Iraqi rat-hole keeps getting deeper, and deeper - Any reasonable chance for victory?

[Der_Trihs]

[QUOTE=Ryan_Liam]
I fail to see the comparison of the ARVN and the Iraqi Army at all, the notable difference being that the ARVN was already failing when US troops were stationed in Vietnam, and the other has been only operational as an army for the last 3 years.
[/quote]
And the Iraqi Army is a disaster right now. Both are collaborator armies, both are disasters.

[QUOTE=Ryan_Liam]
I didn’t say that the Iraqi Army was in it’s best position as of right now, I was simply stating the fact that if the US wants to win against the insurgents, then viable security forces have to be in place in order for it to do so.
[/quote]
Then they’ll have to be American security forces. The Iraqis are our enemies; mass murder, torture and general devastation tends to do that.

[QUOTE=Ryan_Liam]
Yes, because you’d rather see Iraq in flames to spite the current administration than have it any chance of becoming a proper democratic state.
[/quote]
America humiliated and out of Iraq is not the same thing as “Iraq in flames”. If nothing else, because Iraq is “in flames” right now. If anyone wants Iraq in flames, it’s you for supporting this barbaric invasion.

[QUOTE=Ryan_Liam]
Emotion running through the course of logic, it’s simply Bush made the pledge to never allow the terrorists an opportunity to strike the US again, and if it withdraws under his administration, then he’s damaging his partys stance as the one who isn’t soft on terrorism.
[/quote]
:rolleyes: Iraq is only a terrorist danger because of the invasion. The Republicans are “soft on terrorism”; they are the best allies Osama could imagine.

[QUOTE=Ryan_Liam]
Maybe, however half of the Sunni tribal chiefs in Anbar have now sided with the Iraqi government to kick out Al Queda, so you see, even amongst the murder there is political compromise on going everyday.
[/quote]
Only half are against foreign terrorists who kill their own people, and this impresses you ?

[QUOTE=Ryan_Liam]
I don’t think so, the Iraqi Government is predominantly Shia led, so if the US were to leave, there’d be numerous agreements and powersharing, however we’d see a heavily Shia dominated government more than there is now, and security forces all pretty pointed towards Sunni areas.
[/quote]
Shia collaborators. I expect them to be killed by their fellow Shiites, and replaced by different ones.

[QUOTE=Ryan_Liam]
You can be there ‘just for the money’ and not be a corrupt officer,
[/quote]
No, I mean people who take the job because they need to eat, and are desperate enough to take a job from us.

[QUOTE=Ryan_Liam]
I don’t see how you cannot seperate this from people actively supporting militias and insurgents. Also, as for ‘barely having anyone left’ Are you actually saying there are absolutely no Iraqis in the Army or Police who give a damn about their country?
[/quote]
Most of the Iraqi population wants us dead, or is afraid of being killed ( possibly by their own families ) for working for us. The Iraqis don’t care about Iraq because Iraq is not their country, it’s ours. The ones with patriotic impulses are either in the ethnic militias or killing Americans, not working for them.

[QUOTE=Ryan_Liam]
Again, tactful use of colourful metaphors to get a rise out of people who disagree with you, anyway, I don’t care what you think, I’m simply stating what the US has to do in order to win in Iraq.
[/quote]
In other words, you have no justification for your little noble suffering speech.

[QUOTE=Ryan_Liam]
So is the UK, the US, Russian Federation, and a whole other host of states which are diverse in nature but which are artificial creations. They survived, so can Iraq.
[/QUOTE]
So ? Why does that matter ? Why should Iraq survive, against the will of the people who live there ? I do think that both the US and UK should have broken up ( don’t know enough about the Russian Federation to comment ). I’d love it if America wasn’t dragged down by the South. If it was possible I’d prefer my own state to secede.

[Loopydude]

Sorry for being especially dense, here, but I just want to clarify: May we safely conclude, at this juncture, that, without a stable Iraq, declaring “victory” by contracting to Greenzonia Minor and a heavily-fortified oil infrastructure, whilst war rages outside, is not a realistic strategy, even for the most cynical, as recurrant damage to the oil infrastructure will render the approach untenable?

