Our SupportFollow

About 15% of which are already in Iraq and which are being kept there on increasingly extended tours as a stop-loss because we don't have the fresh bodies to send over.

I think we both know that your 1.04mil number doesn't translate into "1.04mil people available to send to Iraq".

The 1.04m also doesn't include the Air Force, Navy, DOD Civies and National Guard (Army and Air Force)

I know it doesn't by any means translate to that many ready to go. After all, you don't send 100% of your standing army anywhere in a war, it's suicide. It's just that we have the resorces to have more than 100k on the ground there. I think the "Troop Surge" idea the administration had was belated brilliance. If only they had thought bigger and done it sooner, while all the 9/12 recruits were still filling out the ranks so nicely. The 20k they sent were just not enough, but it is a step in the right direction.

A zerg is in order I think.

Erm... 9/10/07 less eight years would be 9/10/99.

Ok. Color me silly, but this is the sticking point for me. The "current plan at hand" in 2005 had *not* failed. In the past or otherwise. In late 2005 we had *huge* successes in Iraq. That's the year the infrastructure achieved higher then pre-war levels. That's the year that the Iraqi national economy came back on line and started to pay for itself. That's the year that several significant elections were held in Iraq, and the year the wrote and ratified their constitution.

It was a hugely successful year. Yes. There was still violence, but that sort of violence doesn't disappear until *after* you achieve those successes. You have to give it time. However, right in the midst of these successes, Murtha started calling for withdrawal. He (and others in the Dem party) started using language very similar to what you just used. They claimed that Iraq was failing and that we were failing and that we needed to get out now.


One should question what measurement they were using. My tin-foil hat tells me that the "failure" in Iraq was that it was succeeding and that represented failure to the Dems. Thus, they acted to sabotage the process and make sure that it was first seen as a failure, and then as a result of their actions became a real failure. Don't look at the last year and a half. Look at the timeline in Iraq leading up to November 2005. Then ask "Why did Murtha call this a failure and call for withdrawal?". There's only one reason I can think of. Because at that time, the only one's calling Iraq a failure where those with a vested interest in Bush's plan failing. The saddest part to all of this is that they managed to convince so many people of this, and the Iraqi people are going to suffer for it. Badly.

This question?



I'd say give it at least 5 years. At a minimum. I'd certainly agree that we should make adjustments along the way, but that does not mean we abandon what we're doing because it's hard.


I guess my problem is that I really think you are asking the wrong question Joph. You want to know "how long do we do this", but that's like asking a judge "how long do you keep applying the law before you give up?". It's a silly question.


The better question is: What are our milestones? How do we measure our progress? What things do we weigh in to figure out what to do next. Becuase for all I know, we could do what we're doing in Iraq for the next 50 years, and at every single point in time what we're doing is *still* better then any alternative course of action. In exactly the same way that no matter how many trials a judge rules on, there will always be more, but that doesn't mean that you stop applying the law.


I'm quite certain that you and I also don't agree with what "status quo" means. I'm measuring status quo by looking not just at violence levels and casualty rates, but also by progress made within Iraq itself. Until and unless we can begin to agree on exactly what contsitutes "success" in Iraq, we cannot possibly agree on what kind of losses are worth what we're doing. Because you seem to want to only express what's going on in Iraq in terms of the cost, you and I can never reach any sort of agreement on what we should do. You'll always just see it as a cost and ask "how long will we keep paying this cost?". I'm looking at the cost and the benefits and asking "Is this cost worth the benefits?".


Those are two vastly different ways of looking at the situation. I happen to think that mine is a much more logical and reasonable one, but I'm sure you'll disagree... ;)

I think it is. My key point here is that you can't just look at casualty rates in a vacuum. You need to compare that rate to the alternative. Is what we're doing worth it? To answer that you need to look not just at what we're paying in terms of loss of life, but also what we stand to gain (or other losses we avoid) as a result of that cost.

You (and most liberals) seem content to just point out the cost and say "this cost is too high!", but you don't ever seem to tell us what it's too high in relation too. Is it too high a cost if it prevents another 9/11 style attack? Is it too high if it results in a democratic nation in the middle of the middle east that opposes terrorism? How much "cost" will we pay down the line if we fail to do these things?

