Things fall apart...

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by Bullypulpit, Feb 6, 2007.

  1. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    <blockquote>We hope that the leaders of the United States and Iraq will find a way to stop what seems to be an irrevocable slide into all out civil war. Given their repeated failures to do so, and how badly the situation has deteriorated by the time this report went to press, however, we believe the United States and its allies must begin thinking about how to deal with the consequences of massive failure in Iraq. - <a href=http://www.brook.edu/fp/saban/analysis/jan2007iraq_civilwar.htm>The Brookings Institution</a></blockquote>

    So begins The Brookings Institution's report on Iraq's probable future. The report paints a far different picture than those provided by President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and the other architects of the invasion and occupation in Iraq before they launched us on this course to a quagmire. Even noe, a distinct sense of unreality seems to permeate their statements and actions.

    <blockquote>"The notion that it would take several hundred thousand American troops just seems outlandish.&#8221; - Paul Wolfowitz, 03/04/03</blockquote>

    The Brookings Institution report suggests that, excepting Kurdistan, some 450,000 troops would be needed in order to quell the violence in Iraq. And to think, General Shinseki was sacked for suggesting that such numbers would be necessary to secure Iraq. Furthermore, the number of troops Chimpy McPresident is sending into Iraq in an attempt to quell the sectarian violence falls far short of the number suggested by both General Shinseki and the Brookings Institution just in January. In either case, Chimpy's plan seems doomed from the outset.

    In order to contain the spill-over and blow-back from the coming civil-war, a number of different options are offered.
    <blockquote> * Don't try to pick winners;
    * Avoid active support for partition (for now);
    * Don't dump the problem on the United Nations;
    * Pull back from Iraqi population centers;
    * Provide support to Iraq's neighbors;
    * Bolster regional stability;
    * Dissuade foreign intervention;
    * Lay down "red lines" to Iran;
    * Establish a Contact Group;
    * Prepare for oil supply disruptions;
    * Manage the Kurds;
    * Strike at terrorist facilities;
    * Consider establishing safe havens or "catch basins" along Iraq's
    borders.</blockquote>

    Given that Chimpy completely dismissed the suggestions offered by the Iraq Study Group, any chances that the Administration will heed these suggestions are just about nil.

    The sad fact is, that President Bush locked into some manichean view of his own correctness and righteousness when it comes to Iraq. Unable and unwilling to hear those voices which could guide America to a path out of Iraq and a broader conflict in the region, he listens only to the voices of his syncophants and, of course, those voices in his head. Not exactly a plan for success, is it?

    So how many more American soldiers must die to salve Chimpy's ego? How many more innocent Iraqis must die to give lie to this Administration's failed policies?
     
  2. theHawk
    Offline

    theHawk Registered Conservative

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    10,838
    Thanks Received:
    2,064
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Germany
    Ratings:
    +5,721
    If its a civil war what do Iraqi deaths have to do with Bush? Are you suggesting that if we withdrew, there would no more "innocent" Iraqi deaths?
     
  3. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    Unless Americans are willing to bite the bullet and commit realistic numbers of troops to Iraq, there will be more innocent Iraqis dying. If we continue on the same course or withdraw, more innocent Iraqis will die. A Catch-22. Iraqis will die no matter what we do. The real question is whether or not our troops will be caught in the middle of an increasingly bitter, deadly civil war. Pull them to the borders, and let the Sunnis and Shi'ias sort things out amongst themselves.

    As to what it has to do with Chimpy...He struck the match to the tinder with the invasion of Iraq.
     
  4. manu1959
    Offline

    manu1959 Left Coast Isolationist

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Messages:
    13,761
    Thanks Received:
    1,625
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    california
    Ratings:
    +1,626
    as i have said, there are multiple wars in iraq

    there is a religous war among the people

    there is coalition vs bathists

    there is coalition vs al queda

    there is coalition vs criminals

    there is coalition vs outside influences
     
  5. theHawk
    Offline

    theHawk Registered Conservative

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    10,838
    Thanks Received:
    2,064
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Germany
    Ratings:
    +5,721

    For the most part I agree with that. But if you say we should commit more troops, why try to stop an extra 20,000 to secure Bagdad? If its proven more numbers can secure, that should open up the door to commit more numbers throughout all of Iraq.
     
  6. glockmail
    Offline

    glockmail BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    7,700
    Thanks Received:
    433
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The beautiful Yadkin Valley
    Ratings:
    +438
    So is that your plan? :rofl: I've been asking for weeks now and just want to make sure before I rip it apart.
     
  7. manu1959
    Offline

    manu1959 Left Coast Isolationist

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Messages:
    13,761
    Thanks Received:
    1,625
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    california
    Ratings:
    +1,626
    hey it worked in the sudan.....and darfur....and bosnia.....and rawanda....no wait.....uh ...nevermind
     
  8. CTRLALTDEL
    Offline

    CTRLALTDEL Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Messages:
    221
    Thanks Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Bay Area
    Ratings:
    +40
    Funny thing is, there was no CIVIL WAR when Saddam ruled that messed up country with an IRON FIST.
     
  9. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Right, the Sunnis ruled; the Shia's and Kurds died.
     
  10. manu1959
    Offline

    manu1959 Left Coast Isolationist

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Messages:
    13,761
    Thanks Received:
    1,625
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    california
    Ratings:
    +1,626

    that is because it is called genocide when only one side does the killing
     

Share This Page