Top US Senate Democrat to Bush: Iraq war is lost

Personally I wish the Dems would grow a pair and call for outright withdrawal. I'd have a little more respect for them instead of this 2 sides of the fence crap we are treated to currently.

I probably like Hillary less than you do.

The Democrats are taking a courageous stand.

They want a orderly phased withdrawal over a reasonable amount of time with while working diplomatically with the other interests in the region.

This is what the American people are calling for, as expressed by the Democrats in Congress.

Brown wrote

Quote:

Personally I wish the Dems would grow a pair and call for outright withdrawal. I'd have a little more respect for them instead of this 2 sides of the fence crap we are treated to currently.

As much as I want to have our troops out of Iraq as soon as possible. An abrupt withdrawal would be unconscionable. Remember the tragedy in Iraq is of our doing.

ebrown_p wrote:

Well Rev, it looks like we are from different planets.

All I can say is let's watch what happens.

On my planet, the American public is about to rally behind the Democrats as the Republican popularity ratings continue to sink. Last year on my planet, the Demcratic victories were heralded by the press, bemoaned by the right and considered quite impressive by all.

On my planet, the president will use his veto power... and the Democrats will pass a short term emergency bill which will make the Republicans go on record in favor of the war every three months or so.

On my planet, conservatives will continue in a political death spiral where they will increasingly break ranks against the president and more and more will viciously attack each other.

Yes the Good Reverend is from Earth while you seem to be from the planet of hope and dreams. I kid I kid


Don't you think you are speculating a bit?


Personally I wish the Dems would grow a pair and call for outright withdrawal. I'd have a little more respect for them instead of this 2 sides of the fence crap we are treated to currently.

Its funny though the dems have such an opportunity and they are blowing it.... Take a stand....


BTW what is hillary's stance this week?

au1929 wrote:

reverend hellh0und

When were you last in Iraq?? If you haven't been, since you are hellbent for US forces to stay their. Why not put your ass on the line and volunteer.

The Good Reverend was there in 91 painting targets, Putting the smart in da bombs. :wink:

Spent time in the Balkans too....

91 was a different war and certainly a different reason. If you hadn't noticed Bush senior was smart enough and astute enough to understand the consequence of staying and got our troops out.

If you are so hellbent for us to stay and are young enough I would suggest you put your ass where your mouth is.

As for me my war was the Korean one. As for Iraq even if young enough I would be damned if I would enlist in Bush's idiotic and unjustified war.

Shrug. The Dems are doing what they think will work. There's no point in grandstanding when lives are on the line.

The Dems can't make Bush pull the troops out, and they are afraid of accusations of cowardice from the Republicans and the media. Which is too bad, but somewhat of a liability for them.

SO they are taking the slow road. You can call it what you like, but the end result will be the same.

Cycloptichorn

91 was a different war and certainly a different reason. If you hadn't noticed Bush senior was smart enough and astute enough to understand the consequence of staying and got our troops out.

If you are so hellbent for us to stay and are young enough I would suggest you put your ass where your mouth is.

As for me my war was the Korean one. As for Iraq even if young enough I would be damned if I would enlist in Bush's idiotic and unjustified war.

End result? YOu mean clowns like Ried attacking troops and calling for defeat of this great nation?

Quote:

End result? YOu mean clowns like Ried attacking troops and calling for defeat of this great nation?

I hadn't seen where Reid had attacked the troops at all.

And our nation has already been defeated in our quest to quell Iraq, due to poor management and leadership - not due to a lack of spirit or ability amongst our troops. Noone is calling for defeat; we are merely pointing out the fact that it is here.

Cycloptichorn

So there is no way in your mind that we could possibly succeed in Iraq?

He didn't call troops "Nazis" or something a while back?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

End result? YOu mean clowns like Ried attacking troops and calling for defeat of this great nation?

I hadn't seen where Reid had attacked the troops at all.

He didn't call troops "Nazis" or something a while back?

Quote:

And our nation has already been defeated in our quest to quell Iraq, due to poor management and leadership - not due to a lack of spirit or ability amongst our troops. Noone is calling for defeat; we are merely pointing out the fact that it is here.

Cycloptichorn

I find that funny.

So there is no way in your mind that we could possibly succeed in Iraq?