You look at the cost of what we're doing, but don't look at the cost if we don't do what we're doing. You can't make a rational decision if you only look at half of the equation.

Edited, May 16th 2007 8:28pm by gbaji

Just wanted to say that this thread makes me sad.

From Natdatilgnome naive assumption that sending in even more troops (who are trained to destroy and fuck up, never to 'fix') will somehow make the remaining citizens of Iraq shower the occupation forces with gratitude, and miraculously come around to western democratic ways of thinking.

It wont.

The operative word is 'occupation'.

Sadly, over the last 4 years of this obscene military occupation, most anyone who could has left. that would include all the doctors, engineers, lawyers, technicians. Pretty much anyone with an education really. They are the ones who may have been able to participate in a 'democracy'.

Starting with the 'illegal invasion, continuing with the lack of post war planning, from Bremers sacking of the entire army and civil service, to the massacres and torture and rapes...the ineptitude continues to this day, with the segregation of communities and the collective punishment of the few non militant civilians who are still trying to survive.

To cogitate that even more violence and aggression is going to lead to his hope that



is....well its one of the things that makes me sad.


Another sadness generator is gbajis delusional fantasies that somehow 2005 was a good year for the Iraqi people.
FFS you utter twit.



I really dont know where you get your information from (tho I do have my suspicions) but you are so utterly altogether, completely dead, WRONG. the infrastructure as you call it is trashed. Hospitals, roads, schools, power stations, you name it, they are fucked.

Sure its easy to point at a school that has been rebuilt. But if the parents are to frightened to send their kids to it because of bombings or kidnappings, its nothing more than an empty shell. Especially considering that there arn't any teachers left to teach.

Same with hospitals. Electricity? Nope. Gasoline? Only if you want to queue for hours for your 'ration'.

Elections? Don't make me laugh! Only held at the pleasure of the Shia militias. The Government of Iraq has NO power. None. Nothing. Its only still there because the US is protecting its ministers. Itis only interested in discussing anything if it has the interests of the ministers and their associates at heart. As for trying to actually improve the lives of the Iraqis, it isn't even pretending to any more.

The Constitution? Even ministers from the same factions can't or wont agree on most of that. In a country where the Tribal sheikhs are THE power, you really believe that the publication of a document that most people will never read, has any relevance at all? It hasn't.

The fact that you are busy trying to blame everyone except the criminal dimwits who took your country to war, against the people of Iraq, shows what a total failure your heroes in the Administration have been. IF there were genuine signs of 'progress' in Iraq, then you would be shouting "Nah nah nah nah naaah!. we were right, you were wrong!". But you're not. You're trying to prolong the war for different reasons than Natdatilgnome (he just wants to kill everyone to solve the problem). You are trying to cover your own ***** The same as the Bushies are. They got it WRONG. And rather than really trying to come up with an answer, or even some humility, (wich would help a LOT more than most people realise) they want to prolong it until, by default, it becomes someone elses problem.

And by the way, the 'blame someone else' is the really cowardly option. But i guess its also been shown to be a pattern that Bush and co. have followed in the past.

The other thing that makes me sad is that I have to breath the same air as a racist self aggrandizing ****** like varus.

/rant off

Must be Democrats.

It is the Sadr bloc.

The UN mandate allowing the US in Iraq expires at the end of 2007, but will most likely get renewal. However the wording of the last mandate stated that if the Iraq govt voiced disapproval with the UN mandate that the UN would revoke it.

The Sadrists having the rather overwhelming support majority in two things. The Iraqi govt must get parliaments approval for another UN mandate and also the planned phased withdrawal of foreign troops. It would also require parliaments approval for troop 'surges'.

They have 138 confirmed (though they claim 144) votes in the 275 seat parliaments.

I have some thing a little bit more to say so here it is.
























Boop!

Edited, May 17th 2007 8:31am by Magnavoxroan

You're referring, of course, to the thousands of years of unending Middle Eastern violence, right?

Yes, especially when such information is misleading, biased or flat out wrong.