What will happen if we stay in Iraq?

[Rosotar]

We will continue to loose five or six of America's finest everyday until a Democrat is elected president in 2008 and Dems further strengthen their hold on Congress and basically send the Republican party into extinction or at least a long hibernation.

The Democratic President and the Congress will immediately begin withdrawing troops from this quagmire.

Iraq will degenerate into a decade long bloodbath even worse than it is now.

Republicans will circulate more intense propaganda about how the Democrats and liberals "lost the war."

The terrorism generated by Bush's childish, mindless, psychopathic policies will come home to roost and of course Republicans will try to shirk the blame as usual and blame it all on Democrats.

Nobody within the Bush crime syndicate will ever be held accountable for all the needlessly dead American soldiers, the ruination of a country, the murdered Iraqi civilians, or the increased threat to America's security that they are responsible for.

Business will click along as usual here in the good old U.S. of A and Conservatives will huddle once again in the dark corners of American politics like the cockroaches that they are and start planning their next coup to usurp our Constitution.

 

[Annie]

We will continue to loose five or six of America's finest everyday until a Democrat is elected president in 2008 and Dems further strengthen their hold on Congress and basically send the Republican party into extinction or at least a long hibernation.

The Democratic President and the Congress will immediately begin withdrawing troops from this quagmire.

Iraq will degenerate into a decade long bloodbath even worse than it is now.

Republicans will circulate more intense propaganda about how the Democrats and liberals "lost the war."

The terrorism generated by Bush's childish, mindless, psychopathic policies will come home to roost and of course Republicans will try to shirk the blame as usual and blame it all on Democrats.

Nobody within the Bush crime syndicate will ever be held accountable for all the needlessly dead American soldiers, the ruination of a country, the murdered Iraqi civilians, or the increased threat to America's security that they are responsible for.

Business will click along as usual here in the good old U.S. of A and Conservatives will huddle once again in the dark corners of American politics like the cockroaches that they are and start planning their next coup to usurp our Constitution.

In no small part because of the Congressional leadership being afraid to do what they claim to want to do, pull the troops without CIC approval.

At the same time, they provide comfort to the enemy, while providing no aid and comfort to American troops.

 

[maineman]

come on...."comfort" to the enemy was pretty narrowly defined back in the day that the constitution was written. It involved physical comfort... a bed, a meal, a place to hide.... to extend that today to suggest that the exercise of free speech here in America somehow "comforts" our enemies in Iraq is a redefinition of the term to the point of absurdity. To suggest that those of us who dissent from the pResident's stupid war are "comforting the enemy" is as foolish as saying that, back in 1976, when Jimmy Carter admitted to "lusting for other women in his heart", that such admission was synonymous with an admission of "rape".

Words have meaning. Phrases in law have meaning backed up with precedence. To claim that arguing against this war is "providing aid and comfort" to our enemies is not only inaccurate, it is grossly insulting. Please cease and desist from such libelous statements in the future.

 

[Rosotar]

In no small part because of the Congressional leadership being afraid to do what they claim to want to do, pull the troops without CIC approval.

You've got it backwards Kathianne. The CIC acts only with the approval of Congress, not the other way around. This is especially applicable when you're dealing with a CIC who has never seen a day of actual combat in his pathetic, sheltered, little joke of a life and who surrounds himself with advisors who were just as successful at avoiding combat as he was.

Add to this the fact that IF he was even legitimately elected at all both times it was by the slimmest of margins and he's bucking people in Congress who are seasoned war veterans and you've got to ask yourself, who has more credibility here....Congress or Herr Bush?

At the same time, they provide comfort to the enemy, while providing no aid and comfort to American troops.

How so?

Please be specific.

 

[no1tovote4]

come on...."comfort" to the enemy was pretty narrowly defined back in the day that the constitution was written. It involved physical comfort... a bed, a meal, a place to hide.... to extend that today to suggest that the exercise of free speech here in America somehow "comforts" our enemies in Iraq is a redefinition of the term to the point of absurdity. To suggest that those of us who dissent from the pResident's stupid war are "comforting the enemy" is as foolish as saying that, back in 1976, when Jimmy Carter admitted to "lusting for other women in his heart", that such admission was synonymous with an admission of "rape".

