How Do We Win in Iraq?

That was funny!

At the time I wasn't laughing. Mom was, though.

good one liblab

happy families eh?

I guess. Uncle Carl was a real pisser. Sorry for interupting this serious thread with my family issues.

no no do carry on

far more pertinent than hypothetical questions about hopeless wars in far off places.

Whatever you do...do not abandon this forum. I've got some threads I want very much for you to attend!

You are one funny dude!

theblob, nabob -lablob, whatever, i am truly hurt that you should question my verisimilitude about my academic training. if i make typos it is because i don't want to sit and do a spellcheck. too lazy. i am also aware that i am not using capitalization to begin sentences. i should know how to spell! after all, i grew up and graduated from high school in the states! leave no child behind, I say. some of the best writers were terrible spellers (my spelling, however, has always been excellent).

my question is: what has my supposed method of typing messages got to do with iraq? humour (correct spelling) is on another site, I thought? but you guys are having fun, so go to it. but you should be ashamed picking on a poor, defenseless female. that gun in my hand isn't loaded, because i live in B.C.!!!

Unlike some on a2k, I know I do not always use proper English. And I also know that my spelling stinks. Now that that's out of the way, let's rumble!

You've got it wrong, englishmajor. Humor (or humour if you live in B.C. or Europe), is on this site, just not always on this forum.

rumble rumble.......grumble grumble....

hey, there is no way to win in Iraq. Cut your losses and get OUT. Bush wants perpetual war. Do you?

If there are now 300,000,000 living in the US (10% in Calif) if enough of you demonstrate, like in the '60's, maybe Washington will get the message. They can't put thousands of people in prison for demonstrating, can they?

Well, it was just a thought.......there it goes......

Cutting loses or creating more?

What about Iran's response to a US withdrawl?

What about a terrorist state with Iranian funding and <gulp> nuclear materials?

Christ, it was wrong to get in there, but getting out won't be as cut and dried as we would like it to be.

I don't know what you are referring to about Iran's response to US withdrawal. Can you provide some evidence?

Israel and India have not signed onto nonprolif. treaty? Why? Why isn't the US asking them those questions? Any country is capable of funding nuclear materials. Iran HAS signed onto the nonproliferation treaty.

IF the US would quit acting like bullies around the planet maybe all this terrorist stuff would not be happening. The whole planet does not want puppet governments run by the US. Neither do they want CocaCola and McDonald's. This terrorist 'thing' is about imperialism, pure and simple. America wants to be the world power. Read some history. Rome had the same aspirations.

Some info on the Sunni's:


GLOBE EDITORIAL
Unsettled in Iraq
August 30, 2005

THE MOST telling reaction to the draft Iraqi constitution has come not from Crawford, Texas, but from Tehran. There, the head of Iran's Guardian Council hailed the document. ''After years of struggle," Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati said, ''an Islamic state has come to power." That is a more accurate description of the potential of the document than President Bush provided Sunday in praising its ''far-reaching protections for human freedoms." As much as the Bush administration wants the Iraqi people to adopt a constitution and take over the fight against the insurgents, US Basic human and democratic rights are given lip service in the document. But it also states that Islam is the country's official religion, that it will be ''a basic source of legislation," and that no law can be passed that violates ''the undisputed rules" of the Islamic faith. The draft says that judges on Iraq's highest court should include experts in Islamic law, suggesting that Muslim clerics would sit on it. It is no surprise that an Iranian official should be pleased by the document, especially since it would facilitate the formation of a powerful region in southern Iraq that, like Iran, would be mainly Shiite.

This last point, in particular, has won the draft the opposition of most of Iraq's Sunni leaders. If the Shiites in the south split off and control the oil there and Kurds in the north do the same with its oil reserves, the Sunnis fear they would have to make do with a leftover state in the middle with few resources.

For the administration, the one silver lining in Sunni hostility to the draft is that it will likely prompt Sunnis to end their boycott of the nation-building process. Sunnis are now being encouraged by their leaders to register so they can vote against the document in the Oct. 15 referendum. If a two-thirds majority in three of Iraq's 18 provinces rejects the draft, it will be defeated, and the Sunnis hold majorities in at least three provinces. This election activity of Sunnis could provide a political alternative to the largely Sunni-conducted insurgency.

If Sunni voters do block the draft constitution, it would force a restart of the whole process of drawing up a basic charter for the country. The administration cannot be happy at that prospect, but it might be preferable to approval of a constitution that is hailed by Iran and so hated by Sunnis that many would continue their violent assaults on US and Iraqi forces and Iraqi civilians.

