Thread: Progression In Iraq

Cut and run

yeah, let them have there civil war and kill each other.
Its a small country on the other side of the damn world.

I don't know what sending more troops is going to do. It is not going to make suicide bombers more detectable, so the casualty rate will be the same, it seems. Sending more troops might give the Iraqis the impression that we are going to just keep picking up their slack. What we should do instead probably is take away 21,00 troops and tell the Iraqis that another 21,00 will be leaving in three months and that they better get it together if they want to have a free country because our days there are numbered. That might wake up a lot of them. It's time for the next phase in their independence process. When you turn four, it's time to stop jumping up into the arms of grown ups when you get scared. They are going to have to grow up, so to speak. If their police and military would work hard enough and get their recruitment up enough, we would no longer be needed. When Iraq can take care of itself, we can declare victory.

Originally Posted by Universal

I don't know what sending more troops is going to do. It is not going to make suicide bombers more detectable, so the casualty rate will be the same, it seems. Sending more troops might give the Iraqis the impression that we are going to just keep picking up their slack. What we should do instead probably is take away 21,00 troops and tell the Iraqis that another 21,00 will be leaving in three months and that they better get it together if they want to have a free country because our days there are numbered. That might wake up a lot of them. It's time for the next phase in their independence process. When you turn four, it's time to stop jumping up into the arms of grown ups when you get scared. They are going to have to grow up, so to speak. If their police and military would work hard enough and get their recruitment up enough, we would no longer be needed. When Iraq can take care of itself, we can declare victory.
[/b]

my post is kinda a pointless one..but does anyone notice how strange this perspective sounds? I can't quite tell what it is exactly...its scary almost.
maybe its telling them to "growup"?
OR this line: "when iraq can take care of itself, we declare victory"
Iraq has to "wake-up" ????
america is picking up Iraq's "slack"??
....maybe its this idea that: "When you turn four, it's time to stop jumping up into the arms of grown ups when you get scared. They are going to have to grow up, so to speak." ((what exactly is being said here?)))
and finally "If their police and military would work hard enough "
....this just sounds so strange to me.

idk if it sounds strange to anyone else too? yah.

anyways I think iraqis are wide awake and I think they are all grownup...it cant be easy to be invaded...and have a power vacuum created.
I believe the Iraq map should be redrawn. The country Iraq has always been artificial. There needs to be 3 new countries. and 3 governments.

Originally Posted by ;357235

my post is kinda a pointless one..but does anyone notice how strange this perspective sounds? I can't quite tell what it is exactly...its scary almost.
maybe its telling them to "growup"?
OR this line: "when iraq can take care of itself, we declare victory"
Iraq has to "wake-up" ????
america is picking up Iraq's "slack"??
....maybe its this idea that: "When you turn four, it's time to stop jumping up into the arms of grown ups when you get scared. They are going to have to grow up, so to speak." ((what exactly is being said here?)))
and finally "If their police and military would work hard enough "
....this just sounds so strange to me.

idk if it sounds strange to anyone else too? yah.

anyways I think iraqis are wide awake and I think they are all grownup...it cant be easy to be invaded...and have a power vacuum created.
I believe the Iraq map should be redrawn. The country Iraq has always been artificial. There needs to be 3 new countries. and 3 governments.
[/b]

I thought you might be happy with the fact that I am for slowly removing American troops. After all of our arguing, you have nothing positive to say about that? Somehow I'm not that surprised. I don't think there is a thing I could say to make you happy other than something that insults my country.

When I said the Iraqis need to "grow up", I was not saying they are literally immature. I was referring to my ANALOGY where I compared them to kids who jump into the arms of adults for safety. The parallel was dependence, not immaturity. In other words, they have us there keeping their new government in existence, and that gives them more room to hold back from their full independence potential, much like a young adult who continues to live with his parents because they continue to provide room and board. Some people do that until they are kicked out, at which point they often suddenly decide to go to medical school. (Somehow, I think you really knew I was saying that.)

We are still there because the Iraqis are not ready to take care of their own government. That is what can be expected after they lived under a dictatorship for so long, but it is relevant that it is the case. I am saying that the level of security the police and military feel with our presence is holding back the potential ambition that could be there. The American revolutionaries were obsessed with every cell of their bodies to bring about their independence. They were passionate beyond description. The Iraqi military and police want their country to have independence, and they are putting their lives on the line for it, but I think they have a few more notches on the ambition ladder to climb. Their less than desired recruitment levels and somewhat disappointing training success show that. Our slow withdrawal would help bring about positive changes in both of those areas. That is what I was saying. It is very strange that I needed to explain that to you.

I'd say universal was right
troops need to be rremoved slowly and gradually
obviously we ahve differnt views on the reasons for there "immaturity" (that meaning inept defense ofthe country)
The thing is, most of the deaths arent cuased by suicide bombs, alot of it is armed insurgents
with Ak-47s

which sneding more trrops in will be able to combat

also, do you suppose the US funds this rehabilitation of the Iraq police force and army?