Words have meaning. Phrases in law have meaning backed up with precedence. To claim that arguing against this war is "providing aid and comfort" to our enemies is not only inaccurate, it is grossly insulting. Please cease and desist from such libelous statements in the future.

At that time their words and actions were not broadcast simultaneously across the world to the ears of the enemy. Saying that no comfort can be derived from the fact that you know that your efforts to effect the will of a nation in which you are battling using Fourth Gen Warfare techniques is successful is a bit insulting there, maineman. It flies in the face of logic. Knowing what you are doing is working clearly can provide comfort to the enemy.

 

[maineman]

bullshit. words are not comfort. speech is free. People who supported this chimpanzee of a president and this terribly counterproductive bloody costly war and who NOW claim that those of us who disagree with it and express our disagreement are traitors can all go fuck themselves. We'll have a civil war in THIS country before I ever sit back and watch patriotic dissent punished as treason. And I am not kidding. I will take up arms against the American government that imprisons citizens for speaking their dissent.

 

[Annie]

You've got it backwards Kathianne. The CIC acts only with the approval of Congress, not the other way around. This is especially applicable when you're dealing with a CIC who has never seen a day of actual combat in his pathetic, sheltered, little joke of a life and who surrounds himself with advisors who were just as successful at avoiding combat as he was.

Add to this the fact that IF he was even legitimately elected at all both times it was by the slimmest of margins and he's bucking people in Congress who are seasoned war veterans and you've got to ask yourself, who has more credibility here....Congress or Herr Bush?




How so?

Please be specific.

Obviously without funding, which the Democrats are denying, under any guise, the CIC is indeed a paper tiger, just what you want.

Just for a reminder, where we were and where we are, until this impasse:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/10/AR2006091001204.html

Situation Called Dire in West Iraq
Anbar Is Lost Politically, Marine Analyst Says

By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 11, 2006; A01

The chief of intelligence for the Marine Corps in Iraq recently filed an unusual secret report concluding that the prospects for securing that country's western Anbar province are dim and that there is almost nothing the U.S. military can do to improve the political and social situation there, said several military officers and intelligence officials familiar with its contents.

The officials described Col. Pete Devlin's classified assessment of the dire state of Anbar as the first time that a senior U.S. military officer has filed so negative a report from Iraq.

One Army officer summarized it as arguing that in Anbar province, "We haven't been defeated militarily but we have been defeated politically -- and that's where wars are won and lost."

The "very pessimistic" statement, as one Marine officer called it, was dated Aug. 16 and sent to Washington shortly after that, and has been discussed across the Pentagon and elsewhere in national security circles. "I don't know if it is a shock wave, but it's made people uncomfortable," said a Defense Department official who has read the report. Like others interviewed about the report, he spoke on the condition that he not be identified by name because of the document's sensitivity.

Devlin reports that there are no functioning Iraqi government institutions in Anbar, leaving a vacuum that has been filled by the insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq, which has become the province's most significant political force, said the Army officer, who has read the report. Another person familiar with the report said it describes Anbar as beyond repair; a third said it concludes that the United States has lost in Anbar.

Devlin offers a series of reasons for the situation, including a lack of U.S. and Iraqi troops, a problem that has dogged commanders since the fall of Baghdad more than three years ago, said people who have read it. These people said he reported that not only are military operations facing a stalemate, unable to extend and sustain security beyond the perimeters of their bases, but also local governments in the province have collapsed and the weak central government has almost no presence.

Those conclusions are striking because, even after four years of fighting an unexpectedly difficult war in Iraq, the U.S. military has tended to maintain an optimistic view: that its mission is difficult, but that progress is being made. Although CIA station chiefs in Baghdad have filed negative classified reports over the past several years, military intelligence officials have consistently been more positive, both in public statements and in internal reports.

Devlin, as part of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force (Forward) headquarters in Iraq, has been stationed there since February, so his report isn't being dismissed as the stunned assessment of a newly arrived officer. In addition, he has the reputation of being one of the Marine Corps' best intelligence officers, with a tendency to be careful and straightforward, said another Marine intelligence officer. Hence, the report is being taken seriously as it is examined inside the military establishment and also by some CIA officials.

