Final phase of Dem push begins

It's out there now from a political standpoint. Will be interesting to see if this plays out the way they want.

Quote:I believe the war at this stage can only be won diplomatically, politically and economically."

Am I the only one that sees the contradiction here? I always thought once a war was lost, it couldn't be won at any stage going forward.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:Final phase of Dem push begins

It's out there now from a political standpoint. Will be interesting to see if this plays out the way they want.

Quote:I believe the war at this stage can only be won diplomatically, politically and economically."

Am I the only one that sees the contradiction here? I always thought once a war was lost, it couldn't be won at any stage going forward.

I'm not sure I understand your point. What contradiction? That he's hoping to win a war diplomatically, politically, and economically, which couldn't be won militarily?

Although I didn't agree with the surge, it must be too soon to tell the final results from it. We need an honest assessment from Petraeus (sp?) after a few months.

you can't logically say the "iraq war is lost" then say "I believe the war at this stage can only be won diplomatically, politically and economically."

the latter contridicts the former. Its a logical fallacy, but what else is new with this clown. He's out there ripping the SCOTUS on the Partial Birth Murder ruling while not mentioning or is the media questioning him, on the fact he voted in favor on the ban while he's been in the Senate.

NIU007 Wrote:I'm not sure I understand your point. What contradiction? That he's hoping to win a war diplomatically, politically, and economically, which couldn't be won militarily?

as GG pointed out. If a war is lost.(period), it can't be won by any means. To then say, "It can only be won....." contradicts the first statement.

My point is he's either 1) deliberately talking out of both sides of his mouth (shock for a politician I know) or 2) just has no clue.

You are correct though, it is too early to know if the surge has been effective, especially when you consider that the full 21k that were supposed to go have been held up b/c the dems refuse to pass the funding for them.

It's a vintage political double talk.

Proclaim the war lost and that the surge hasn't worked, when in reality the surge hasn't fully taken place because you won't fund it.

Where are those Guinness guys? BRILLIANT!

GGniner Wrote:you can't logically say the "iraq war is lost" then say "I believe the war at this stage can only be won diplomatically, politically and economically."

the latter contridicts the former. Its a logical fallacy, but what else is new with this clown. He's out there ripping the SCOTUS on the Partial Birth Murder ruling while not mentioning or is the media questioning him, on the fact he voted in favor on the ban while he's been in the Senate.

I see. Maybe he meant to say it was lost militarily. Frankly, the war against Hussein was won. This is a kind of a whole new war, though it shouldn't be particularly surprising. Hard to win with diplomacy or politics when you are talking about religious zealots who CANNOT or WILL NOT compromise. Economics won't work unless security improves somehow. Militarily the US would have to bomb and destroy the entire country to win the war, and the Iraqi army, if it is even worthy of the name, is probably both outnumbered and outgunned by the militias.

I have a feeling he knows exactly what he's saying which is "Bush lost, bush is incompetent"(Iraq war is lost) and on the other hand, "the democrats can win the war, elect us in 08"(war can only be won diplomatically, politically...).....I think this is the message they are trying to communicate.


I agree that the initial war was won and is one of the most decisive military victories in history, which is how Historians will view that portion. Can't deny Saddams govt. was overthrown in record time and the Baath party will not have dictatorship over that country. The part to win now is the Iraqi' marshall plan going on, if Al-Sadr ends up taking over and Iran seizes the SHia portion of the country the new war will be what was 'lost'.

the problem with modern warfare is it now includes images/media as a component in a democracy...now if we became a dictatorship or media got some brains that may change. This is a new concept to warfare, so powers that be that do not want Iraq to become an American/West ally are sending in Suicide bombers to get their headlines in our media to strike at our political will over time with goal of eventually withdrawing before Iraq can stand on its on. I saw this the other day, showing which regions Iraq has taken responsibility for, they just got a new region the other day.

http://www.defenselink.mil/home/dodupdat...index.html

GGniner Wrote:I have a feeling he knows exactly what he's saying which is "Bush lost, bush is incompetent"(Iraq war is lost) and on the other hand, "the democrats can win the war, elect us in 08"(war can only be won diplomatically, politically...).....I think this is the message they are trying to communicate.