And, FWIW, I’d be rather disgusted with anyone who claimed the above was a “victory” worth the catastrophe that came with it, but it seems like something our Fearless Leaders would happily run up the flagpole if enough voters bought it.

[gonzomax]

New plan.; We dig trench around Bagdad(already in line) thereby increasing the Green zone that much more. Then we dig a trench around Fallujah. Etc etc. The Greenzoning or Iraq can be done in 20 or 30 years. Expensive ,but it is finally a plan. I dont know why they didnt let us know.

[Ryan_Liam]

And the Iraqi Army is a disaster right now. Both are collaborator armies, both are disasters.

You’re using the blanket term ‘disaster’ without any proof.

Then they’ll have to be American security forces. The Iraqis are our enemies; mass murder, torture and general devastation tends to do that.

Yawn, again nihilistic sloganeering. Many Iraqis are fighting against the insurgency.

America humiliated and out of Iraq is not the same thing as “Iraq in flames”. If nothing else, because Iraq is “in flames” right now. If anyone wants Iraq in flames, it’s you for supporting this barbaric invasion.

Making sure Iraq has competent security forces to quell any threats to full blown civil war is making sure Iraq doesn’t go down in flames.

Iraq is only a terrorist danger because of the invasion. The Republicans are “soft on terrorism”; they are the best allies Osama could imagine.

Did you read what I just said? If the US withdraws with terror apparatus still in place, then it damages the party further and it’s stance on not being soft on terrorism.

Only half are against foreign terrorists who kill their own people, and this impresses you ?

*Sunni tribal leaders who have vowed to drive al-Qaeda out of Iraq’s most restive province met the Shiite prime minister on Wednesday, marking what Washington hopes will be a breakthrough alliance against Islamist militants.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s meeting with sheikhs from Anbar Province – heartland of the Sunni Arab insurgency and the deadliest part of Iraq for US forces – was one bit of reassuring news for the US and the Iraqi government.

Al-Qaeda followers have seized control of towns and villages along the length of the Euphrates valley from Falluja near Baghdad to the Syrian border, and Washington says its 30,000 troops in the province cannot beat them on their own.

But al-Qaeda’s violent ways and severe interpretation of Sunni Islam have alienated traditional-minded Sunnis.

Sattar al-Buzayi, a Sunni sheikh from Anbar Province who has emerged in recent weeks as a leader of a tribal alliance against al-Qaeda, said he and about 15 other sheikhs had offered their cooperation to the Shiite prime minister.

Fellow tribal sheikh, Hameed Farhan, said most tribes supported the agreement. He called for tribesmen to join the army and police and said Maliki promised Iraqi troops for Anbar.

Maliki’s office issued a statement praising the chiefs for their commitment to fighting the militants. It was the first time he had met them since they pledged to fight al-Qaeda in a gathering at Buzayi’s Ramadi home two weeks ago.*

*MacFarland’s brigade is fighting in Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province, where the insurgency has become so entrenched and feared by residents that the city has no Iraqi mayor. Recently, however, the tide has begun to turn against al-Qaeda in Iraq, which has become the dominant anti-government force, the colonel said.

“It’s a situation that’s beginning to spiral in our favor,” he said.

MacFarland painted a largely upbeat picture of the battle for Ramadi. He said attacks against U.S. and Iraqi forces have dropped from about 20 per day to about 15 per day, and the attacks have become less effective.

Also, recruiting for the Iraqi security forces has “soared 10-fold,” local Sunni tribal leaders have begun cooperating more against the insurgents, and the U.S.-equipped Iraqi police are becoming more effective, he said. *

Anbar Province\'s Sunni leaders meet Iraqi prime minister - Taipei Times

San Diego Union-Tribune

Shia collaborators. I expect them to be killed by their fellow Shiites, and replaced by different ones.

Even though many of those ‘collaborators’ have militias and are part of the Iraqi government, that includes Sadr.

No, I mean people who take the job because they need to eat, and are desperate enough to take a job from us.

