Military victory is no longer possible in Iraq

[MissileMan]

As far as I'm aware he had 12 years between 1991-2003 and he didn't give any WMDs to anybody. And if you are talking about equipping terrorists, then SA funds maddrasses which are hotbeds for fundie Muslims. When does that invasion begin?

After Iran?

 

[jillian]

As far as I'm aware he had 12 years between 1991-2003 and he didn't give any WMDs to anybody. And if you are talking about equipping terrorists, then SA funds maddrasses which are hotbeds for fundie Muslims. When does that invasion begin?

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Dr Grump again.

 

[Dr Grump]

After Iran?

What groups do they fund that are a direct threat to the US?

 

[jillian]

What groups do they fund that are a direct threat to the US?

Not to mention that some won't be happy til the entire mid east is in flames. Ah well... the end-timers will love it.

I'm sorta wondering where they're gonna get all the troops for more wars of adventure.

Oh yeah... right... they'll start a draft.

 

[MissileMan]

Not to mention that some won't be happy til the entire mid east is in flames. Ah well... the end-timers will love it.

I'm sorta wondering where they're gonna get all the troops for more wars of adventure.

Oh yeah... right... they'll start a draft.

Not to point out the obvious, but it's Rangle who's looking to bring back the draft.

 

[jillian]

Not to point out the obvious, but it's Rangle who's looking to bring back the draft.

Rangel knows he's not getting a draft. He just wants discussion because he knows that the neo-cons would never have sent their own kids into Iraq.

And not for nothing, but how do you propose to fight so many wars on so many fronts without adequate troop strength?

 

[MissileMan]

Rangel knows he's not getting a draft. He just wants discussion because he knows that the neo-cons would never have sent their own kids into Iraq.

Rangel wants the draft so he can be free to criticize the use of our military. He has no other motivation than that.

And not for nothing, but how do you propose to fight so many wars on so many fronts without adequate troop strength?

What makes you think that we're going to attack several different enemies all at the same time?

 

[dilloduck]

As far as I'm aware he had 12 years between 1991-2003 and he didn't give any WMDs to anybody. And if you are talking about equipping terrorists, then SA funds maddrasses which are hotbeds for fundie Muslims. When does that invasion begin?

As soon as all those democrats declare war on them and N. Korea and Iran. Those Dems are gonna get out a big can a whoop-ass and show Bush who the real evil people are. I just know they will flush out all those WMDs and make us really safe. I bet they can even get the UN to issue a------

RESOLUTION !!!!!!!!

 

[jillian]

Rangel wants the draft so he can be free to criticize the use of our military. He has no other motivation than that.

I don't agree. If a draft were instituted in the next two years, I think it's safe to say the dems would be out on their keesters. Not gonna happen. It's about raising a dialogue to hold the chickenhawks accountable

What makes you think that we're going to attack several different enemies all at the same time?

Cause if the neo-cons had their way, we'd stay in Iraq indefinitely. And we'd have to do whatever else y'all want while still being in Iraq.

Too many fronts, too few troops.....

 

[dilloduck]

I don't agree. If a draft were instituted in the next two years, I think it's safe to say the dems would be out on their keesters. Not gonna happen. It's about raising a dialogue to hold the chickenhawks accountable



Cause if the neo-cons had their way, we'd stay in Iraq indefinitely. And we'd have to do whatever else y'all want while still being in Iraq.

Too many fronts, too few troops.....

Your logic re chicken hawks is ridiculously stupid.

 

[Gunny]

I'd say that Sadman shoulda been removed from power during the first Gulf War and last time I looked Clinton wasn't in charge then.

President Bush had to agree to not pursue Saddam beyond the borders of Iraq to gain an airfield in Saudi Arabia and pretty-much unrestricted use of all Arab airspace. The mission of the First Gulf War was to take Kuwait back from Iraq. Nothing more nothing less.

The same factions that are fighting right now would have just gotten a head start on time had Saddam been removed from power in 91. They would be fighting anyway.

Believe it or not, you and I are similar in that I also assume nothing and amwary of everyone. I'm 40 years old and have NEVER been taken advantage of in any way, shape or form.

Sure you have. We all have. It's what makes us wary and/or cynical to begin with.

I agree that Sadman deserves the blame. Absolutely. However, where you and I (and Dillo it seems) beg to differ is whta type of threat he was. Was he a threat to the ME? Maybe, maybe not. Definitely not a threat to Iran - as mentioned he couldn't even beat them when they were down at out. Israel? No, they bombed his attempt at building a nuke facility and he did nothing in retaliation. Turkey and he had nothing going, and in fact were in a agreement re the kurds, and if he did have a go at Turkey for whatever reason, he vicariously invited Europe into the mix, which I doubt he would want. SA is rotten from the inside and would have been an easy target and as they are friends of the US (well, overtly on their part anyhow), I can see why the US would want to protect them. And yes, he could bully the little guys like Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain. However, was he ever, and would he ever, be a threat to the US. IMO, doesn't even pass the giggle test.

What DOES pass the "giggle test" is that he WAS a threat to allies by treaty of the US, and a threat to US interests in the ME. In mutual defense agreements, and attack on one is considered an attack on the other(s).

Seems to me it would be hard for anyone to say with a straight face that Israel bombing Iraq's nuclear facility ended Saddam's nuclear ambitions. Besides all the other re-hashed rhetoric, it just makes sense for Saddam to want and pursue them.

Any nation that posesses nuclear weapons and the the ability to deliver them via ICBM is a threat to the US. Perhaps they don't posess the delivery system today, but there's always tomorrow and it always comes.

