McGentrix wrote:How can we lose what we have already won? It may not turn in the Utopia originally envisioned, but the main objective was won in what? four weeks?
The main objective being what exactly. Coalition forces are not in control of Iraq. If anyone is, in the south, its the Iranians.
How do you figure? It seems that Iraqis are in control of the south, the central and the Northrn parts of Iraq.
McG, More ignorance, Don't you rely on more than just FOX for your news?
In basra the British stay in compound only occasionally making forays out on patrol. The city is relatively peaceful, but thats not because we control it, its because it suits the Iranians to keep a low profile. If they wanted to they could put a division or two over the border in a matter of hours and British forces would be forced to withdraw.
Regarding the main objective of the invasion, surely most people now agree it was for oil. And oil of course is a vital strategic resource which is becoming harder to find. Have we achieved the main objective of securing oil supplies from Iraq and the region? There's only one answer..no.
Quote:POSITIONS ON THE IRAQ WAR: A POCKET GUIDE
Bush's Position on the Iraq War:
We had to invade Iraq before there was a mushroom cloud in a major US city; mmm, nope
We had to invade Iraq because they have nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons; not so much
We must invade Iraq because they had something to do with 9/11; yeah, no they didn't
We must invade Iraq because they provide support for al Qaeda; not so that anyone can tell
We must liberate Iraq from a man who kills and tortures Iraqi civilians; and give it to others who will
We must spread Democracy to the Middle East. THERE'S the ticket!
Good American Position on the Iraq War
No matter what his reasons, President Bush was right to invade Iraq. The world is a better place now that Saddam is not the leader of Iraq, and the United States is a safer place. By fighting the war in Iraq, we are fighting the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them here. We are bringing democracy to the Middle East and that will make this us all safer. We must stay the course, since bringing the troops home now would be cutting and running and would boost terrorist morale and make us less safe.
Approved Dissenter Position on the Iraq War
Although I initially disagreed with going to Iraq, I have to admit that the world is a better place now that Saddam is not the leader of Iraq, and the United States is a safer place. By fighting the war in Iraq, we are fighting the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them here. We are bringing democracy to the Middle East and that will make this us all safer. We must stay the course, since bringing the troops home now would be cutting and running and would boost terrorist morale and make us less safe.
Terrorist-Sympathizing Anti-American Traitor Position on the Iraq War
Bush lied and manipulated intelligence to get us into war with Iraq in order to enrich himself and his oil buddies. Since we have gone into Iraq, it has been one long clusterfuck, killing entirely too many US troops and innocent Iraqi civilians while providing no discernable benefit to American security. Indeed, we are all less safe from terrorist attack than we were just four years ago.
That ought to clear things up.
Cycloptichorn
Quote:(6) Train, as specified by the new Iraq government, an Iraq military to secure that Iraq government.
Let me ask you; how long do you think this will take?
Are you relying on a reduction of Insurgent and Terrorist forces for that estimate?
Cycloptichorn
Quote:I hold those who advocate not doing what is necessary to obtain peace in low regard.
Is it possible that more than one path leads to peace?
Cycloptichorn
McGentrix wrote:How can we lose what we have already won? It may not turn in the Utopia originally envisioned, but the main objective was won in what? four weeks?
This is the USA's main objective:
Prevent Iraq from becoming a potential safe haven for terrorists to plot attacks against the USA and other countries.
Removing Saddam's regime was one huge step of measureable progress toward achieving that objective. Since then, there have been 5 additional steps of measureable progress. There remain two more very difficult such steps to go.
cicerone imposter wrote:Won? What in the world are you talking about? Killings in Iraq are increasing dramatically. What kind of win is that?
Iraqi civilians have been killed by violence at the rate of slightly less than 900 per month since the USA invaded Iraq in March 2003.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org
By March 2006, the total number of Iraqi civilians killed by violence by March 20, 2006 is projected to be approximately 32,400.
In the 12 years of Saddam's regime, 1991 to 2003, the currently estimated total number of Iraqi civilians killed by violence is almost 300,000. That's more than 2,000 per month.