Not everyone interviewed about the report agrees with its glum findings. The Defense Department official, who worked in Iraq earlier this year, said his sense is that Anbar province is going to be troubled as long as U.S. troops are in Iraq. "Lawlessness is a way of life there," he said. As for the report, he said, "It's one conclusion about one area. The conclusion on al Anbar doesn't translate into a perspective on the entire country."...

http://www.outsidethewire.com/blog/outside-the-wire/tribal-mojo-part-ii.html

Anbar is so "lost" now politically that there is a waiting list for anbaris to join the IA and IP.

It is so lost, that in the AO I hope to visit next the local Sheiks have declared war on AQIZ and the neighboring tribe supporting AQIZ.

It is so lost, the local neighborhood watch centers deliver captured IEDs to Marine Combat Outposts.

It is so wildly stinking lost that...wait, it is not lost.

In fact, the situation has flipped so much in 7 months that the heavy lifting in Al Anbar may be coming to a close--the heavy lifting being the political work of flipping the tribes to support the coalition and take charge of their own security.

When I was in Anbar in 2005 the momentum changed back and forth with the insurgents often dictating the OODA loop.

Now, in some areas like Khalidiyah, Habbaniyah and Husabayah Jawal, the coalition, police and army are clearly dictating the OODA loop.

All down the west bank of the Euphrates the tribes are taking charge of their own security, tribal levies are being sent to the police academies and army boot camp and the real sheiks--not the deputy under sheiks for mutton affairs--are working with the coalition.

Is it still violent? You bet. Will AQIZ still be able to pull off some big bombs? Yes. Will they still be able to mount coordinated attacks in some AOs? Yes.

But those are not the indicators. Nieghborhood watch centers, women in the markets, growth in IP and pro-coalition tribes duking it out with the remaining AQIZ affiliated tribes are the indicators.

If the ability to light off a bomb was an indicator of anything, Israel would have been overrun by the Palestinians 20 years ago.

...

 

[onedomino]

Words have meaning. Phrases in law have meaning backed up with precedence. To claim that arguing against this war is "providing aid and comfort" to our enemies is not only inaccurate, it is grossly insulting. Please cease and desist from such libelous statements in the future.

You are deluding yourself if you think that the actions of those Americans that seek to flee do not give comfort to the enemy. Setting a date certain for withdrawal from Iraq is precisely what the terrorists have been trying to accomplish. Knowing that they have won this victory from the Democrats must indeed be a great comfort.

 

[maineman]

You are deluding yourself if you think that the actions of those Americans that seek to flee do not give comfort to the enemy. Setting a date certain for withdrawal from Iraq is precisely what the terrorists have been trying to accomplish. Knowing that they have won this victory from the Democrats must indeed be a great comfort.

when you want to criminalize speech...when you want to label me a traitor for disagreeing with this stupid counterproductive war, stand by for civil war, asshole.

in fact... getting us to STAY in Iraq is exactly what the TERRORISTS want...the Iraqis want us to leave. Two entirely different groups of people.

 

[Care4all]

You are deluding yourself if you think that the actions of those Americans that seek to flee do not give comfort to the enemy. Setting a date certain for withdrawal from Iraq is precisely what the terrorists have been trying to accomplish. Knowing that they have won this victory from the Democrats must indeed be a great comfort.

then how does an army ever withdraw without letting the enemy know?

in the middle of the night when no one is lookin'?

how would the military leave without ever telling anyone?

i don't understand?

care

 

[Mr.Conley]

In no small part because of the Congressional leadership being afraid to do what they claim to want to do, pull the troops without CIC approval.

At the same time, they provide comfort to the enemy, while providing no aid and comfort to American troops.

It always the Democrats fault isn't it? If it wasn't for the Democrats then the war would've already been won, right? I mean President George W. Bush, appointed by God himself, could certainly do no wrong. Of course this entire mess is because of the Democrats and their America-hating obstructionism.

Is it the Democrats fault that Bush failed to provide any effective post-invasion plan for Iraq?

Is it the Democrats fault that after 4 years of "staying the course" the levels of violence and destruction in Iraq are as high as ever?

Is it the Democrats fault that the President's claim that Iraq was preparing to attack America with WMDs or sell them to terrorists turned out to be bullshit?

Is it the Democrats fault that the war that was supposed to "pay for itself" is going to cross the trillion dollar marker?