I agree that the initial war was won and is one of the most decisive military victories in history, which is how Historians will view that portion. Can't deny Saddams govt. was overthrown in record time and the Baath party will not have dictatorship over that country. The part to win now is the Iraqi' marshall plan going on, if Al-Sadr ends up taking over and Iran seizes the SHia portion of the country the new war will be what was 'lost'.

the problem with modern warfare is it now includes images/media as a component in a democracy...now if we became a dictatorship or media got some brains that may change. This is a new concept to warfare, so powers that be that do not want Iraq to become an American/West ally are sending in Suicide bombers to get their headlines in our media to strike at our political will over time with goal of eventually withdrawing before Iraq can stand on its on. I saw this the other day, showing which regions Iraq has taken responsibility for, they just got a new region the other day.

http://www.defenselink.mil/home/dodupdat...index.html

I'm not sure its even that they don't want Iraq to be an American ally. I think they just don't want Iraq to be dominated by Sunnis if they're Shia, and vice versa. Of course they want the Americans out too, but that almost seems secondary.

The problem I have is that when you replace a dictator like Hussein, with a Sunni army ruling a Sunni minority and a Shia majority, there's a power vacuum that is unlikely to be filled peacefully, especially in an area that's filled with religious zealots not prone to compromise. So you had to expect this war to happen, even if it is described as a separate war. And it seemed like Bush and friends just thought it would be a simple matter of creating a democratic government. They didn't seem to want to listen to anyone outside their little circle. To me they came across as arrogant and acted like they knew better than everyone else in the world.

I predict that regardless of what the situation is when we pull out, within 10 years there will either be another dictator, or Iraq will still be in a civil war.

.........and as insurgents rejoice, Bin Laden has been proven right.

Good going, Reid, you retard.

GGniner Wrote:you can't logically say the "iraq war is lost" then say "I believe the war at this stage can only be won diplomatically, politically and economically."

the latter contridicts the former. Its a logical fallacy, but what else is new with this clown. He's out there ripping the SCOTUS on the Partial Birth Murder ruling while not mentioning or is the media questioning him, on the fact he voted in favor on the ban while he's been in the Senate.

So Reid would cut a deal with terrorists for peace?!? Stop fighting the terrorist SCUM over there and they'll bring the hatred and terrorist tactics to us. Backing down now will give Bin Laden a huge political victory, access to Iranian and Iraqi oil money to support his anti-America war. Hey but at least the Dummycrats can say the brought our troops home. It amazes me that Dummycrats think that radicals will want to make a deal after they get what they want U.S. out of Iraq. Why cut a deal when they can overthrow the weak Iraqi government and put Bin Laden cronies in charge?

THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:

GGniner Wrote:you can't logically say the "iraq war is lost" then say "I believe the war at this stage can only be won diplomatically, politically and economically."

the latter contridicts the former. Its a logical fallacy, but what else is new with this clown. He's out there ripping the SCOTUS on the Partial Birth Murder ruling while not mentioning or is the media questioning him, on the fact he voted in favor on the ban while he's been in the Senate.

So Reid would cut a deal with terrorists for peace?!? Stop fighting the terrorist SCUM over there and they'll bring the hatred and terrorist tactics to us. Backing down now will give Bin Laden a huge political victory, access to Iranian and Iraqi oil money to support his anti-America war. Hey but at least the Dummycrats can say the brought our troops home. It amazes me that Dummycrats think that radicals will want to make a deal after they get what they want U.S. out of Iraq. Why cut a deal when they can overthrow the weak Iraqi government and put Bin Laden cronies in charge?

I don't think Bin Laden cronies will be in charge. They're still easily outnumbered by Shia in Iraq. At the very least they'll have to do a lot of fighting to gain control. And they wouldn't have had that chance if Hussein was still there. Even then they wouldn't be able to maintain control. I think we're helping Bin Laden by being in Iraq - he can say that Al Qaida is there to fight the infidels. If we weren't there he would still have to fight - the Shia instead of the U.S.

NIU007 Wrote:I don't think Bin Laden cronies will be in charge. They're still easily outnumbered by Shia in Iraq. At the very least they'll have to do a lot of fighting to gain control. And they wouldn't have had that chance if Hussein was still there. Even then they wouldn't be able to maintain control. I think we're helping Bin Laden by being in Iraq - he can say that Al Qaida is there to fight the infidels. If we weren't there he would still have to fight - the Shia instead of the U.S.

Oh, so then we have Achmawhatshisnuts controlling Iraq. Is that any better?

Pssst,

The quote is out of context.

