Dechristo Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 Bringing the militia leaders in for talks would seem to be a good first step, but capturing their leaders by force needs to be on the table. Does he woo with a carrot or a stick? American penis sheath Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 Bringing the militia leaders in for talks would seem to be a good first step, but capturing their leaders by force needs to be on the table. Does he woo with a carrot or a stick? tictac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 a breath freshener is essential in Middle East mediation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 (edited) So, I actually think they are going in a smart direction here. It's either that or withdraw and cede the streets to the warlords, which is not working so well now at a clip of 100 executions/day. Bringing the militia leaders in for talks would seem to be a good first step, but capturing their leaders by force needs to be on the table. What new direction? We've been fighting the militias since we invaded, with ill effect. Our latest crackdown produced a spike in violence. Just last week the NYT quoted our top general in Iraq as saying he didn't know what we were going to do next. Now a 'new strategy' suddenly appears right before the election? Bushit. Militias can provide security that the government can't as well as add to the violence. I can go both ways. Rather than continuing to fight the militias, which pretty much means fighting the clans they protect, it would be better to bring them their leadership to a neutral, political bargaining table. Neutrality might require that we step aside and let another entity adjudicate the negotiations with the Iraqi government and the clans. If they don't show, we're no worse off than we are now. If they show, we isolate those that don't and concentrate any military efforts on the holdouts. An unwillingness to fight the militias, and thus the clans, has been a major reason why Iraqi forces have shown as little results as they have to date. There's no reason to assume this will change any time soon. Edited October 25, 2006 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted October 25, 2006 Author Share Posted October 25, 2006 You don't understand. Now we are giving them milestones to achieve. The Bushies are very good at disposing of recent history and their continued bumbling of the war. A few of the many major blunders: Going at it with too small a force. Rumsfeld wanted to validate his quick strike force pet project. De-Bathification. Most folks just joined the Bath party to get higher pay. They were the teachers and career beauracrats that ran the country. Disband the army. No more be said here. Stiff-arm the state department. Even Condi, then national security adviser, was told by Rumsfeld that she was not in the loop. Loyalty tests. Rather than hire seasoned professionals who knew how to set up governments the Bushies hired people with no experience but goose-stepped the party line. Hiring questions included - Who did you vote for in the last election? What is you opinion on abortion? etc. Amazing. The 28 yr old hired to get the Iraq minerals mining department up and running was searching the web for how to do this (no briefing books supplied) and finally gave up in frustration and spend his days writing poetry to his girlfriend. Iraq is lost. There was a small window of opportunity and Bush bumbled it big time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 A few of the many major blunders: You forgot Blunder # 1: Invading Iraq. I often hear the old 'hindsight is 20 20' line, but just about everyone I know predicted this debacle six months before the war started. We knew that the WMD line was a load of crap, just as we knew that Bush was a lying fuckup who couldn't lead his way out of a shopping bag. I agree that Iraq is lost, but would add that the Iraq we hoped to create was always a fiction. Everything now is just damage control, and I'm not sure our presence is helping. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted October 25, 2006 Author Share Posted October 25, 2006 Everything now is just damage control, and I'm not sure our presence is helping. Unfortunately true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 A few of the many major blunders: You forgot Blunder # 1: Invading Iraq. I often hear the old 'hindsight is 20 20' line, but just about everyone I know predicted this debacle six months before the war started. We knew that the WMD line was a load of crap, just as we knew that Bush was a lying fuckup who couldn't lead his way out of a shopping bag. I agree that Iraq is lost, but would add that the Iraq we hoped to create was always a fiction. Everything now is just damage control, and I'm not sure our presence is helping. Blunder #1 Bush Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 just 1:15 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 (edited) Blunder #1 Bush "Iraqi Leader Disavows any Timetable" NYT article Is that lying sack of shit predictable or what? Our choice is clear; Send in Ralph Nader...without a flak jacket. Edited October 25, 2006 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marylou Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 I heard a sound byte from Gary Hart today that summed things up pretty good. This is paraphrased because Google isn't giving me the verbatim: "Bush was either given bad information about WMDs in Iraq, or he gave Congress bad information about WMDs in Iraq. If the former is the case, the person that gave the president the bad information should be fired. If the latter was the case, and the President lied to Congress, then he should be fired." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephH Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 Three years after the invasion and we're reduced to trying to secure Baghdad? If Iraq were WWII France it would be like having our backs against the water trying to hold the beaches at Normandy in a retreat three weeks after having broken out of them for the countryside. It was stupid going in, but even in that the administration has wasted one opportunity after another and now it's too late to salvage any of it. The lot of them should be up for treason as far as I'm concerned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 All this mess, and we even had a practice war beforehand. Bush wanted to down in history as the New Bold. Well, he'll go down in history alright, with a few other adjectives attached to his name. But, in the end, Bush is a party man. If the GOP takes its expected drubbing (and probably even if not), look for a phased withdrawal (called something else, of course) to be complete by Nov 2008. Iraq's clans will probably duke it out for a while, until the Shiites, aided by Iran, stomp the Sunnis, or they agree to split the joint up. Meanwhile, we'll tiptoe out and blame the mess we leave behind on the Iraqi government's lack of will and cooperation. Or we'll have another protracted Vietnam, with the exact same result in the end. I have spoken. Perhaps, however, I have spoken