To answer all of the above, NO! Your vaunted President fucked up. I knew this war was a bad idea, but I gave him four years to sort the mess out, and he fell on his fucking face. Of course we ignore that, because the Democrats are running around calling him on his bullshit.

First the Democrats are unpatriotic for not supporting the invasion.

Then the Democrats hate our troops for criticizing the planning of the occupation.

Suddenly the Democrats are "with the terrorists" for asking how, with violence escalating and conditions deteriorating, staying the course was the best plan.

then the Democrats are complict and powermad for apparently not protesting loud enough.

Next the Democrats are cut-and-runners who'll pull our troops out of Iraq and lead to a bloodbath (even though this is already happening).

NOW YOU'RE CALLING THE DEMOCRATS COWARDS FOR GIVING GENIUS ONE MORE CHANCE TO CLEAN UP THE MESS HE MADE.

Here's the question, could the Democrats EVER please you. Their doing exactly what you wanted, they compromised, and now you're calling them fucking cowards!?!?!?

BULLSHIT!

I'm tried of these fucking Republican games of Blame the Democrats. It's your President that got us in this mess in the first place. It's your President who ignored the advise of his top generals and didn't go into the field with nearly enough men and supplies. It's your President whose "intellegence" turned out to be completely fake. It's your President who didn't find WMDs. It's your President whose war is going to cost 100 times the advertized price. It's your President who ordered 3,000 American soldiers to their deaths for this fuckup. It's your President who ignored the rising violence and sectarian warring. It's your President who moved to lala land for the past 2 years on Iraq. It's your President who has produced no discernable gains for us despite 4 years, 140,000 soldiers and $1 trillion.

The bottom line is that YOUR MAN FUCKED UP, but dark will be the day when any conservative puts aside his massive ego for more then 10 seconds to offer any serious admission of error. No, instead of seriously looking at the mess YOU created it's much easier to play these shitty little partisan blame games.

YOUR President got his last shot from the democrats, be fucking grateful that he has one. Yet even with that you STILL critizise the democrats for giving you that last, best hope. You're just trying to use the Democrats to distract people from the FLAMING PILE OF SHIT that your Dear Leader has created. You don't give a damn about Iraq; you're just saving your own ass.

Fucking hypocrites.

 

[Avatar4321]

come on...."comfort" to the enemy was pretty narrowly defined back in the day that the constitution was written. It involved physical comfort... a bed, a meal, a place to hide.... to extend that today to suggest that the exercise of free speech here in America somehow "comforts" our enemies in Iraq is a redefinition of the term to the point of absurdity. To suggest that those of us who dissent from the pResident's stupid war are "comforting the enemy" is as foolish as saying that, back in 1976, when Jimmy Carter admitted to "lusting for other women in his heart", that such admission was synonymous with an admission of "rape".

Words have meaning. Phrases in law have meaning backed up with precedence. To claim that arguing against this war is "providing aid and comfort" to our enemies is not only inaccurate, it is grossly insulting. Please cease and desist from such libelous statements in the future.

How would they be acting any differently if they wanted to help the enemy?

 

[Avatar4321]

bullshit. words are not comfort. speech is free. People who supported this chimpanzee of a president and this terribly counterproductive bloody costly war and who NOW claim that those of us who disagree with it and express our disagreement are traitors can all go fuck themselves. We'll have a civil war in THIS country before I ever sit back and watch patriotic dissent punished as treason. And I am not kidding. I will take up arms against the American government that imprisons citizens for speaking their dissent.

We will have a civil war in this country. It would take an act of God to avoid that.

 

[Avatar4321]

You've got it backwards Kathianne. The CIC acts only with the approval of Congress, not the other way around. This is especially applicable when you're dealing with a CIC who has never seen a day of actual combat in his pathetic, sheltered, little joke of a life and who surrounds himself with advisors who were just as successful at avoiding combat as he was.

Add to this the fact that IF he was even legitimately elected at all both times it was by the slimmest of margins and he's bucking people in Congress who are seasoned war veterans and you've got to ask yourself, who has more credibility here....Congress or Herr Bush?

How so?

Please be specific.

You are completely wrong. The President doesn't need to ask Congress's permission to act in his role as President. The Constitution delegates him the executive power. That includes the responsibility as commander in chief of the war.

Congress's only power is to declare war and to fund it (or not). They cant demand the President do things on certain date. Such actions are completely unconstitutional.