Imran

The US Army should travel back in time

Shoot each of their Forefathers in the head

Burn the now blood stained Constitution

and get on with killing the rest of the world

instead of doing it in such annoying installments

I still think the only good tactic for the amircans is cut and run. Violance in iraq is increasing daily so is the body count sending more troops would only increase the body count of us soldier. I am going to say the two words Civil war and Vietnam.

This plan is unrealistic and dangerous at best. Its title, "Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq" Oh Man don't even let me get started on that one. It only assumes that U.S. military power can still be used to create a stable unified democracy. In fact, sending more troops would not only fail to secure Iraq but also leave the U.S. less secure, by further degrading American ground forces. Our ground forces have already been stretched to the breaking point and the President just keeps pulling and pulling at it.

Furthermore, heavily armored troops can intimidate but they cannot suppress. Sending more armored troops into Iraq is like turning lose a large, fierce dog into an alley to silence and bunch of howling cats. The dog can tree the cats but has soon as the dog leaves the cats will return. We need a large agressive tom cat to silence the insurgents in Iraq.

Take a look at the violence profile in Iraq right now. 2006 saw fewer overall Iraq deaths, and lower violence, than 2005. Yet 2006 also saw larger violence spike incidents than 2005 did. Basically, the insurgents are losing their ability to actually kill people, so they are concentrating on creating larger, splashier, incidents, timed for maximum impact. In the long run nothing good can possibly come out of this.

Originally Posted by Ne

Furthermore, heavily armored troops can intimidate but they cannot suppress. Sending more armored troops into Iraq is like turning lose a large, fierce dog into an alley to silence and bunch of howling cats. The dog can tree the cats but has soon as the dog leaves the cats will return. We need a large agressive tom cat to silence the insurgents in Iraq.
[/b]

\Your telling us what there doing wrong, but not what should be done.
What would you do?
and in your analogy, the tom cat represents what?
Imran

Furthermore, heavily armored troops can intimidate but they cannot suppress. Sending more armored troops into Iraq is like turning lose a large, fierce dog into an alley to silence and bunch of howling cats. The dog can tree the cats but has soon as the dog leaves the cats will return. We need a large agressive tom cat to silence the insurgents in Iraq

DOG = US OCCUPATION

CATS = "INSURGENTS"

TOM CAT = An Iraqi force who fights on BEHALF of the US ...as a babysitter?

Sounds peculiar, set up a force who has no connection (on paper) to the US, say it is Iraqi..If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.... This is silly it would just lead to a civil war in Iraq instead of a Economically Profitable War for the Capitalist Pigs of the US! Ahhh capitalism, such benefits to mankind

bloody hell, i agree with pracitcally everything your saying
but dont hijack the thread and make it about sometihng its not
offer something
accepting they are in a horrenudus mess
what do they do?
Imran

Their is nothing we can do face it Iraq is doomed.

I only cared to reply to that one comparison

Originally Posted by imran_p

\Your telling us what there doing wrong, but not what should be done.
What would you do?[/b]

Sure I'll tell you what I would do.

• First, there must be a serious appraisal of the situation and not a Disneyesque fantasy, but a rigorous analysis of the political, economic and social damage wrought by Saddam, sanctions and the war combined. This means accepting that the present situation is a joint responsibility. Bush and Blair were in this together, and if their governments were to spend half the resources on critical analysis that they devote to spinning we might get somewhere.
  
• Second, negotiations must be opened with the leaders of the nationalist insurgency. It is the height of madness to assume that opposition to the occupation is ungrounded in reason. Bush and Blair's mantra is that people resort to political violence because that is the sort of people they are, which conveniently means that the only solution is a military one, but in many (most) cases insurgents are responding to a series of real grievances that require other solutions.
  
• Third, there must be a clear and proximate deadline for the complete withdrawal of all coalition forces from Iraq, and a complete cessation of the air war that has continued to devastate lives To repeat military violence is part of the problem, not the solution.
  
• Fourth, there must be a major reconstruction program that is not devoted to boosting the profits of foreign companies. The Iraqis must be allowed to determine their own economic policy and to benefit from their own skills and resources. The UN has been compromised by the sanctions regime, but it's still the best we've got: so I suggest a UN development agency that is not a creature of the Security Council, that works with a properly constituted Iraqi government, and that is supplied with funding adequate to the task.

In a nut-shell.

Originally Posted by imran_p

and in your analogy, the tom cat represents what?[/b]

I'm talking about a real TomCat


A skilled predator, Intelligent, the cat can be trained to obey simple commands, and has been known to teach itself to manipulate simple mechanisms.

