This whole strong horse vs. weak horse argument, the "emboldenment" thing, is fallacious on so many levels.

Why?

Because we NEVER sent enough troops there to win, we never sent more troops when it was clear we were in trouble, and even now, we're only sending another 20,000 troops!

If you want to make the argument that we need to stay and fight in a civil war to somehow prove to the enemy that we're tough ... send another 100,000 troops! Send 200,000 troops!

If it was that important to look strong, isn't that what we should be doing?

And there are plenty of places to redeploy to. We have allies all over the region. Put 50k in Kuwait, 20k in Qatar, 40k in Turkey, and leave 30k in Anbar until you obliterate al-Qaeda. Re-engage the rest of the region diplomatically to help quell the civil war. That will drain the swamp that Al-Qaeda needs to operate successfully.

This is the only end-game anyway... there is no way we can pacify the country through military force at this point -- so we're going to end up with something that looks like the above at the end of the day regardless.

The burden is on those who support the escalation plan (of 20k troops) to prove how it will pacify the country enough to make it stable.

GGniner Wrote:The Democrats/Liberals/Media are trying to label the Iraq war the Republicans war or bush's war, even though they voted for it and even started the policy of regime change in Iraq in 1998. all for cheap political gain.

some RINO's are trying to call it "bush's war" for similar reasons.

The Rest of the World sees it as America's War and are watching very closely.

Quote:
"Experience proves that the man who obstructs a war in which his nation is engaged, no matter whether right or wrong, occupies no enviable place in life or history. Better for him, individually, to advocate 'war, pestilence, and famine' than to act as obstructionist to a war already begun.... The most favorable posthumous history the stay-at-home traitor can hope for is -- oblivion."

~~ Ulysses S. Grant, Personal Memoirs

Don't be absurd. This isn't the civil war. If the South rises again, I'll be the first to enlist.

This is another country's 5-way civil war that we started, optionally. These analogies by the arm-chair generals are ridiculous. The enlistment age is all the way up to like 42 these days. If you are so anxious to go defend the cause of freedom in Iraq, get over there and hump a rifle around Sadr City and start kicking doors in. Your current unit, the 151st Fighting Keyboardists, will carry on fine without you, I'm sure.

GGniner Wrote:We have no choice but to transform the area with our values(things like true Liberty, federalism, etc.), the region is the heart of Jihad and there are potential recruits all over. We have got to keep them from joining Jihad ranks, long term.

I can't believe that after almost 4 full years in Iraq, I'm still reading this crap. Look, its an attractive argument -- I used to believe it myself. But there's something to be said for empirical evidence.

4 years after Iraq, and there is less democracy than ever in the region. People are now FRIGHTENED of democracy. In their mind it equals lawlessness and social breakdown. There's more terrorism, more sectarianism, more tribalism, more illiberalism. Iraq's fledgling civil society -- the academics, the lawyers, the civic leaders -- have all been assassinated or have fled the country. We've FAILED. Iran has more power in the region now than at any time since the Revolution. Reformers from Saudi Arabia to Damascus to Egypt have been marginalized within their societies. We've FAILED. It was never achievable.

Its time to acknowledge reality. We've set back the cause of freedom and liberty in the middle east by a generation, at least.

GGniner Wrote:If we retreat, on top of all the over effects of projecting American Weakness and vulnerability that I already mentioned.....is it will start something far worse. The al-sadr's(backed by Iran) would attempt to commit massive Genocide against the Sunni's and that would effectively get rid of Al-qaeda in Iraq(this is how what Murtha says would happen if we left would actualy happen: genocide), except that before that happens Saudi Arabia would step in to protect the Sunni's thus aligning them with Al-Qaeda while being at full blown war with Iran. just what the civilized word needs, not. What would this do to the world's oil prices?

The Baker report outlines how you can prevent that scenario. Every one of those states has an incentive to prevent that outcome, they just need to be engaged in a multilateral diplomatic solution, a "Dayton Accord" type conference where everything is put on the table, and all the external sides hash out a deal that ensures the peace. This is what James Baker has done his entire career. This is what diplomacy means. This is what we will have to do down the road eventually -- we might as well do it now.

People talk about this as if there's anything more we can do militarily to prevent civil war from erupting. Its already happened. We need to implement the solution now. Lets stop throwing lives after unachievable objectives. Its time to shuffle off this cloak of denial and start dealing in reality.

OU

Did you hear that 151st line somewhere else or did you just come up with that? That's one funny line. Really creative. Can't wait for one of these guys to respond to it. I've checked back here a couple of times tonight waiting for someone to respond. Funny stuff.

Machiavelli Wrote:OU

Did you hear that 151st line somewhere else or did you just come up with that? That's one funny line. Really creative. Can't wait for one of these guys to respond to it. I've checked back here a couple of times tonight waiting for someone to respond. Funny stuff.