Plenty of people join the army for reasons other than patriotism, same thing happens even in the US of A and UK. My own father joined the army for money and my uncle went to the Falklands for money, you gonna say he’s not willing to fight because of that?

In other words, you have no justification for your little noble suffering speech.

Irrelevant, I simply stated it’s gonna be tough if the US wants to win against the insurgents, you responded with the usual colourful metaphors and slogans to get a rise out of me and deflect from the current debate.

So ? Why does that matter ? Why should Iraq survive, against the will of the people who live there ? I do think that both the US and UK should have broken up ( don’t know enough about the Russian Federation to comment ). I’d love it if America wasn’t dragged down by the South. If it was possible I’d prefer my own state to secede.

That’s your opinion, however, many in Iraq with the exception of the Kurds don’t want Iraq to break up, most of all those ‘barefoot peasants’ called the Sunnis, hence why they oppose Federalism.

[slaphead]

[QUOTE=Ryan_Liam]
That’s your opinion, however, many in Iraq with the exception of the Kurds don’t want Iraq to break up, most of all those ‘barefoot peasants’ called the Sunnis, hence why they oppose Federalism.
[/QUOTE]

Well the Serb extremists didn’t want Yugoslavia to break up either, they just wanted all the Croats/Slovenes/Bosnians/Albanians to either die, leave or be subjugated under their control.

Currently Iraq is more of a rat pit than a rat hole.

[RTFirefly]

[QUOTE=Voyager]
That gives me an idea of a way out. Some aides make up a fake DVD showing these celebrations. We bugger out, show the tapes to George, and, since he never reads the papers, will never know the difference.
[/quote]
Kind of a reverse “Wag the Dog.”

I like it!

Then, at the next cabinet meeting, he can say “tell me about the rabbits, Dick.”

First good laugh of this bleary Monday morning. Can’t tell you how much I needed that!

[RTFirefly]

I’ll be damned if I can see any way we can bring about a better outcome than we’ve already got there right now. I suspect we blew our last chance when the Bushies vetoed significant portions of Maliki’s peace plan a few months back. (Let’s hear it for Iraqi sovereignty. :rolleyes:**) Now the conflict has too much of a life of its own, and is too present everywhere.

If there was something we could do to make things better, we would have long since done it. Magiver asked in post #4, “What war are you comparing this to,” but we don’t need to compare it to any other war: the most sensible comparison is to itself across time. Remember those golden summer days of 2003 when the resistance was just a few “Ba’athist dead-enders”? Whatever we might do now, it sure would have been a lot easier to do it then. But we weren’t able to do it then, despite a much more advantageous position then than now. Nor were we able to do it in 2004 or 2005, as things got steadily worse (although things were still much better then than now).

I suppose we could have real fun comparing the Iraqi war with WWII, where we went from Pearl Harbor to V-J Day in three years, 8 months, and 8 days. We were able to beat Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo in a period comparable to that beginning with our invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003, and ending eight weeks from today.

A good overview of the situation in Iraq was recently provided by Tomdispatch. It’s called “Iraq at the Gates of Hell: George Bush’s Iraq in 21 Questions” and just to give you a feel for it, here’s the first few:

How many freelance militias are there in Baghdad?

The answer is “23” according to a “senior [U.S.] military official” in Baghdad – so write Richard A. Oppel, Jr. and Hosham Hussein in the New York Times; but, according to National Public Radio, the answer is “at least 23.” Antonio Castaneda of the Associated Press says that there are 23 “known” militias. However you figure it, that’s a staggering number of militias, mainly Shiite but some Sunni, for one large city.

How many civilians are dying in the Iraqi capital, due to those militias, numerous (often government-linked death squads), the Sunni insurgency, and al-Qaeda-in-Mesopotamia-style terrorism?

