Bush On Iraq: "We're not winning..."

I hope the people who have told us countless times how great this war will be judged by future generations will stop in on this thread.

And no, FH, he's not like Angelos. When Angelos screws up and is too proud to admit it, it's bad for a bunch of guys playing a game. This jackass here, he's more like the drunk guy who's too proud to admit that he can't drive himself.

Well, he's like that guy if that guy can fit a little over 3,000 people in the car with him.

 

At the risk of entering one of these logical sinkhole treads, why is it too late to get enough troops in there to accomplish something? Was there some sort of "point of no return" that was passed?

 

For one, there aren't any troops to put in. Most have been over there, or are about to be rotated over there, and there's a limit to how often guard and reserve units can be called up without their members staging a mutiny.

And yes, I think we have passed the point of no return. Without getting into the merits of the war, if we'd put more troops in in the first place, and concentrated on restoring the infrastructure, we'd probably be out of there now. But Rummy wanted to do it on the cheap, and now the entire population, down to 3-year-old girls, knows how to make IEDs.

 

The only way we "win" this war is to wipe out a whole helluva lot of people in this country. And even if we do that, there's no guarantee that civil war won't completely overtake the country as soon as we leave.

Had we put enough troops in there to start with, or acted quickly when the generals on the ground told this administration of the problems, we wouldn't have this shit storm. But as it is, anti-American folk spilled into this country by the truckload during the early stages of this war, they took over certain provinces, waged a propaganda war against the US, convinced the average citizens that we were the enemy and it's now too far gone to recover. We have no idea who likes us or hates us. Every time we kill or capture one insurgent, five take his place. And no matter how many troops you put in there, it comes down to one decision: Do we kill a bunch of people, including quite a few innocent people, or do we cut our losses and the losses of the Iraqi people and leave?

And leaving doesn't have to be a defeat. If we back a side in the sure-to-come civil war, which is already boiling over, we can still ensure that a US-friendly government takes over.

 

Hell has frozen over.

Dog, you know, I actually think you're making sense. Amazing that once you stop your piss on Bush rants what can happen. Good job. Shias for $5 billion, Alex.

 

To all the people who attempted to belittle Michael Moore and Fahrenheit 911... fucking shame on you.

 

accomplish something?

it's a civil war over there. One that we fomented.

 

dog --
We back one side in a civil war, namely the Shia, and we guarantee a generational occupation, our own role as the Brits in a better-armed Belfast, an Iran empowered beyond our wildest dreams, and a number of other really bad outcomes. I don't think all that's worth watching Bill Kristol's head explode when the WH hosts our new ally, al Sadr.

 

So, let me get this straight. Now that he wants to do the right thing, it's now the wrong thing?

Wow.

 

Yes, Dyepack, the point of no return was indeed passed, when this happened:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/22/international/middleeast/22cnd-iraq.html?ex=1298264400&en=9adec6f021cd67f5&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

 

TV -- I was thinking of a point in late January, 2001 myself.