Quote:

He didn't call troops "Nazis" or something a while back?

This sounds like a classic conservative propaganda smear if I have ever heard one.

Do you want to provide an exact quote where Reid refered to the troops as Nazis? Or do you just take the inferences on Fox news a little too seriously.

Showing the exact Quote where Reid said this, along with a link... would keep you from looking silly.

I think that if we committed 2 million troops, maybe we could succeed. Other than that, no. We cannot 'win' in Iraq without resorting to the widespread killing of civilians who are not willing to give up the terrorists and insurgents who live amongst them to an Occupying Western force.

Look at it this way. The population of Iraq is, minus the dead and fled, roughly 20 million or so. If just 5% of that population is against stability, that represents a million people who would fight against either the US or the other sectarians, who would protect them, support them, hide them, and so on. We are greatly outnumbered even with conservative estimates of the situation.

SO yes, at our current force levels, we will be unable to 'win' any sort of lasting peace in Iraq. They can, and will, simply wait us out. It isn't as if it is free for us to stay there, in terms of either blood or money...

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I think that if we committed 2 million troops, maybe we could succeed. Other than that, no. We cannot 'win' in Iraq without resorting to the widespread killing of civilians who are not willing to give up the terrorists and insurgents who live amongst them to an Occupying Western force.

Not 500k?

Quote:

Look at it this way. The population of Iraq is, minus the dead and fled, roughly 20 million or so. If just 5% of that population is against stability, that represents a million people who would fight against either the US or the other sectarians, who would protect them, support them, hide them, and so on. We are greatly outnumbered even with conservative estimates of the situation.

That would be true but its nowhere near 5%. at 5% there would be a lot more dead.

Quote:

SO yes, at our current force levels, we will be unable to 'win' any sort of lasting peace in Iraq. They can, and will, simply wait us out. It isn't as if it is free for us to stay there, in terms of either blood or money...

Cycloptichorn

So instead of increasing troop levels you support abandoning the Iraqis and let them fend for themselves? What do you think will happen?

reverend hellh0und wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I think that if we committed 2 million troops, maybe we could succeed. Other than that, no. We cannot 'win' in Iraq without resorting to the widespread killing of civilians who are not willing to give up the terrorists and insurgents who live amongst them to an Occupying Western force.

Not 500k?

No, not 500k. It wouldn't be enough. We need to not only majorly tamp down on sectarian and AQ violence, but also to close the borders to a greater degree. 500k wouldn't even come close to the amount we need.

I would say that we could draw these troops from other countries around the world, but thanks to Bush's ham-fisted attempts at diplomacy, we have no credit with anyone else any longer.

Quote:

Quote:

Look at it this way. The population of Iraq is, minus the dead and fled, roughly 20 million or so. If just 5% of that population is against stability, that represents a million people who would fight against either the US or the other sectarians, who would protect them, support them, hide them, and so on. We are greatly outnumbered even with conservative estimates of the situation.

That would be true but its nowhere near 5%. at 5% there would be a lot more dead.

You have no authoritative basis to say that its' 'nowhere near 5%.' Remember that they are playing a waiting game that they are going to win. It costs them nothing to stay there and us, a ton.

This is classic military strategy, yo. Our supply lines and costs are huge, theirs are short and small. Not hard to see who has a huge advantage in that situation. Also, much of what gives us a huge advantage - our technological superiority - is not particularly useful for fighting insurgents running a guerrilla war.

Quote:

Quote:

SO yes, at our current force levels, we will be unable to 'win' any sort of lasting peace in Iraq. They can, and will, simply wait us out. It isn't as if it is free for us to stay there, in terms of either blood or money...

Cycloptichorn

So instead of increasing troop levels you support abandoning the Iraqis and let them fend for themselves? What do you think will happen?

Cycloptichorn,


I have to applaud you. As what seems to be a leftist you at least have a clue about strategy. I am impressed. Usually I get this without any supporting opinion. I don't agree with you as the only thing our supply line hampers us is the amount it costs. I don't see the same detriment you do here.

I also think that we do need more troops and abandoning the iraqis now would cause a negative ripple effect to our economy, our security, and the iraqi people.

Tell me are you for going into Dafur?