Things fall apart...

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
382
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
<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?
 

theHawk

Registered Conservative
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
32,376
Reaction score
17,322
Points
1,905
Location
Arizona
How many more innocent Iraqis must die to give lie to this Administration's failed policies?
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?
 
OP
Bullypulpit

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
382
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
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?
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.
 

manu1959

Left Coast Isolationist
Joined
Oct 28, 2004
Messages
13,761
Reaction score
1,651
Points
48
Location
california
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
 

theHawk

Registered Conservative
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
32,376
Reaction score
17,322
Points
1,905
Location
Arizona
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.

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.
 

manu1959

Left Coast Isolationist
Joined
Oct 28, 2004
Messages
13,761
Reaction score
1,651
Points
48
Location
california
So is that your plan? :rofl: I've been asking for weeks now and just want to make sure before I rip it apart.
hey it worked in the sudan.....and darfur....and bosnia.....and rawanda....no wait.....uh ...nevermind
 

CTRLALTDEL

Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2006
Messages
221
Reaction score
40
Points
16
Location
Bay Area
Funny thing is, there was no CIVIL WAR when Saddam ruled that messed up country with an IRON FIST.
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
Funny thing is, there was no CIVIL WAR when Saddam ruled that messed up country with an IRON FIST.
Right, the Sunnis ruled; the Shia's and Kurds died.
 
OP
Bullypulpit

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
382
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
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.
The only way we could meet the requirements for 450,000 troops is by a draft. Given the way Chimpy & Co have mismanaged things to this point, I don't think that Americans will tolerate that anymore than we should a further expenditure of blood and treasure. The only logical alternative is to withdraw to the borders...to Kurdistan and the nations bordering Iraq and stand by with humanitarian aid as they sort this out for themselves.
 

glockmail

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
7,700
Reaction score
436
Points
83
Location
The beautiful Yadkin Valley
The only way we could meet the requirements for 450,000 troops is by a draft. Given the way Chimpy & Co have mismanaged things to this point, I don't think that Americans will tolerate that anymore than we should a further expenditure of blood and treasure. The only logical alternative is to withdraw to the borders...to Kurdistan and the nations bordering Iraq and stand by with humanitarian aid as they sort this out for themselves.
Just like the UN does. Has this strategy ever not failed?
 

trobinett

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
1,832
Reaction score
162
Points
48
Location
Arkansas, The Ozarks
Well Bully, at least YOU have a plan, as a general statement, the left doesn't.

However, your idea has only one possible outcome, death on a scale we have yet to have seen in Iraq.

I see NO redeeming reason for us to leave Iraq at this time.

To be honest with all concerned, just debating the possibility of pulling out of Iraq brings comfort to our enemies, and to those working toward pulling Iraq back into the 16th century.
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
Well Bully, at least YOU have a plan, as a general statement, the left doesn't.

However, your idea has only one possible outcome, death on a scale we have yet to have seen in Iraq.

I see NO redeeming reason for us to leave Iraq at this time.

To be honest with all concerned, just debating the possibility of pulling out of Iraq brings comfort to our enemies, and to those working toward pulling Iraq back into the 16th century.
I concur. Well said.
 

Bry

Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2003
Messages
489
Reaction score
3
Points
16
Hey everyone I haven't seen in like years. Just killing time and thought I'd say hi and offer an opinion. Hope you're all well, and it's good to see the site seems to be flourishing!

I guess it's like watching my new baby grow. Since I'm with her everyday, I don't notice the changes so much, but anyone who goes a month without seeing her is like "wow! She's so much bigger!"

So when I come back here after a couple years of down time and see that the conversation has shifted from "You lefties just wait 'till they dig up those chemical weapons, you'll be sorry then," to " So.... what's your great idea for how to solve this pathetic clusterf***?" I can say that significant progress has been made. In point of fact, however, people were saying back at the beginning, myself included, that civil war was the only possible result of the invasion. So, I believe a resounding na-na-na-na-na I told you so, is only appropriate.

And yes, Bush created the conditions (along with all the pathetic milk sop dems that went along with it), and we're all going to have to accept that 20,000 more US troops is only going to keep the water at a low simmer for a little longer before the boil starts in earnest and get a thousand or a few thousand more of ours dead in the process. BPs solution is the only solution for us. Let's all do our part to keep the little Texas boys from poking their thingys in the hornets' nest from now on.


Cheers!
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
Hey everyone I haven't seen in like years. Just killing time and thought I'd say hi and offer an opinion. Hope you're all well, and it's good to see the site seems to be flourishing!

I guess it's like watching my new baby grow. Since I'm with her everyday, I don't notice the changes so much, but anyone who goes a month without seeing her is like "wow! She's so much bigger!"

So when I come back here after a couple years of down time and see that the conversation has shifted from "You lefties just wait 'till they dig up those chemical weapons, you'll be sorry then," to " So.... what's your great idea for how to solve this pathetic clusterf***?" I can say that significant progress has been made. In point of fact, however, people were saying back at the beginning, myself included, that civil war was the only possible result of the invasion. So, I believe a resounding na-na-na-na-na I told you so, is only appropriate.

And yes, Bush created the conditions (along with all the pathetic milk sop dems that went along with it), and we're all going to have to accept that 20,000 more US troops is only going to keep the water at a low simmer for a little longer before the boil starts in earnest and get a thousand or a few thousand more of ours dead in the process. BPs solution is the only solution for us. Let's all do our part to keep the little Texas boys from poking their thingys in the hornets' nest from now on.


Cheers!
Well it seems we probably still don't agree, but welcome back!
 

CTRLALTDEL

Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2006
Messages
221
Reaction score
40
Points
16
Location
Bay Area
that is because it is called genocide when only one side does the killing

Only proves that Saddam HATED religeous fanatics just as much as we do. Only he had the balls to deal with them. Now the Shiites are in power and are becoming more radical than ever. The empowerment of the Shiites has also emboldened Iran. Another RELIGEOUS HELL HOLE.
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
Only proves that Saddam HATED religeous fanatics just as much as we do. Only he had the balls to deal with them. Now the Shiites are in power and are becoming more radical than ever. The empowerment of the Shiites has also emboldened Iran. Another RELIGEOUS HELL HOLE.
If someone has the time, a very good post would be Shi'a vs Sunni. I know that it's overwhelming Shi'a, but I wish the US wouldn't choose sides. Bad apples on both sides.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top