I agree with you entirely
=)
that seems to be the best way
when you say deadline however, I assume you mean that forces should be withdrawn slowly and in gradual steps
Imran

Originally Posted by imran_p

I agree with you entirely
=)
that seems to be the best way
when you say deadline however, I assume you mean that forces should be withdrawn slowly and in gradual steps
[/b]

Nope they should be withdrawn not in steps but immediatley altogether.

nope,
the Iraqi forces would not be prepared for such a drastic transcation of power and responsiblity
first maybe reduce the forces a bit and tranfer a slight amount of responsiblity
then reduce thema bit more
and so on
Imran

Sounds like a Plan to me.

Does it really matter or American forces go out of Iraq immediately or in steps? Not like the government of Iraq will even be able to control the civil war and the hate itself.

If there are Americans occupying Iraq, there will be violence. If America leaves, even if in steps, a vacuum will be created that will cause violence.

The entire 'war' (a fight with no real goal, is that a war?) already is so fucked up there just is 'an approach that will suck the least. More people will die, whatever will be done. America will never control Iraq, unless they kill every civilian there.

America is mate, and the only options for it to move will aways lead to a checkmate (in iraq) in a few more turns.

Once again you suggest only negatives
not what the next step should be
lets pretend Mr Bush truns around adn admits he was wrong for going into Iraq 2morrow
hes still got a problem to deal with
how does he do it
Imran

Originally Posted by imran_p

Once again you suggest only negatives
not what the next step should be
lets pretend Mr Bush truns around adn admits he was wrong for going into Iraq 2morrow
hes still got a problem to deal with
how does he do it
Imran
[/b]

Do I suggest negatives?

There is no way that this 'war' will end WITHOUT another -atleast- 10000 deaths, probably even more, seeing about 100 people die every day. It's reality, and it sucks, yes.

Even if bush would admit he has been totally wrong, the solution would be hard to find. There is no real solution, just choices. And I don't know what would be the best choice.

People need to see how much America fucked up in Iraq. If only they learned from Vietnam, I hope they learn from this. For solutions, you need people that know how civil wars are fought, I don't know how the people in iraq will react to America leaving now, or how they will react to more troops.

Originally Posted by imran_p

I'd say universal was right
troops need to be rremoved slowly and gradually
obviously we ahve differnt views on the reasons for there "immaturity" (that meaning inept defense ofthe country)
The thing is, most of the deaths arent cuased by suicide bombs, alot of it is armed insurgents
with Ak-47s

which sneding more trrops in will be able to combat

also, do you suppose the US funds this rehabilitation of the Iraq police force and army?

Imran
[/b]

I don't think sending more troops will make a difference with suicide bombers or crazy idiots jumping out of nowhere with AK's. I am not totally sure of that, but I don't see what difference 21,000 troops will make. Some kind of technology that detects bombs and guns would help, hypothetically, but it seems that we have plenty of eyes there.

So are you saying that increasing troops there now would help but that we don't need to do it? I am sort of confused on where you stand. You say that sending more troops will help us nail the guys with AK's, but you also say you support gradual withdrawal. What exactly are you saying?

Originally Posted by Neruo

Do I suggest negatives?

There is no way that this 'war' will end WITHOUT another -atleast- 10000 deaths, probably even more, seeing about 100 people die every day. It's reality, and it sucks, yes.

Even if bush would admit he has been totally wrong, the solution would be hard to find. There is no real solution, just choices. And I don't know what would be the best choice.

People need to see how much America fucked up in Iraq. If only they learned from Vietnam, I hope they learn from this. For solutions, you need people that know how civil wars are fought, I don't know how the people in iraq will react to America leaving now, or how they will react to more troops.
[/b]

I really believe that Iraq will eventually end up in the right state. Chaos immediately after dictatorship is a real bitch to deal with, but the natural will to be free will eventually win. I even think that when Iraq eventually gets to that point, the spirit for freedom is going to be very strong in the surrounding countries and eventually they will be free too. We have planted a gigantic seed that will keep growing and never be brought to a stop.

A big difference between this conflict and the Vietnam War is that in Vietnam we were dealing with a government with a specific leader. The future of South Vietnam was completely dependent on the yay or nay of one man, who refused to surrender. We lost 55 thousand, while they lost about 2 million soldiers plus a heart breaking number of civilians. We were tearing their asses up the entire time. They just would not surrender. Then we pulled out due to political pressure brought on by hippies and left lots of South Vietnamese to be up shit creek. It makes me sick. All we needed to do was take out that dictator, not that that is so easy to do or anything. But it was all that needed to be done.

This conflict in Iraq is a different game all together. We are trying to uphold a government, not get one particular jackass with no vaulues at all regarding human life to surrender. A strong taste of freedom has been left there for the rest of human history, and it is going to grow. The will to be free is so powerful that it is not going away. There are things we can do to speed up the process, but the wheels have been set into motion, and an eventual future of freedom is inevitable, in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East. The more business and education grow, the less power sociopathic ignorance and despair are going to have.

Edit/P.S.- We had our wild wild West period. Iraq is having theirs. Fortunately, the Industrial Revolution has already happened, so their period should end faster than ours did.