Smasharoo wrote:
Quote:
Can we at least wait until after July to see if the administrations plan works?
Sure, set conditions that qualify it working and then when they're not mit have the balls to come here and say "Gee, I was wrong."
Wait, what the hell am I saying. You won't set conditions,
Ah. But you already have Smash. That's the problem. You've set conditions that are unrealistic and impossible to achieve. And then when the US "fails" at them, you post here claiming some sort of moral victory.
Now I know you haven't actually stated any conditions, but if you try the "I never said that!" argument, I will physically strangle you. These are based on points you have argued and keep arguing over and over. If you don't like them, then feel free to give us your actual "conditions" for success in Iraq:
First off you seem to believe that the day after the Iraqi military was defeated, that all operations in Iraq would be over. Our boys would load into transports and come home and everything would be wonderful.
You seem also to believe that Saddam should have been captured/killed immediately upon the fall of Bagdad. That it took us 6 months longer is therefore a failure.
You believe that a stable Iraqi government can be formed in a day. After all, it's not like we left forces in the other countries we've conquered for years afterwards. Nope. This should all happen in an instant. We'll just wave a magic wand and it will happen.
You have this absolutely bizarre belief that you can use a military force and no one will ever get killed. So every time either Iraqi's or US people die, you paste it here and show it to be yet another failure of the US.
Where did you get those assumptions? What kind of bizarro history did you study to make you believe any of those are reasonable expectations? They aren't. You seem to think that if you keep insisting that they *should be*, and then pointing out when we don't meet them, that people will believe we're failing.
Just because the administration has not met your ludicrous conditions for victory does not mean they have failed. You need to pull your head out of whatever ultra-liberal sources you allow to do your thinking for you and apply just a touch of common sense.
Quote:
that would require knowing two things:
One, what the "plan" is. Are you aware of some secret administration plan that I'm not? What is "the plan", exactly? Because at the present time, "the plan" seems to be to hand over power and sovriegnty on June 30th to some unamed group of people (probably just the current governing council leaving the situation pretty much identical to the way it is now) maintain the current troop allocations and change Bremer's title from Administrator to Govenor, pardon me, that's wrong...Ambassador.
Nope. I don't know what it is either. But that's the point Smash. I don't assume it will fail becuase I'm not personally in the loop. You, on the other hand, are perfectly comfortable with making wild speculations about what will happen, and arguing against current actions as though those speculations are unavoidable.
Quote:
Two, what "wokrs" actually means. The situation is deteriorating in Iraq as it has been for going on a year now. Every milestone that's lapped up by the press fails to lead to the stability the Administration would like it to.
Did you really think there would be no opposition to this? It will get worse before it gets better. What works is a process that moves Iraq away from a regime based on fear. The only way we're going to accomplish this is if we show we have the will to do it. Leaving, backing off, or shirking away at this point will almost guarantee that we "lose".
What do you think they should be doing Smash? Huh?
Quote:
How many times have we heard that attacks are "isolated" or the result of "fringe groups" or my favorite "Saddam Loyalists".
You know what the attacks are the result of? Pissed off ordinary Iraqis with a minimum of prodding from religous leaders or forieng nationals.
And yet still less then 10% of the population Smash. Heck. I'd be willing to be we're talking about less then 5%. These are the same 5% that would rule Iraq through fear if we don't stop them.
I find it amusing that the same guy who will argue for days about how horrible it is that 5% of the people in the US posses 90% of the wealth, but seems to see nothing wrong about 5% of the people in Iraq not only possessing 90% of the wealth, but all the power, the governent, control of the laws, and an ability to literally do anything they want, with the rest of the population completely powerless to stop them.
How freaking hypocritical can you be Smash? The only consistency I can see in your political positions is that you argue that side that is most unrealistic. That and you don't think that a military should ever actually kill anyone. Got it.
Quote:
So feel free to step up to the plate and set some conditions for sucess in July and we'll see what you can come up with.
Conditions? First off that the government starts taking control of the day to day working of Iraq. Then *gradually* assumes the role of policing the nation. Lots of baby steps here Smash. Anyone who thinks that the day after the new government is in place, everything will magically be better is fooling themseles (or you, yet again placing ludicrous conditions). Little things will matter. Getting power and water to the nation. Getting the factories working again. Getting public services working again. That's what's going to "win" this. Not bullets. However, you can bet that those 5% will use bullets to try to stop it. They don't want order. They want chaos. So yeah. You'll see more attacks on people performing the oh-so-evil jobs of connecting electricity wires, and reparing water mains. You will see more people die Smash. I'm sorry if your childlike view of the world wont accept it, but the "bad guys" wont just give up.
However, the "win" is that over time, they'll lose support. Over time the rest of the Iraqis will see them as the problem, and not the solution. The difference between a revolutionary and a menace is how the public percieves their current social/economic conditions. As the structures of Iraq are rebuilt, the radicals will have less and less ability to sway new recruits (or keep their current ones). It's easy to get people riled up when all the know is that their cities are in rubble, they have no jobs, they have no electricity or water, and the people who destroyed those things are standing around on the street corners holding guns. When you rebuilt that stuff, and the "people" see a future with the new government that is better then it is now, you'll see a shift in public perception.
This will not happen over night. It will not be immediate. There will be no clear sign (not one you would be able or willing to see) that the plan is "working". But the very formation of that government is one step in a process. You don't complain that you can't drive a car after just the frame has been constructed, do you? Most people would accept that progress is being made towards that goal though.