5,106 people in July and August, according to a recently released United Nations report. The previous, still staggering but significantly lower figure of 3,391 offered for those months relied on body counts only from the city morgue. The UN report also includes deaths at the city’s overtaxed hospitals. With the Bush administration bringing thousands of extra U.S. and Iraqi soldiers into the capital in August, death tolls went down somewhat for a few weeks, but began rising again towards month’s end. August figures on civilian wounded – 4,309 – rose 14% over July’s figures and, by late September, suicide bombings were at their highest level since the invasion.
**
How many Iraqis are being tortured in Baghdad at present?**

Precise numbers are obviously in short supply on this one, but large numbers of bodies are found in and around the capital every single day, a result of the roiling civil war already underway there. These bodies, as Oppel of the Times describes them, commonly display a variety of signs of torture including: “gouged-out eyeballs… wounds… in the head and genitals, broken bones of legs and hands, electric and cigarette burns… acid-induced injuries and burns caused by chemical substances, missing skin… missing teeth and wounds caused by power drills or nails.” The UN’s chief anti-torture expert, Manfred Nowak, believes that torture in Iraq is now not only “totally out of hand,” but “worse” than under Saddam Hussein.

How many Iraqi civilians are being killed countrywide?

The UN Report offers figures on this: 1,493 dead, over and above the dead of Baghdad. However, these figures are surely undercounts. Oppel points out, for instance, that officials in al-Anbar Province, the heartland of the Sunni insurgency “and one of the deadliest regions in Iraq, reported no deaths in July.” Meanwhile, in Diyala Province, northeast of Baghdad, deaths not only seem to be on the rise, but higher than previously estimated. The intrepid British journalist Patrick Cockburn recently visited the province. It’s not a place, he comments parenthetically, “to make a mistake in map reading.” (Enter the wrong area or neighborhood and you’re dead.) Diyala, he reports, is now largely under the control of Sunni insurgents who are “close to establishing a ‘Taliban republic’ in the region.” On casualties, he writes: “Going by the accounts of police and government officials in the province, the death toll outside Baghdad may be far higher than previously reported.” The head of Diyala’s Provincial Council (who has so far escaped two assassination attempts) told Cockburn that he believed “on average, 100 people are being killed in Diyala every week.” (“Many of those who die disappear forever, thrown into the Diyala River or buried in date palm groves and fruit orchards.”) Even at the death counts in the UN report, we’re talking about close to 40,000 Iraqi deaths a year. We have no way of knowing how much higher the real figure is.

I would highly encourage reading the whole thing. It’s well sourced (go there for all the supporting links to what I’ve C&P’ed here), and pulls together a lot of things that one tends to see separately if at all.

[RTFirefly]

Note: that 1,493 figure (in answer to “How many Iraqi civilians are being killed countrywide?” is neither a monthly nor an annual figure; it’s the figure for the July-August 2006 two-month period.

[BrainGlutton]

[QUOTE=Ryan_Liam]
Emotion running through the course of logic, it’s simply Bush made the pledge to never allow the terrorists an opportunity to strike the US again . . .
[/QUOTE]

:dubious: Which in the first place had nothing to do with whether we invaded Iraq, and now has nothing to do with whether we stay or go.

[Der_Trihs]

[QUOTE=Ryan_Liam]
You’re using the blanket term ‘disaster’ without any proof.
[/quote]
Have you been reading the news ?

[QUOTE=Ryan_Liam]
Many Iraqis are fighting against the insurgency.
[/quote]
Yes, it’s called “civil war”. There is no “insurgency”, there is a multitude of factions who hate each other as well as us.

[QUOTE=Ryan_Liam]
Making sure Iraq has competent security forces to quell any threats to full blown civil war is making sure Iraq doesn’t go down in flames.
[/quote]
It already has. It’s done.

[QUOTE=Ryan_Liam]
Did you read what I just said? If the US withdraws with terror apparatus still in place, then it damages the party further and it’s stance on not being soft on terrorism.
[/quote]
Which is an argument for never withdrawing, because all we are doing is making the “terror apparatus” stronger by being there. “The beatings will continue until morale improves”.

[QUOTE=Ryan_Liam]
Irrelevant, I simply stated it’s gonna be tough if the US wants to win against the insurgents, you responded with the usual colourful metaphors and slogans to get a rise out of me and deflect from the current debate.
[/quote]
No, I pointed out you we engaging in Bush style false patriotism, making speeches about noble sacrifices you expected other people to make. A common theme among war supporters; they don’t care how many Iraqis they kill for their own good, and they feel all noble about it. The White Man’s Burden all over again.