bullshit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 Unfortunately true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Can%27t_Wait http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Communist_Party%2C_USA Still waiting for some "truth" from you, Jim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TREETOAD Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 One option that is being overlooked is to let Saddam go and allow him to get Iraq back to the stable albeit fucking wacky, country it was before the boobs in wonderland invaded the place. I mean now that we know he had no WMD etc there is no reason to hold him. Seeing as George is about as guilty as Saddam is of anything that he is being charged with. Give yourself the benefit of the doubt and call it a draw and get the fuck out. Either way it will be a blood bath there for years to come. It is up to Rumsfield et al to decide from whose arteries it flows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 Unfortunately true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Can%27t_Wait http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Communist_Party%2C_USA Still waiting for some "truth" from you, Jim. What is this guy smoking? Hmmmmm. And we come full circle. Far out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 From what I've been reading, it appears that Maliki's days are numbered and that trying to replace Maliki and his government with a "strongman" or junta looks increasingly likely. Where this group will come from or from which element of Iraqi society they will draw their power is a complete mystery. This administration does not seem capable of letting an opportunity to foster bloodshed and chaos while thoroughly embarassing itself pass; don't be suprised to see some new faces installed when the "benchmarks" aren't met. Bedtime for "democracy" I guess, is it just me or does there seem to be a pattern of US support for dictatorships to defend democracy? Whatup with that? What seems to be missing in this discussion thread is the understanding the extent to which the armed militias and are embedded in the existing political structure. "Taking on the militias", as Maliki (and the US knows), is suicidal. The extent of the al-Sadr militia's power was evidenced quite spectacularly this week with the release of a high level militia leader by Maliki himself and their armed takeover of a southern Iraqi city. Their activity in the highest levels of the police are well documented as death squads run amok with impugnity. There is no "getting tough", the US has no hand to play unless turning non-Green Zone Baghdad into Fallujah-the Extreme Edition or "turning the desert to glass" is your bag of tricks. As pacifying Baghdad in the last month or so has proved a disaster tactically and politically, so goes the military occupation itself. What a complete and utterly tragic (not to say avoidable) adventure this has been. Can any of you find anything redeeming in this at all? I address this question specifically to those on this discussion board that supported this misadventure from day one, bought the bullshit, shovelled it thick, defended the undefendable, excused the inexcusable. Have you rethought your positions? Hundreds of thousands are dead as a result of this war, that's a fact. How will you view your support for this war in the years to come? History has failed you once again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marylou Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 What a complete and utterly tragic (not to say avoidable) adventure this has been. Can any of you find anything redeeming in this at all? I address this question specifically to those on this discussion board that supported this misadventure from day one, bought the bullshit, shovelled it thick, defended the undefendable, excused the inexcusable. Have you rethought your positions? Hundreds of thousands are dead as a result of this war, that's a fact. How will you view your support for this war in the years to come? History has failed you once again. It's always been a really stupid idea, but I guess I can say that it's worse than maybe I imagined. Another question I ask myself is has this invasion/occupation contributed to the current instability in the entire region? Things have really gone to shit in the neighborhood since the occupation began. When I say that right now I'm ashamed to be an American, some question my patriotism, but for us to do this to the Iraqi people for no particular reason, well, that's just inconscionable IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 One option that is being overlooked is to let Saddam go and allow him to get Iraq back to the stable albeit fucking wacky, country it was before the boobs in wonderland invaded the place. I mean now that we know he had no WMD etc there is no reason to hold him. Seeing as George is about as guilty as Saddam is of anything that he is being charged with. Give yourself the benefit of the doubt and call it a draw and get the fuck out. Either way it will be a blood bath there for years to come. It is up to Rumsfield et al to decide from whose arteries it flows. Why on Earth would anyone have thought Saddam had WMD's?? I mean, Saddam was just an all-around misunderstood guy, eh Treefrog? And yes, Allison - I too am ashamed that you're an American. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winter Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 Mmoderator please edit that out. FW, you're losing it. Get help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 Mmoderator please edit that out. FW, you're losing it. Get help. Do you even know where that picture was taken, or who the killer was? If you're disturbed by images of Saddam's handy work, then you have no business commenting on our subsequent actions - IMO, of course. Back to your obnoxious briefs now, crybaby. No moderator will save you from your own weak constitution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 Why on Earth would anyone have thought Saddam had WMD's?? Because they had a grudge to settle and wanted oil? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 Fairweather, apparently you fail to realize that if somehow the administration and the architects of this colossal, regional (soon to be global), unprecedented fucking DISASTER had known in advance how big the landmine they were stepping on was, they would never have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein. In fact, in this entirely hypothetical "what-if" world, I'm willing to bet they would be funding the extermination of Saddam's rivals real, potential, and imaginary (just as they were when the photo above was taken) to insure that what is happening in Iraq right now could never happen in a million years. Saddam Hussein's regime is distant unattainable wet-dream for American elites! Wake up. Everybody else has. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 Dixie Chicks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Trippett Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 My Dixie Wrecked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.