107 replies to this topic

[Drew]

G1223, on Nov 16 2006, 01:05 PM, said:

Godeskian, on Nov 16 2006, 01:59 PM, said:

Well G, do you have a better plan? Any plan?

The expert have said send in more troops. Why not do that first.

I don't believe the People will be all that thrilled with the prospect.

[Spectacles]

Gee. I thought this was going to be a discussion of OUR problem in Iraq and our options, none of which are attractive, in attempting to solve it. I thought it might matter that this is an extremely dangerous mess for the world and for our troops. But I see it's turning into a silly, utterly partisan, EI-infighting, flame-fest.

Normally, silly partisan flamefests don't bother that much. But there's something especially disgusting about a bunch of people sitting around on their computers typing "HA! HA! You're side's stoopid!" when people are dying in Iraq, dying for a cause that seems pretty unachievable right now no matter how you define it. And no one, no Republican, no Democrat, no Independent, seems to have a good solution. This bothers me. It bothers me daily--not as a Democrat but as an American citizen and a member of the human race. It's depressing. It's an enormous and serious problem. And it's one we're going to be dealing with one way or another for many, many years to come--stay or leave.

[Mark]

enTranced, on Nov 16 2006, 01:15 PM, said:

Balderdash, on Nov 16 2006, 07:14 PM, said:

What is the Republican plan?  G?  Mark?

Scream "Stay the Course!" with your eyes wide shut?

enTranced

Mark: I'm not sure...I haven't talke to any Republicans lately. I believe the President has said we'll have to continue onward, even though it's not going to be easy. I think that is an understatement, however.

[Balderdash]

Spectacles, on Nov 16 2006, 01:20 PM, said:

Gee. I thought this was going to be a discussion of OUR problem in Iraq and our options, none of which are attractive, in attempting to solve it. I thought it might matter that this is an extremely dangerous mess for the world and for our troops. But I see it's turning into a silly, utterly partisan, EI-infighting, flame-fest.

Normally, silly partisan flamefests don't bother that much. But there's something especially disgusting about a bunch of people sitting around on their computers typing "HA! HA! You're side's stoopid!" when people are dying in Iraq, dying for a cause that seems pretty unachievable right now no matter how you define it. And no one, no Republican, no Democrat, no Independent, seems to have a good solution. This bothers me. It bothers me daily--not as a Democrat but as an American citizen and a member of the human race. It's depressing. It's an enormous and serious problem. And it's one we're going to be dealing with one way or another for many, many years to come--stay or leave.

What Specs said.

[Mark]

Spectacles, on Nov 16 2006, 01:20 PM, said:

Gee. I thought this was going to be a discussion of OUR problem in Iraq and our options, none of which are attractive, in attempting to solve it. I thought it might matter that this is an extremely dangerous mess for the world and for our troops. But I see it's turning into a silly, utterly partisan, EI-infighting, flame-fest.

Normally, silly partisan flamefests don't bother that much. But there's something especially disgusting about a bunch of people sitting around on their computers typing "HA! HA! You're side's stoopid!" when people are dying in Iraq, dying for a cause that seems pretty unachievable right now no matter how you define it. And no one, no Republican, no Democrat, no Independent, seems to have a good solution. This bothers me. It bothers me daily--not as a Democrat but as an American citizen and a member of the human race. It's depressing. It's an enormous and serious problem. And it's one we're going to be dealing with one way or another for many, many years to come--stay or leave.

Mark: So what's your answer?  

Maybe we should pull out, and bomb the $h*t out of 'em. I'm sure that's what they would do if the tables were turned. They seem to love killing infidels.

[Cait]

enTranced, on Nov 16 2006, 10:57 AM, said:

G1223, on Nov 16 2006, 06:47 PM, said:

Then why did you elect guys who's only answer is cut and run. If they actually had a plan why didn't they tell the us?

*sigh*

I would put this in flashing neon if I could but I have to settle for bold :

At Least They HAVE a plan!!

I'm not saying it's the best plan. I'm saying that I'm satrting to feel it is the best of some really, REALLY bad options. If somebody across the fence has a better idea they should speak up.

enTranced

I'll be honest, I keep having Viet Nam flashbacks.  I thought this would lead to another quagmire like Viet Nam at the beginning and I said so at the time, but I really hoped I was wrong.  

If history teaches us nothing, it is that we can pour more troops into the area, but that still won't help us win.  Whatever "win" means now.  I'm not sure I ever knew what it meant.  Deposing Saddam was a necessity I guess [he was eveil], but I'm not sure that couldn't have been done by funneling arms and advisors into the region to support the least evil of the factions.  We've certainly done it before.  I never really understood the reasoning for going to war, but that's just me, I guess I just think too much.

In any event, we will need more troops in there to stay the course, and we will lose more lives, and we will eventually leave without achieving our goals.  We'll have tried, but we'll fail.  This is a civil war.  Very much like conditions in Viet  Nam.  People fight for personal reasons in a civil war.  That gives them an edge.  They fight to the death because it is that important to them personally.  They're not being patriotic, or doing their duty.. that is the difference and why they will fight forever.

