-called plan is going to accomplish, with troop levels below those of November 05?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's kind of what we've been hearing from Washington.

(eta: of course, what you've added since is just as responsive).

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I am in favor of the surge -- though I think I'd like more troops for longer (not sure that is realistically possible given our force level and structure).

I'm not at all confident it will "work" -- and not at all sure how we will even define "success" -- but I hope it does. It sounds like the US is preparing to take a much more creative and flexible approach on the non-military side too, which is also critical.


I believe that an "immedate withdrawal" would likely lead to an even worse situation, and that announcing any kind of timetable for a phased withdrawal is a very bad idea insofar as it will cause the bad guys to hunker down and wait us out.

I agree with you so far.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

One of the biggest problems I see is that I'm not at all sure the Shia (including those in government) really want a pluralistic democracy anymore. I think many want to wait us out and then crush the Sunnis. If that is the case, and remains the case, nothing the US can do will "work."

That is definitely possible.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
And anyone who opposed the invasion favored keeping Saddam Hussein in power.

You lost me here. What were you trying to say.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man Spanky, in some of your posts you have implied that you have formal education and/or training in logic and philosophy. But then you say things like this.

S_A_M

If I implied that I had formal training in philosophy or logic then I am sorry. That was misleading. I have formal training in economics and business management but not in philosophy or logic.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I really like this part of your response:



That's kind of what we've been hearing from Washington.

(eta: of course, what you've added since is just as responsive).

I put up my post and then wen't back to copy what I had wrote before. It looks like you responded to my post before I had a chance to finish it.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
Don't you think that would not be in our interest as that could be seen as a permanent occupation giving more fuel to the insurgents.



You don't think a public timelines will emboldent the insurgents?



How long do you see the support role lasting?



What do you think these will accomplish? Iran is training Shiite militias and is making the road side bombs. Do you think we can stop that? What good would this do?




How is that different from what we are doing right now? Are we not supporting educational institutions?



So our support of the educational institutions would be conditioned on the fact that they keep a free market economy? That is an interesting connection. I like the idea of putting pressure on them to keep a free market economcy, but why do you think monetary support for their educational institutions is the best way to leverage this?




How about giving them loans to go to school that will be forgiven if they move back to Iraq?



So you think we should pick sides in the civil war but only support our side with support troops?



As I stated above


"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."

In addition, I think they said they would put more money into education and infrastructure.

Long and short of it: I would identify our key interests and focus on those with appropriate resources: militarily imposing Democracy is a fools errand, we should focus on building the requisite constituencies; also, maintaining military bases is leaving potential targets, but in a form where they are more isolated and not, for example, in central Baghdad. There may come times when we want to project force into Iraq rapidly.

The move for open markets is, of course, completely contrary to current policy, where we have championed American contractors and American businesses.

And, yes, we have to take some sides in the civil war, since, at the end of the day, a 100 million plus radical Shi'ite state in the Gulf would be a very bad idea from many perspectives.

We have destablized the region. We may need to go back in, and we will have interests to preserve, but right now, we don't have clear military objectives and so need to deemphasize the military and emphasize diplomatic and economic aims.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
You guys are so out of it it blows me away. Either you are part of the solution or part of the problem. Something has to be done in Iraq. Some sort of decision has to be made. Yet the people on this board, (which is ironicly the same position as the Democrats in Congress) keep saying you can't do this, we shouldn't do this, but they have no alternate plan of action (and can explain the logic of the action).

Anyone can critisize anything. You all sit around and criticize the administration's policies and pat eachother other on the back as if you were accomplishing something a four year old couldn't accomplish.

If you are against the surge, just tell me what you think the United States should do, and why that plan of action would further our interests better than the surge.

As I said, if you don't provide an alternative for the plan, you are endorsing the plan.

Once again. The surge is a fiction. It is more of the same. The same isn't working.

Either you vasting increase troop strength to truly pacify and hold the entire country, and thereby commit to a permanent military presence in Iraq or you pull out. Given that I am uncomfortable that even the first option will work, I favor the latter.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
I got an MBA

This explains much about you, Spanky.