 

[Gunny]

As far as I'm aware he had 12 years between 1991-2003 and he didn't give any WMDs to anybody. And if you are talking about equipping terrorists, then SA funds maddrasses which are hotbeds for fundie Muslims. When does that invasion begin?

Tomorrow, 5AM would work for me. And they can call ME back anytime they want. I surely wouldn't want to not put money where my mouth is.

Wahabbism is every bit as extreme as the Shia and Sunni.

 

[Gunny]

Not to mention that some won't be happy til the entire mid east is in flames. Ah well... the end-timers will love it.

I'm sorta wondering where they're gonna get all the troops for more wars of adventure.

Oh yeah... right... they'll start a draft.

The only ones I've heard mention the draft from 9/11 to present are LIBERALS.

And they'll get the money. It's called politics. Bush will give the Dem's something hey want and his signature in exchange for for most of what he asks for. All this "we're ready to govern" BS isn't going to lead to anything more than business as usual in the bureaucracy while some begin planning for 2008.

Historically, leaving the ME in flames is so far the only tactic that has worked.

 

[Gunny]

Rangel knows he's not getting a draft. He just wants discussion because he knows that the neo-cons would never have sent their own kids into Iraq.

And not for nothing, but how do you propose to fight so many wars on so many fronts without adequate troop strength?

One, we have adequate troop strength.

Two, those "neo-cons" provide more troops than liberals do in today's all-volunteer military. So what it Rangel REALLY doing? He's trying to force an issue by pushing it to the point of polarization. He's an extremist and an idiot, and anyoen that thinks like him is an extremist and an idiot as well.

 

[Gunny]

I don't agree. If a draft were instituted in the next two years, I think it's safe to say the dems would be out on their keesters. Not gonna happen. It's about raising a dialogue to hold the chickenhawks accountable

To hold them accountable for WHAT? It's an all-volunteer military. You want to hold them accountable for some liberal fabricated version of events? Hasn't ever worked before.



Cause if the neo-cons had their way, we'd stay in Iraq indefinitely. And we'd have to do whatever else y'all want while still being in Iraq.

Too many fronts, too few troops.....

We started out to be in Iraq indefinitely. We are STILL going to be in Iraq indefinitely.

Your last sentence is gibberish.

 

[dilloduck]

<blockquote>"If you mean by 'military victory,' an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don't believe that is possible," - Henry Kissinger, 11/19/06</blockquote>

Yo Henry--Everyone doesn't define 'military victory' the same way you do.

--gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support,

What the hell does this mean? The political processes of the democracies will support. The political processes of WHOSE democracies?

Our military has the ability to inflict so much damage on Iraq and it's people that the entire world would be begging us to stop. You politicos are the ones who can't figure out how to end this one and make it look like YOU want it too.

 

[Gunny]

Yo Henry--Everyone doesn't define 'military victory' the same way you do.




What the hell does this mean? The political processes of the democracies will support. The political processes of WHOSE democracies?

Our military has the ability to inflict so much damage on Iraq and it's people that the entire world would be begging us to stop. You politicos are the ones who can't figure out how to end this one and make it look like YOU want it too.

LMAO. Translation: The political processes of the Democrat party.

And yeah, it's smoke and mirrors. The Dems aren't going to accomplish anything unless they just make the situation worse. They're already working on how they can drag this out through the 2008 elections without appearing to have gone back on their rhetoric.

I predict the 2008 election will be a 1968 election repeat. Whoever has the most convincing argument on getting out of Iraq will win.

 

[dilloduck]

LMAO. Translation: The political processes of the Democrat party.

And yeah, it's smoke and mirrors. The Dems aren't going to accomplish anything unless they just make the situation worse. They're already working on how they can drag this out through the 2008 elections without appearing to have gone back on their rhetoric.

I predict the 2008 election will be a 1968 election repeat. Whoever has the most convincing argument on getting out of Iraq will win.

I don't think they're going to work very hard at dragging this one out. The only strategies I've heard from them are to point out why we should never have been there in the first place and moving the troops to Okinawa. Anyone else tired of hearing why we shouldn't have been there in the first place??
It doesn't MATTER ANY MORE !!!!

 

[Gunny]

I don't think they're going to work very hard at dragging this one out. The only strategies I've heard from them are to point out why we should never have been there in the first place and moving the troops to Okinawa. Anyone else tired of hearing why we shouldn't have been there in the first place??
It doesn't MATTER ANY MORE !!!!

The reality is, they can't just move the troops anywhere without throwing in the towel. Even the Dems can't be so stupid as to not see what THAT would do to them at the polls. A far-more important concern than anyone's lives, or basic little concepts like "right and wrong."

And while I'v heard the Okinawa thing ad nauseum, the fact is Okinawa will not support the additional number of troops that we have in Iraq. The military infrastructure does not exist.

 

[dilloduck]

The reality is, they can't just move the troops anywhere without throwing in the towel. Even the Dems can't be so stupid as to not see what THAT would do to them at the polls. A far-more important concern than anyone's lives, or basic little concepts like "right and wrong."

And while I'v heard the Okinawa thing ad nauseum, the fact is Okinawa will not support the additional number of troops that we have in Iraq. The military infrastructure does not exist.

Ya--I lived there during 'Nam. I just like the absurdity of the "idea" You're right, the dems are now saddled with power that they have no idea what to do with. I'm eager to hear the excuses for why the can't change anything in Iraq when they have the power to do so. Probably something along the lines of " Bush messed it up so bad that it's impossible". Like that improves anything.