No doubt the Saddamists and al Qaeda are trying their best to duplicate the Saddam regime, but they will not succeed.
icant, Comparing what any tyrant does to his countrymen and women does not equate to how many we kill. We did not go into Iraq because Saddam killed his own people. That was an afterthought after the justification for going into Iraq (WMDs) was found to be false.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Quote:I hold those who advocate not doing what is necessary to obtain peace in low regard.
Is it possible that more than one path leads to peace?
Cycloptichorn
Yes, it is possible. I bet that it is not only possible, but it is also
probable.
I can quickly think of at least two such alternate paths. But you go first! What alternate path do you recommend to:
Prevent Iraq from becoming a potential safe haven for terrorists to plot attacks against the USA and other countries?
Plotting against the US happens all over the world, not only in Iraq. Iraq is now a safe-haven for terrorists, because this administration failed to secure the borders after major combat operations were over - and still haven't secured the borders. Iraq is not only a safe-haven for terrorists, but an attraction that will intensify as time goes on. Without secured borders, that is what we reap.
cicerone imposter wrote:icant, Comparing what any tyrant does to his countrymen and women does not equate to how many we kill. We did not go into Iraq because Saddam killed his own people. That was an afterthought after the justification for going into Iraq (WMDs) was found to be false.
We went into Iraq for one sufficient reason and many supplemental reasons. Only two of the supplemental reasons (i.e., Iraq possessed WMD and Iraq abetted 9/11) proved subsequently to be false. The one sufficient reason was articulated several times and ways by the Bush administration: three times in 2001, once again in 2002, and once again in 2005.
That one sufficient reason is:
Prevent Iraq from becoming a potential safe haven for terrorists to plot attacks against the USA and other countries.
I have repeatedly posted here all those specific articulations of that one sufficient reason. Just ask and I shall post here all those specific articulations of that one sufficient reason again.
Iraq may not be considered a "safe haven" for terrorists, but we can call it a very viable base of operations to reak havoc in Iraq.
with the influence if Iran in southern Iraq, "safe haven for terrorists" becomes an oxymoron.
You put me at a disadvantage, sir, since my original choice would require a time machine.
Proponents of war as a solution have quite the advantage in such an argument due to the fact the war is already started.
That being said, If the goal really is to prevent terrorism, I would do three things immediately:
First, I would halt the rapid expansion of privatization of Iraq, especially by US companies. Sends the wrong message, and imports some of the worst aspects of our capitalistic society to a country with very little protection.
Second, I would try to establish an alska-style oil trust fund. We've discussed this before. It would help bring the Sunnis into the fold by guaranteeing them a financial stake in the success of Iraq. Without providing at least the appearance of protection for the Sunni people, they will never really settle down and kick AQ out of their midst.
Third, I would begin the process of extending olive branches to some foreign governments, and encouraging a New Coalition of the Willing in Iraq - with a decidedly different setup this time.
Swallowing national pride in order to facilitate solutions is as important for the USA as it is for any country! We need other countries, if not in Iraq, than in the much larger and more important War on Terror! If we don't start making allies now, then there will be just that much more ground lost in what will be a long and painful struggle with the morality of humanity. We have provided the Third World with technology, countries that don't have the societal disinclination to not use for it violence that we do; this fact will never change, and we won't kill our way out of this problem.
Cheers
Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter wrote:Plotting against the US happens all over the world, not only in Iraq. Iraq is now a safe-haven for terrorists,
An haven, perhaps; a safe-haven, Bunkum Slop
because this administration failed to secure the borders after major combat operations were over - and still haven't secured the borders. Iraq is not only a safe-haven for terrorists, but an attraction that will intensify as time goes on. Without secured borders, that is what we reap.
Yes, we haven't yet secured Iraq's borders anymore than we have secured our own borders. Are these two cases bungles? You bet they are! Trouble is, I don't know how to avoid continuing those bungles in securing either Iraq's or USA borders without killing everyone who tries to cross those borders -- unless they cross after strict thorough examinations at
specific gates.
I don't like that solution. In the case of Iraq, I prefer to eventually delegate that problem to the Iraq military. In the case of the USA, all I can think of at this time is a well-maintained electrified wall along our borders with
specific gates.