I read an interesting history of Viet Nam once [The ten thousand day war : Vietnam, 1945-1975 by Michael Maclear] that really taught me the difference between wars that are fought against an aggressor and wars that are internal [civil].  Viet Nam had both situations, as does Iraq now.  They fight among themselves and they fight against foreign involvement.  It's the lottery of "cause" combat.

Every day we stay there we solidify the fervor of the factions against us.  Every day we try to unite that which is divided, we strengthen the resolve of a particular faction to "win".  You just can't beat a man with a passionate cause.  That's something the United States has failed to learn on more than one occasion.  We're a nation of pragmatists.  We fight wears over money and American Interests,  not ideals.  But other nations do fight over ideals, and you cannot beat a man with a cause, because he will die for it--willingly.  If you don't understand that about your enemy, you will always fail.

Sometimes I think the answer for Iraq now is just to allow the inevitable to occur--civil war.  Iraq is a snowball rolling down a hill, it's got so much momentum now, nothing can stop it, short of a miracle.

Like I said before, how many American lives are we willing to throw on this pyre?

Beyond that, I think we all need to face that fact that our nation was *wrong*.  We have created a nightmare.  The United States of America did this to a nation of people who had done nothing to us, and the United States of America set off a chain of events that will be echoing into the majority of our grandchildren and perhaps beyond.

I doubt we can fix this.  I doubt we see the enormity of the problem even now.  We have blundered.. and set off a firecracker in the Middle East.  One that Islamic Extremists will use to fire up their followers for generations, much the same way Sinn Féin  had done against the British for decades.

There is no quick fix, all we have to determine is what plan allows the least amount of damage, and even then, I'm not sure such a strategy exists given the players.

[Zwolf]

Quote

Mark: I heard it all on television...last week's "Meet The Press", I believe it was.

You must have mistaken somebody's speculation for fact, then, because the Dems are saying they're not planning impeachment.   And, yes, I do have links:

Pelosi says no impeachment

here's another

Howard Dean also said no impeachment.

Cheers,

Zwolf

[enTranced]

Mark, on Nov 16 2006, 07:20 PM, said:

Mark: I'm not sure...I haven't talke to any Republicans lately. I believe the President has said we'll have to continue onward, even though it's not going to be easy. I think that is an understatement, however.

See what I mean?

It's ok to not have a plan. The first step to creating a plan is to admidt that you in fact, don't have one not to scream at the top of your lungs, ya, but they don't have one either!

I know it's hard after the most polorized era in American politics but we NEED to work together if we are going to solve this mess.

enTranced

[Mark]

enTranced, on Nov 16 2006, 01:28 PM, said:

Mark, on Nov 16 2006, 07:20 PM, said:

Mark: I'm not sure...I haven't talke to any Republicans lately. I believe the President has said we'll have to continue onward, even though it's not going to be easy. I think that is an understatement, however.

See what I mean?

It's ok to not have a plan. The first step to creating a plan is to admidt that you in fact, don't have one not to scream at the top of your lungs, ya, but they don't have one either!

I know it's hard after the most polorized era in American politics but we NEED to work together if we are going to solve this mess.

enTranced

Mark: I completely agree. We've seen how not working together makes things worse for everyone.

[Mark]

Zwolf, on Nov 16 2006, 01:28 PM, said:

Quote

Mark: I heard it all on television...last week's "Meet The Press", I believe it was.

You must have mistaken somebody's speculation for fact, then, because the Dems are saying they're not planning impeachment.   And, yes, I do have links:

Pelosi says no impeachment

here's another

Howard Dean also said no impeachment.

Cheers,

Zwolf

Mark: Oh yeah...I forgot...Pelosi is telling the far left wingers to lay off the impeachement ideas. I'm sure she's doing so for sound political reasoning.  

Edited by Mark, 16 November 2006 - 02:31 PM.

[enTranced]

Just want to say, well said Cait. Great post!

enTranced

[Mark]

enTranced, on Nov 16 2006, 01:32 PM, said:

Just want to say, well said Cait. Great post!

enTranced

Mark: Yeah, that was a pretty impressive post Cait. Ever consider running for political office?

[BklnScott]

Mark, on Nov 16 2006, 01:50 PM, said:

Mark: Cause the Dems don't have a plan...they never have.

Actually, we did.  It was called containment.  And here's the kicker: it. was. working.

[Mark]

ScottEVill, on Nov 16 2006, 01:35 PM, said:

Mark, on Nov 16 2006, 01:50 PM, said:

Mark: Cause the Dems don't have a plan...they never have.

Actually, we did.  It was called containment.  And here's the kicker: it. was. working.

Mark: Who were we supposed to be containing exactly?
Did we contain al-Qaida?   Whoopsie-daisy!

[SparkyCola]

Where's the 'What Gode said' button? Oh, here it is



*presses*

Sparky

Edited by SparkyCola, 16 November 2006 - 02:38 PM.

[Cait]

Balderdash, on Nov 16 2006, 11:14 AM, said:

Amazing!  Republicans with their rubber stamp gave Bush everything he wanted to have his war and now that it's in a shambles they now demand that the Democrats have a plan when their own went so badly.