Also, the President volunteered for the Guard. He volunteered for combat. However, they didnt need troops with his flight skills over in Vietnam. These are established facts. Pretending that he is somehow a coward who avoided combat by volunteering for the military and volunteering to serve is absolutely ludicrous.

Bush has far more credibility simply because he is actually listening to the commanders rather than the liberal bloggers who know jack about military operations.

 

[Avatar4321]

when you want to criminalize speech...when you want to label me a traitor for disagreeing with this stupid counterproductive war, stand by for civil war, asshole.

in fact... getting us to STAY in Iraq is exactly what the TERRORISTS want...the Iraqis want us to leave. Two entirely different groups of people.

No one is saying you cant complain all you want. We are telling you that your attempts to actually aid and comfort the enemy are boardering on treason. Last time I checked trying to force the troops to withdrawal wasnt speak, it was conduct.

The right to free speech doesn't abrogate the consequences of what you say. The consequences of your speech will result in more death and destruction.

You are entitled to speak your opinion all you want. But when you start trying to enact legislation to enforce your opinion that will result in the deaths of countless people, we have the right and duty to speak out against you and call you for what you are.

 

[Care4all]

No one is saying you cant complain all you want. We are telling you that your attempts to actually aid and comfort the enemy are boardering on treason. Last time I checked trying to force the troops to withdrawal wasnt speak, it was conduct.

The right to free speech doesn't abrogate the consequences of what you say. The consequences of your speech will result in more death and destruction.

You are entitled to speak your opinion all you want. But when you start trying to enact legislation to enforce your opinion that will result in the deaths of countless people, we have the right and duty to speak out against you and call you for what you are.

Do you REALLY believe what you just said? Who taught you this? Did you learn this in school or something, did your parents teach you this?(or was it the republican party of late?)

Where in Heaven's name do you get this from?

It is UNPATRIOTIC and UNAMERICAN to silence dissenting views of your fellow Americans..... imho!

Care

 

[Care4all]

You are completely wrong. The President doesn't need to ask Congress's permission to act in his role as President. The Constitution delegates him the executive power. That includes the responsibility as commander in chief of the war.

Congress's only power is to declare war and to fund it (or not). They cant demand the President do things on certain date. Such actions are completely unconstitutional.

Also, the President volunteered for the Guard. He volunteered for combat. However, they didnt need troops with his flight skills over in Vietnam. These are established facts. Pretending that he is somehow a coward who avoided combat by volunteering for the military and volunteering to serve is absolutely ludicrous.

Bush has far more credibility simply because he is actually listening to the commanders rather than the liberal bloggers who know jack about military operations.

I am not certain that you are correct in him following what the Generals tell him... the ones that differed with him were removed from their positions or they resigned their positions.... he has not really been listening to his generals, he's been changing and putting in generals that agree with him and Cheney imo and in fact, actually.... There is a huge amount of proof that he's ignored some very smart general's advice from the very beginning....thus the quagmire we are in now.

Care

 

[Diuretic]

Massive incompetence all round. Bush and Cheney and their White House have done this to the US and Iraq, they can't wriggle out of it. It's astounding that anyone can still think of supporting them. But then blind loyalty to party and leader above country isn't unknown in the world.

 

[red states rule]

Massive incompetence all round. Bush and Cheney and their White House have done this to the US and Iraq, they can't wriggle out of it. It's astounding that anyone can still think of supporting them. But then blind loyalty to party and leader above country isn't unknown in the world.

So what else can we do?

Support the Dems and surrender to the terrorists?

What plan do Dems have other then hand Iraq and it oil over to the terrorists and Iran?

 

[Diuretic]

So what else can we do?

Support the Dems and surrender to the terrorists?

What plan do Dems have other then hand Iraq and it oil over to the terrorists and Iran?

Why not ask them?

Perhaps if Bush listened he may get some ideas?

Look I know the west can't just pull out of Iraq tomorrow. But Bush is still chanting the 'stay the course' mantra. It's failed, the occupation hasn't worked. Time to take a different course that achieves the objectives of giving Iraq a stable government (even if it means three states in a federation) and thus to, hopefully, blunt the push by the insurgents. Time to talk to Syria (which I think may indicate that Five Deferments Cheney is waning in influence in favour of Rice) and ....deep breath....Iran.