[RedFury]

Ryan: Watch, read, learn, and then maybe, just maybe you’ll stop posting platitudes that have nothing to do with what’s going on in the ground: IOW, reality.

**Bob Woodward: Bush lied **[VIDEO]

Still disagree? As I’ve told you many times, step out of your Mom’s basement and go fight for your warped ideals. With a gun – against people that hate you and fire back.

Good luck with that.

[Ryan_Liam]

[QUOTE=slaphead]
Well the Serb extremists didn’t want Yugoslavia to break up either, they just wanted all the Croats/Slovenes/Bosnians/Albanians to either die, leave or be subjugated under their control.

Currently Iraq is more of a rat pit than a rat hole.
[/QUOTE]

Yes but even extremists such as Sadr don’t want to see even a Federalised Iraq come about.

Ryan: Watch, read, learn, and then maybe, just maybe you’ll stop posting platitudes that have nothing to do with what’s going on in the ground: IOW, reality.

Sorry I didn’t know the news cites about Anbar I posted had nothing to do with what I was actually talking about :rolleyes:

Bob Woodward: Bush lied [VIDEO]

Still disagree? As I’ve told you many times, step out of your Mom’s basement and go fight for your warped ideals. With a gun – against people that hate you and fire back.

Good luck with that.

Don’t care with the ‘Bush lied’ crap, don’t care for the WMD argument since I was against the invasion in 2003, I’m simply stating what the US has to do in my mind for it to succeed in Iraq. End of.

I don’t have a basement.

BrainGlutton
Which in the first place had nothing to do with whether we invaded Iraq, and now has nothing to do with whether we stay or go.

Yes it does because you’re increasing the threat of another terrorist attack if you allow said extremists to operate under impunity because of US withdrawal.

Der Trihs
Have you been reading the news ?

I read the news all the time, and the people who regard Iraq as a ‘disaster’ or ‘success’ are taking extremities on both points. We’re in the middle between both.

Yes, it’s called “civil war”. There is no “insurgency”, there is a multitude of factions who hate each other as well as us.

It’s called ‘fighting the insurgency’ where the Iraqi security forces (mainly the Army) fight both sides, shia or sunni, to preserve the state.

It already has. It’s done.

You know it’s not because the violence if left unabated would be able to get Rwanda style and you know it.

Which is an argument for never withdrawing, because all we are doing is making the “terror apparatus” stronger by being there. “The beatings will continue until morale improves”.

Rubbish, you’re stating we’d be there forever on the flimsy pretext of Iraqi armed forces never being able to be trained to a point where they could stand on their own. It’s not really the Iraqi Armed forces which are the problem, it’s the political will at the top which needs attention, fix that and everything else falls into place.

No, I pointed out you we engaging in Bush style false patriotism, making speeches about noble sacrifices you expected other people to make. A common theme among war supporters; they don’t care how many Iraqis they kill for their own good, and they feel all noble about it. The White Man’s Burden all over again.

Yet you don’t care how many Iraqis/Americans die as a result of leaving a failed state within the midst of an American withdrawal. Like I said before, I don’t care about your nihilism, sloganeering or defeatist attitude, Iraq can still be ‘won’ in the sense of it being supported for a long time, however it will take a major effort on both sides to bring it about.

I’m getting pretty tired of the ‘armchair quarterback’ accusations, if I can’t give my opinion on a subject I support, because I somehow have to have been there, then where’s the debate people want who have different opinions?

[Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor]

[RIGHT].
.
.
.
.
[/RIGHT]
Define “victory”.
Bush hasn’t.
[RIGHT].
.
.
.
.
.
[/RIGHT]

[elucidator]

How’d you do that? Man, talk about “centrist”!

[Age_Quod_Agis]

[QUOTE=RedFury]
As I’ve told you many times, step out of your Mom’s basement and go fight for your warped ideals. With a gun – against people that hate you and fire back.