Democrats are working on it which is a lot better than frickin' "stay the course".

What is the Republican plan?  G?  Mark?

And I hope voters are pounded with this come 2008.  I refuse to allow the Republicans to use the mess they created as an axe against the Democrats.

Anyone that thinks that this mess can be fixed in 2 years, even if every single man and woman in government was a Democrat, is insane.  The mess is too BIG.  The ramifications are enormous no matter what we do.  That's how bad this mess is.  It's not like we can use a reset button and make it all go away.  IT IS A DISASTER.

If Republicans choose a campaign strategy of scapegoating Democrats in 08, I will never vote for a Republican again -- and I have voted for a lot of them in my day.  I will do everything in my power to make sure that those cowards never see public service again.

[Drew]

Cait, on Nov 16 2006, 01:27 PM, said:

Deposing Saddam was a necessity I guess [he was eveil], but I'm not sure that couldn't have been done by funneling arms and advisors into the region to support the least evil of the factions. We've certainly done it before.

And that has always come back to bite us on the hinder, too.

I think we did it the best way we could. No sneakin' around. We told them it was coming. But I think this administration seriously misunderestimated the resistance they'd face -- not from the Iraqis who were freed from Saddam's rule, and are happy to have him gone -- but from terrorists who could rally a bunch of people to their cause. The kind of loyalty they enjoy is scary, and can't be easily overcome with bombs and bullets.

I think one important aim when leaving Iraq is to ensure that the new government has people in place to fill the vacancies. But another aim has to be to do it in a way that terrorists can't possibly construe it as a defeat of the U.S. That is a big problem. A hasty retreat will simply empower them, convince them that they can defeat us, and draw more people to their cause, because there are a lot of people all over the world who would love to see the U.S. suffer defeat.

Heck, we've got some homegrown ones, too.

[Themis]

Zwolf, on Nov 16 2006, 06:42 PM, said:

What I'm thinking we should maybe try to do is pull out of the really bad areas and put our troops in some of the areas that aren't in total chaos, so we can maintain stability where stability is, and see what happens in the areas where stability isn't.  Maybe things will settle down without our influence.  We could watch and see.  If it just got worse and worse, we could always send the troops back in, kill everybody, or whatever needed doing.

Wow, an actual idea!  Anybody else have time between slinging mud at the opposing political party to come up with any more ideas?

Is there anybody, any kind of leader, on the planet that all sides there respect?  Any two or three people who respect each other that all sides respect?  I don't see how anything will happen without intervention by people like that.

I haven't found that either party presents a united front on anything for many decades.  It's going to take some sort of coalition of very wise people to solve this one.  I don't think any kind of solution is going to be military unless some idiot decides to drop a nuke on the country.  Which would cause more problems than it would solve.

My only idea is to put an unpenetrable dome over the entire middle east until they either kill each other off or come to their senses, but I don't think we've got the technology.

Evacuate all women and children and leave it to the men to slug it out?

We shouldn't have gone there, we shouldn't be there.  But we're there.   I'm with Specs, and I'm tired of (usually G) turning these into bash-the-dems, no!, bash-the-republicans threads.  Does anybody have any actual suggestions of their own or that they've heard or read????  

If not, maybe these should be post-the-news only "threads" with no responses.

rant over

Or - scrolling back to see what's been posted since I started - What Cait Said!!

[BklnScott]

Mark, on Nov 16 2006, 02:37 PM, said:

ScottEVill, on Nov 16 2006, 01:35 PM, said:

Mark, on Nov 16 2006, 01:50 PM, said:

Mark: Cause the Dems don't have a plan...they never have.

Actually, we did.  It was called containment.  And here's the kicker: it. was. working.

Mark: Who were we supposed to be containing exactly?
Did we contain al-Qaida?   Whoopsie-daisy!

Let's not muddy the waters.  Iraq=Saddam.  Al Qaeda=bin Laden.  Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.  Al Qaeda had *everything* to do with it.  

The policy of containment was applied to Iraq, and -- again -- it was working.  Saddam was not a threat to his neighbors, and certainly not a threat to us.  We had peace (to quote Marlin Fitzwater--who's hardly a Democrat).  

Now, it will be a miracle if Iraq doesn't disappear from the map altogether.  Way to go, Mr President!

[Drew]

ScottEVill, on Nov 16 2006, 01:35 PM, said:

Mark, on Nov 16 2006, 01:50 PM, said:

Mark: Cause the Dems don't have a plan...they never have.

Actually, we did.  It was called containment.  And here's the kicker: it. was. working.

Every day Saddam remained in power he could continue destroying his own people and siphoning off the Oil-for-Food deal. If you consider that working, then I guess it was.

Under the Clinton Administration, everything short of invasion was attempted. Don't forget that Clinton dropped his share of bombs on Iraq as well.

It was going to come to this eventually. The only question was when. I submit that invading Iraq to topple Saddam was the right thing to do, but it may have been the wrong time to do it and because of the political situation here at home, George Bush may have been the wrong man to do it.