I have read some variation of it before, and found it funny.

I don't think it applies to everyone -- Obviously RebelKev actually has served, so thats fair enough. But there are a lot of chicken-hawks out there. And I think its fair to mock people who continue to demand that OTHER people sacrifice so they can talk tough about "not surrendering".

How is it a "civil war" when other countries and international terrorist operations are fueling alot of it? Or when the central government is still fully in place and functioning and addressing all the day to day matters? just because NBC says something doesn't make it so, they can and will continue to manipulate language.

The Truth is democracy is a threat to the oppression powers that be in the region, namely Iran and Syria or Saddams Sunni MINORITY that ruled for over 2 decades. The Iraq War is not a ALL CAPS FAILURE either, it is one of the fastest and most successful military campaign ever, Saddam's baathist regime fell and will never be in power again. There have been several successful democratic elections, in which even the women got to vote, a constitution was written and a functioning government formed. The Iraq War itself is already a huge victory, as all the objectives set out have been met. Its just a matter of making sure they are able to gain power to protect themselves from threatening forces in the region, which they are gradually doing.

Nobody ever said this would be fast and easy, the problem is many americans expect a "Fast Food Foreign policy" and are easily manipulated by images they see and the stories they don't get to see. This is why the military that come back are upset at the news coverage.

Why do you think Newsweek decided not to print the following story in the American edition but did decide it was good enough for the International edition????

Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago? The Iraqi's are, by astronomical measures.....and note the amount of FOREIGN investment being pumped into the region.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16241340/site/newsweek/

a better article on the Iraq economy and foreign investment can be found in the Kuwait Times: http://www.kuwaittimes.net/Navariednews....1839729411

Quote:Very few media report about good news from Iraq. "Newsweek has just hailed the emergence of a booming market economy in Iraq as "the mother of all surprises," noting "Iraqis are more optimistic about the future than most Americans are." The reason, of course, is that Iraqis know what is going on in their country while Americans are fed a diet of exclusively negative reporting from Iraq."
---------------


"Most foreign investors coming to make money in Iraq shrug their shoulders. "Doing business in any Arab country is always risky," says a Turkish investor who has set up a trucking company and a taxi service. "In some Arab countries, you risk nationalization or straight confiscation by the ruler. In other Arab countries, you must give a cut to one of the emirs (and princes). Here, you face possible terrorist attacks. But such attacks are transitory."

[/b]

GGniner Wrote:Why do you think Newsweek decided not to print the following story in the American edition but did decide it was good enough for the International edition????

Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago? The Iraqi's are, by astronomical measures.....and note the amount of FOREIGN investment being pumped into the region.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16241340/site/newsweek/

a better article on the Iraq economy and foreign investment can be found in the Kuwait Times: http://www.kuwaittimes.net/Navariednews....1839729411

Quote:Very few media report about good news from Iraq. "Newsweek has just hailed the emergence of a booming market economy in Iraq as "the mother of all surprises," noting "Iraqis are more optimistic about the future than most Americans are." The reason, of course, is that Iraqis know what is going on in their country while Americans are fed a diet of exclusively negative reporting from Iraq."
---------------


"Most foreign investors coming to make money in Iraq shrug their shoulders. "Doing business in any Arab country is always risky," says a Turkish investor who has set up a trucking company and a taxi service. "In some Arab countries, you risk nationalization or straight confiscation by the ruler. In other Arab countries, you must give a cut to one of the emirs (and princes). Here, you face possible terrorist attacks. But such attacks are transitory."

[/b]

The economy is only better off in the sense that there are cheap imports flooding in that couldn't before due to import restrictions, creating consumption-led growth in some areas. There's also going to be a savings-rate boost because of the instability in the country. That's fine. But that doesn't mean that Iraq's economy is better off. The success of the economy over the long term will depend on two things, as it does in any middle eastern country -- the oil industry and employment. Both are doing far worse. Economic statistics can be misleading if you don't look at the internals. On its face, Pakistan's economy is doing very well, but most of that is the result of debt-forgiveness by the U.S. -- there is very little gains in productivity. Productivity gains are what drive substantive growth. Iraq will have the same problem.

Additionally, just because Iraq's economy is performing better in some areas (its performing worse in others) doesn't mean that the country is better off. Baghdad is like Mogadishu 1992 right now. People are buyin satelite dishes, yes... but thats because they can't leave their houses at night. The vast majority of Iraqis want the occupation to end.

But even this misses the point. The point is not to ask are the Iraqis better off -- you could debate this all day long and never come to a conclusion. Our foreign policy does not exist to serve the interest of other countries. Our foreign policy exists to serve American interests. The question should be, is America better off than it was 4 years ago, i.e. its strategic position in the region, its military readyness, or vis-a-vis its foreign policy interests? And I would argue emphatically that it is not -- and I don't even think thats a close debate.