Good luck with that.
[/QUOTE]
So let me get this straight –

You’re allowed to criticize the conduct of the war without needing to join the military on the ground. But Ryan Liam isn’t allowed to defend the war without grabbing a rife?

… I’m thinking of a word. Three syllables. Starts with H.

Regardless, this whole “you can’t defend the war without joining the military” thing is such a crap argument that I’m surprised it’s been repeated so frequently. First of all, it obviously only applies to those supporting the war, and doesn’t apply to those opposing it or criticizing the troops.

Second, if the chickenhawk rule applies, then the civilian branches of government would have no control over the military. Is that what you’re arguing for?

Third, why should the “chickenhawk” rule only apply to this war? If you’ve got a problem with US policy, then I guess you can’t complain unless you’re actually in Congress.

And if you’ve got a problem with pedophilia in the Catholic Church, then you can’t complain unless you’re a Catholic minister.

And if you’ve got a problem with that referee’s call in the last ManU-Arsenal game, then I guess you can’t complain unless you’re willing to give up your current job and go become a referee.

On the other hand, we should listen to what Hitler would have said about the war, because at least he had the courage to pick up a rifle in World War 1.

It’s not so much an argument as an attempt to bully the speaker into shutting up. It’s an attempt to shout him/her down by calling him unpatriotic, cowardly, or devious. It’s an intellectually unserious argument.

[Der_Trihs]

[QUOTE=Ryan_Liam]
Yes it does because you’re increasing the threat of another terrorist attack if you allow said extremists to operate under impunity because of US withdrawal.
[/quote]
And handing them an constant stream of new supporters doesn’t ? Convincing the world that the terrorists have a point doesn’t ? They don’t already “operate under impunity” ?

[QUOTE=Ryan_Liam]
I read the news all the time, and the people who regard Iraq as a ‘disaster’ or ‘success’ are taking extremities on both points. We’re in the middle between both.
[/quote]
Tens of thousands dead with no end in sight and it’s not a disaster ? Destruction and suffering all across Iraq and it’s not a disaster ? What would have to happen there to make it a disaster in your mind ? Does the Devil need to show up and personally take charge or something ?

[QUOTE=Ryan_Liam]
It’s called ‘fighting the insurgency’ where the Iraqi security forces (mainly the Army) fight both sides, shia or sunni, to preserve the state.
[/quote]
And the distinction between that and a civil war is ?

[QUOTE=Ryan_Liam]
You know it’s not because the violence if left unabated would be able to get Rwanda style and you know it.
[/quote]
And what makes you think it won’t, no matter what we do ? If anything we make things worse by being there.

[QUOTE=Ryan_Liam]
Rubbish, you’re stating we’d be there forever on the flimsy pretext of Iraqi armed forces never being able to be trained to a point where they could stand on their own.
[/quote]
We’ll be there until the last drop of oil is sucked out of the ME, or until we are forced out militarily or politically. If one pretext fails, we’ll get another, or stop bothering.

[QUOTE=Ryan_Liam]
It’s not really the Iraqi Armed forces which are the problem, it’s the political will at the top which needs attention, fix that and everything else falls into place.
[/quote]
The majority of the population support attacks on our troops. A large number of Iraqis support killing one another. The people “at the top” don’t matter; by working in an American backed government they have given up all moral, political and religious authority. It doesn’t matter what brand of toadies we shove into office there; they can do nothing.

[QUOTE=Ryan_Liam]
Yet you don’t care how many Iraqis/Americans die as a result of leaving a failed state within the midst of an American withdrawal.
[/quote]
I do care how many Iraqis die, which is one reason I want to remove the Americans as soon as possible. I support the killing of American soldiers in Iraq, as I believe they fight for an evil man and an evil cause. I’d be perfectly happy if the Iraqis managed to kill all of them somehow.

[QUOTE=Ryan_Liam]
I’m getting pretty tired of the ‘armchair quarterback’ accusations, if I can’t give my opinion on a subject I support, because I somehow have to have been there, then where’s the debate people want who have different opinions?
[/QUOTE]
It has nothing to do with you not being there. It has everything to do with your willingness to demand that others sacrifice for your cause against their will. You have a fantasy of how you want Iraq to be, and your chosen method is to sacrifice the Iraqis to achieve it, whether or not they have any desire to live out your fantasy.