© Copyright 2005 Globe Newspaper Company.

How Do We Win in Iraq?

It would seem that many assume that the "We" is the U.S., but who is this? American citizens, the bush administration...? Perhaps, we should plug in the Iraqi people to the pronoun "We".

More to the point, the people of Iraq should plug themselves into this question, after all Cui Bono...who benefits? Are the Iraqi people capable of self government? The Kurds, given air support, can, the Shia via Al Sistani have demonstrated such restraint and, with the Kurds, the ability to compromise. Personally I have faith in the Kurdish, and Shia factions, given political machinations these two factions give hope. Sunni participation is only necessary if all wish to have a unified Iraq ruled by Iraqis, that is, Sunni participation is necessary, given a goal of a unified Iraq. Simply, Sunni happiness depends upon Sunni acceptance of its role in Iraq. Both Shia and Kurd factions can form a government sans Sunni participation. But, Sunnis are the key to harmony in Iraq.

JM

Wining IZ! I think that IZ is just apiece in greater scheme. It is all about ideology and whether or not the western governmental ideology will alter the existing governmental ideology of the Mid-east, in general. The latter will take years. AF and IZ are just means to an ends. There is no short-term solution when we talk about "wining" this ordeal.

Even if we succeed in making IZ an independent democratic republic this does not ensure that the "war" will be won. I use the term "war" loosely here. The war on Mid-east ideology that is considered or confused with terrorism or the root of such maybe a flaw in the foreign policy that we are currently involved in. It is far to complex of a problem than what the current political leaders portray.

The only way to achieve a short-term perceived "victory" is to succeed or appear to succeed in the nation building of IZ. Get the constitution legitimatised, train the local nationals in security and start disbursing US assets from the new "sovereign state". Look at AF is it a victory? Look how long the nation building in AF has been going on!

Cheers



PS I foresee a civil war unless the US stays in IZ for an extended period possibly longer than in AF.

How do we win?
Seriously?

Withdraw
Introduce conscription
Build up a force of 2 million soldiers
Re-invade, this time doing it properly.

We will never win this war...and having fought it has hurt us, rather than helped us, in the much larger war going on in the world.

Bush will, more than likely, stone-wall it...and will not withdraw.

Some future president will have to do it...and the kneejerk types supporting Dumbya will pretend that the person who does made a mistake and should have continued.

This is one of the most pathetic mistakes our country has ever made. Our only real excuse is that our president is a moron...and we should not have expect more from him than pathetic mistakes.

Frank I couldn't agree more.
Bush should realize that even if we were to leave today we wouldn't be admitting defeat. We have Sadam, we killed his sons, which is what we should have done to him but he'll have his day in court and then we'll execute him.
I doubt anyone in our lifetime or in any lifetime ahead will bring peace to the Middle East. That area has never known peace and probably never will. We have to consider they don't want peace. There are more than a few who want it but where are they when it comes to turning in their neighbors who happen to be insurgents? If they want peace they have to be willing to help us, but they aren't. What they are willing to do is ignore others who strap bombs to women and children and send then into areas where others, who are fighting for their freedom. If they can't help us then perhaps it's time to call it a day. But admit defeat? No, we wouldn't be defeated, they would. Defeated and deprived of a chance for something that people are willing to risk their lives for, freedom.
Bush should step up to the plate and bring our men and women home, but I don't believe he will. He's too arrogant to realize it's over, we fought a good battle and now it's the Iraqis turn to continue. They don't need us anymore, hell most don't even want us.

more




I do not think that it is feasible to think that a single plan to win in IZ will be affective. There are to many variables in this problem. Think of it as a web. If a civil war breaks out we should do VBGTXYZ. If the constitution is not ratified do XYZ. If the leader of IZ is assassinated there is a whole new set of paths to take. Even the solutions implemented could have residual affects not anticipated. I suppose one could build a matrix containing all possible paths with associated solutions and still something could take place that was not anticipated and we would be back to where we currently are, unsure of what to do.

Maybe we should pull out and let a civil war run its course, but then the governmental ideology developed thereafter may not line up with that of US or western governmental ideology. The latter is possibly the main reason why the current government refuses and will continue to refuse to pull assets out of IZ. The current administration is infatuated with how to change the Mid-east because of the assumption that democratic nations will and do not fight each other coupled with the arrogant conviction that the US has a duty to spread democracy because it is the hegemon of the world.

Er... we don't.

That's a simple answer isn't it? We cannot win a war that has already lost, at least lost in public opinions and such.