The war is lost....... if we continue following W's plan. We can not win this militarily. Something that the world believes except the 30% still stuck on stupid. This "we will stand down when they stand up" bs is a pipe dream. The Mahdi Army and the Sunni insurgency is embedded in the IP and the IA. They are not allowed to carry cell phones on joint patrols because they tip off the insurgents to where the patrol is at. The projectile shaped IED's come from the Shia. Muqtada should be arrested today for inciting violence, but the IA and IP won't arrest him. If we do, the IA and IP may very well turn on us.

Machiavelli Wrote:Pssst,

The quote is out of context.

No, it's really not. He said this, then he took to the Senate floor later on to "clarify" his remarks.

Quote:The war is lost....... if we continue following W's plan. We can not win this militarily.

The general in charge of Iraq disagrees with you and Harry, I trust him over you. No offense.

There are many components to the plan to make Iraq stable through the surge, our military is only one piece of that. If we do our part and the Iraq govt. doesn't do theirs, we get out.

As has been pointed out, we won the war portion of this hands down. We're talking about the occupation/rebuilding at this point.

Quote:The general in charge of Iraq disagrees with you

Because the one's who don't are replaced. I wished you would of watched the Crossroads programs. The IP totally abandon posts. The IA is infiltrated with the enemy. I don't know how you succeed under W's plan under those circumstances. I predict Iraq will be partitioned off into three seperate countries. Our "base" that people our being sacrificed for will be in "Kurdistan".

Reid has a meeting with Petraus next week, so I doubt he thinks the 'war is lost' either, he just does politically. He's already been caugh admitting that they could politicize the war to gain Senate seats.


I also don't think you can say they didn't 'plan' for the 'power vacuum'....war plans never go perfectly, everything else is monday morning QB'ing and politics(unfortunately). It wouldn't suprise me if they want some of whats going on over there to happen, they've done alot of damage to al-qaeda. just the other day the "islamic army of iraq" split off from them, they've had sunni radicals killing sunni radicals. By getting rid of Saddam, on top of removing a terror sponsor state, they've forced other countries in the region to confront the problems they've created. So now Saudi Arabia is having to deal with Iran, which before they just lived with Saddam as the buffer. If we completely pulled out it could spark an all out war in which we end up right back in there down the road.

in the modern media age, in which information travels in nano-seconds all over the globe. Does this type of political posturing equate to providing aid and comfort to the enemy? Does it embolden the enemy? Is it demoralizing to the troops on the ground?



Mach, I have a problem with PBS and the mainstream media in general. I do not think they are capable or willing to report honestly the whole story. The most recent example was the censorship of a piece called "Islam vs. Islamist" paid for by tax payer dollars but they are refusing to show.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article...amist.html

RebelKev Wrote:

NIU007 Wrote:I don't think Bin Laden cronies will be in charge. They're still easily outnumbered by Shia in Iraq. At the very least they'll have to do a lot of fighting to gain control. And they wouldn't have had that chance if Hussein was still there. Even then they wouldn't be able to maintain control. I think we're helping Bin Laden by being in Iraq - he can say that Al Qaida is there to fight the infidels. If we weren't there he would still have to fight - the Shia instead of the U.S.

Oh, so then we have Achmawhatshisnuts controlling Iraq. Is that any better?

It might be, though only marginally. Petraeus is going to say we can win militarily because that's the job he was assigned to do. They're already talking about stabilizing Baghdad, instead of stabilizing Iraq. As time goes by their standards of what constitutes stabilization will be further lowered so that we have a reason to get out. And I doubt the Iraqi government will be able to do what they need to do, because they are outnumbered and outgunned by the militias, and they don't have a reliable army.

Were there any Shia muslims in Saddam's army? Guessing there weren't, though I don't know that.

Yes there were Shia in the Iraqi Army. ( I believe Sayeed on "Lost" was Shite ;-) )

No, in all seriousness. Shia were in the Army, but Saddam had an iron fist. What the neo con and Republican pom pom wavers will finally figure out is Iraq wasn't that way because of Saddam, but Saddam was that way because of Iraq.

letter to Senator Reid from a father of a soldier currently in Iraq.

http://crotchetyoldbastard.com/blog/2007..._reid.html

shameless

Machiavelli Wrote:Yes there were Shia in the Iraqi Army. ( I believe Sayeed on "Lost" was Shite ;-) )

No, in all seriousness. Shia were in the Army, but Saddam had an iron fist. What the neo con and Republican pom pom wavers will finally figure out is Iraq wasn't that way because of Saddam, but Saddam was that way because of Iraq.

I should have said Republican Guard. The army was full of conscripts that surrendered at the first opportunity since they didn't want to fight for Saddam. I'm not talking about them.