[QUOTE=elucidator]
How’d you do that? Man, talk about “centrist”!
[/QUOTE]
Note the periods to the right.

[RedFury]

[QUOTE=Age Quod Agis]
So let me get this straight –

You’re allowed to criticize the conduct of the war without needing to join the military on the ground. But Ryan Liam isn’t allowed to defend the war without grabbing a rife?

… I’m thinking of a word. Three syllables. Starts with H.

Regardless, this whole “you can’t defend the war without joining the military” thing is such a crap argument that I’m surprised it’s been repeated so frequently. First of all, it obviously only applies to those supporting the war, and doesn’t apply to those opposing it or criticizing the troops.

Second, if the chickenhawk rule applies, then the civilian branches of government would have no control over the military. Is that what you’re arguing for?

Third, why should the “chickenhawk” rule only apply to this war? If you’ve got a problem with US policy, then I guess you can’t complain unless you’re actually in Congress.

And if you’ve got a problem with pedophilia in the Catholic Church, then you can’t complain unless you’re a Catholic minister.

And if you’ve got a problem with that referee’s call in the last ManU-Arsenal game, then I guess you can’t complain unless you’re willing to give up your current job and go become a referee.

On the other hand, we should listen to what Hitler would have said about the war, because at least he had the courage to pick up a rifle in World War 1.

It’s not so much an argument as an attempt to bully the speaker into shutting up. It’s an attempt to shout him/her down by calling him unpatriotic, cowardly, or devious. It’s an intellectually unserious argument.
[/QUOTE]

You’ve obviously got too much time in your hands. A rifle might be just the thing to fill them – and all that free time – with.
Meanwhile..pardon me while I :::::yaaaawn::::, but I happen to have a complete and utter lack of respect for anyone who keeeps supporting this carnage.

[Age_Quod_Agis]

@RedFury

You’ve obviously got too much time in your hands. A rifle might be just the thing to fill them – and all that free time – with.

So much free time that I actually think about my beliefs and arguments, rather than pulling them off of placards and bumper stickers? Yes, I do have that much free time.

But excuse me, That’s your response? I point out how utterly un-serious and intellectually dishonest that argument is, so you regurgitate the same argument at me, too? You’re like a child who’s just learned a bad word, repeating it over and over whether the situation calls for it or not.

@RedFury

I happen to have a complete and utter lack of respect for anyone who keeeps supporting this carnage.

Oh, how will my self esteem ever survive such a hit! Here I am, filled with nothing but the highest respect for the way your arguments seem to sag under the weight of all that deep thinking. The way you create a box of logic in which to trap war supporters. The way your arguments dance and intermingle, like a rhetorical aurora borealis (or at least a rhetorical 6th grade social).

But you don’t respect me! The horror, the horror!

[Ryan_Liam]

RedFury
You’ve obviously got too much time in your hands. A rifle might be just the thing to fill them – and all that free time – with.

We can play this both ways, what surprises is me is that a man of your age has so much anger yet so little time to pick up a placard outside the White House lawn. Tell me, is it that hard to get out of the swimming pool? (I saw the picture)

See the futility of it? That kind of rubbish deflects from the real debate, which is what I’m trying to have.

Meanwhile..pardon me while I :::::yaaaawn::::, but I happen to have a complete and utter lack of respect for anyone who keeeps supporting this carnage.

Someone of your age should be able to respect other peoples opinions without constant name calling, as if this equals the argument, which it doesn’t.

Der Trihs
And handing them an constant stream of new supporters doesn’t ? Convincing the world that the terrorists have a point doesn’t ? They don’t already “operate under impunity” ?

They’ll be coming in droves if we withdrawal and simply allow an already large sized security vaccuum in the country get bigger.

Tens of thousands dead with no end in sight and it’s not a disaster ? Destruction and suffering all across Iraq and it’s not a disaster ? What would have to happen there to make it a disaster in your mind ? Does the Devil need to show up and personally take charge or something ?