GGniner Wrote:How is it a "civil war" when other countries and international terrorist operations are fueling alot of it? Or when the central government is still fully in place and functioning and addressing all the day to day matters? just because NBC says something doesn't make it so, they can and will continue to manipulate language.

The Truth is democracy is a threat to the oppression powers that be in the region, namely Iran and Syria or Saddams Sunni MINORITY that ruled for over 2 decades. The Iraq War is not a ALL CAPS FAILURE either, it is one of the fastest and most successful military campaign ever, Saddam's baathist regime fell and will never be in power again. There have been several successful democratic elections, in which even the women got to vote, a constitution was written and a functioning government formed. The Iraq War itself is already a huge victory, as all the objectives set out have been met. Its just a matter of making sure they are able to gain power to protect themselves from threatening forces in the region, which they are gradually doing.

Nobody ever said this would be fast and easy, the problem is many americans expect a "Fast Food Foreign policy" and are easily manipulated by images they see and the stories they don't get to see. This is why the military that come back are upset at the news coverage.

The Ministry of Truth would be proud of you.

I notice you single out NBC. Nice. Been watching a little O'Reilly lately, I see...

OUGwave Wrote:The success of the economy over the long term will depend on two things, as it does in any middle eastern country -- the oil industry and employment. Both are doing far worse..

from the article

Quote:In addition much of the formerly centralised organisation of the economy has been turned over to private sector endeavours and while some government sectors have seen a spike in unemployment, private sector unemployment is hovering around 30 per cent. High to you and me, but still better than in the Saddam era."
The more and more Iraqis are taken on the board of development, the less they would listen to warlords and terrorist groups. Insurgents are not recruited among the 70 per cent of peaceful and diligent Iraqis; they are recruited among the 30 per cent jobless and retainers of the old regime. I'm confidant and millions of Iraqis with me that the course of development will prevail.

also,

Quote:"No doubt, part of the dinar's strength reflects the rise in Iraq's income from oil exports to almost $40 billion in 2006, an all-time record. But oil alone does not explain all, since both Iran and Kuwait are bigger exporters than Iraq."
"The fact that civil-servant salaries have increased by almost 30 per cent, with a further 30 per cent due to come into effect early next year, also has helped boost demand.

That was from the Kuwait Times but never the less, Why do you think Newsweek would decide not to include a story on Iraq's economy in the American Edition but it was ok for International eyes?

further, I bring up NBC because they are the hacks that came out and labeled Iraq a "civil war", wrongly by every objective manner.

yea!!!!!.... two guys holding a sign made by the RNC

that's some sweet diplomacy right there

Budweiser could make a "Real Men of Genius" jingle out of these two. I really like the fist pump by the guy on the right. I wonder if they were chanting. Hey Hey Ho Ho chant or the 1, 2, 3, 4, we dont want your fckin w.. (no that last one wouldn't fit.... but I did read there were only a group of a thousand across the street chanting that one) Only a thousand protesting is quite an accomplishment for members of this administration on foreign soil. Wow and look two guys holding a sign!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GGnin-

Almost like manna from heaven comes an article from the Newshouse News Service on page A 17 of the Cleveland Plain Dealer to rebute your fantasy that Iraq is better off today. It's written by a James Palmer. The title is "Iraqi's stash cash to avoid troubled banking system" I looked for a link but couldn't find one. In my googling I did come across a pro Iraq war site detailing good news from Iraq in the last three weeks and it had NOTHING. Classic none the less, but not one good thing in the last three weeks. It was an alt.howard.stern something I'm sure if you google that you might find some things down the line, but none the last three ;-) . I wonder if there is a site of the **** that has gone wrong the last three??? It would probably crash the internet though.


Well the the main points of the article are this:

65% inflation rate in Iraq.

Crooked clerks and and criminal gangs are infiltrating the system.

Majorities feel the banks are insecure and ineffective.

Many banks in the Baghdad area have suffered from brazen daylight heists involving millions of dollars.

Every day the homicide rates in Baghdad exceeds 100 and the city morgue is actually being overwhelmed.



Yeah sure sounds like Iraqi's are way better off today

Quote:How is it a "civil war" when other countries and international terrorist operations are fueling alot of it?

Are you serious? Didn't France fund the South in the war of Northern aggression. All wars civil or not are ultimately funded by others. sheesh

Machiavelli Wrote:

Quote:How is it a "civil war" when other countries and international terrorist operations are fueling alot of it?

Are you serious? Didn't France fund the South in the war of Northern aggression. All wars civil or not are ultimately funded by others. sheesh

Lebanon, Afghanistan civil wars much better comparative examples even.