But there is an end in sight, it’s just one that no one wants to forsee, which is what I said before, the training of Iraqi security forces, and organisation of political leadership which is effective in running the country. Disaster would imply Iraq completely imploding, with absolutely no effective government whatsoever, which would be something similar to Somalia, and also completely abandoned. We’re inbetween us succeeding and failing at the moment.

And the distinction between that and a civil war is ?

Iraqis on both sides want to see an end to the conflict caused by various militias and insurgents, and there is an agreement on both sides to the style of government now in Baghdad. If there was a civil war, there’d be no army or policeforce, only militias and forces divided on a sectarian basis, something which the MNF and Iraqi Government have been trying to avoid.

And what makes you think it won’t, no matter what we do ? If anything we make things worse by being there.

Because of the level of violence there is, there shouldn’t be any precursor to that kind of atrocity, however since the Government is US backed, they can’t exactly go around doing this kinda of thing without them noticing. Hence why it won’t.

We’ll be there until the last drop of oil is sucked out of the ME, or until we are forced out militarily or politically. If one pretext fails, we’ll get another, or stop bothering.

Then we would of done it years ago. Oil is a factor, however it’s not the* only factor* in the situation.

The majority of the population support attacks on our troops. A large number of Iraqis support killing one another. The people “at the top” don’t matter; by working in an American backed government they have given up all moral, political and religious authority. It doesn’t matter what brand of toadies we shove into office there; they can do nothing.

No, what you’ve got is a population divided by fear, and a lack of an adequate security force to protect them, so in this situation, you’re going to hear the extremities of both sides take precedence over the other, I bet if Iraqi forces were beginning and took competent steps to increasing security, those voices would be lessened.

As for shoving into office, they selected them themselves, and elected said parties to government. The US might influence the decisions, but only to ensure the political process doesn’t become deadlocked permanently.

I do care how many Iraqis die, which is one reason I want to remove the Americans as soon as possible. I support the killing of American soldiers in Iraq, as I believe they fight for an evil man and an evil cause. I’d be perfectly happy if the Iraqis managed to kill all of them somehow.

Then I pity you for your lack of compassion for both sides. Strange how you have blind hatred for a people and yet talk of how such hatred will destroy them.

It has nothing to do with you not being there. It has everything to do with your willingness to demand that others sacrifice for your cause against their will.

Iraqi insurgents are fighting your battles against American troops, why aren’t you there?

My point exactly.

You have a fantasy of how you want Iraq to be, and your chosen method is to sacrifice the Iraqis to achieve it, whether or not they have any desire to live out your fantasy.

Again, nihilistic sloganeering from your part yet again, so much so that any debate with you proves fruitless, as it surmounts the same result.

As for the fantasia part, it was my opinion as to what needs to be achieved in order to succeed in Iraq.

[Der_Trihs]

[QUOTE=Ryan_Liam]
They’ll be coming in droves if we withdrawal and simply allow an already large sized security vaccuum in the country get bigger.
[/quote]
They are coming in droves because we are there.

[QUOTE=Ryan_Liam]
But there is an end in sight, it’s just one that no one wants to forsee, which is what I said before, the training of Iraqi security forces, and organisation of political leadership which is effective in running the country.
[/quote]
Which can’t happen while we are there. We discredit any government simply be being there, we discourage capable and loyal people from joining any security force because we are there.

[QUOTE=Ryan_Liam]
Iraqi insurgents are fighting your battles against American troops, why aren’t you there?
[/quote]
Why should I be ? I’m not trying to form them into a mold I’ve poured for them.

[QUOTE=Ryan_Liam]
Again, nihilistic sloganeering from your part yet again, so much so that any debate with you proves fruitless, as it surmounts the same result.
[/quote]
I am not a “nihilist”. You are the one whose ideology amounts to death worship, whose beliefs never bring anything but death and suffering, and who never shows any concern for the death and suffer he creates. It is you who holds beliefs that are utterly evil and destructive; it is you who are the nihilist, a promoter of endless destruction and death.