What Is The Iraq Answer

[HeinekenMan]

There's been a lot of belly-aching of late, and I'm as guilty as anyone in these parts. But how exactly does anyone fix this problem? Has it all gone past the point of no return? Is there any sort of resolution that will obtain the ultimate goal of giving Iraq a long-term democratic political system led by reasonable people?

Frankly, I don't have the faintest idea of what will be best, and that's only because I feel that we have a moral obligation to make all of the suffering worthwhile for the Iraqi's who have endured so much death and destruction. We can't just pack it up and go home overnight. But I also want the young kids back where they're safe ASAP.

Does anyone have a solution to pitch or an idea presented by anyone anywhere?

 

[BYH]

The answer was no.

 

[Rufino]

Unfortunately, there is no answer. After blowing their country up and occupying it, any idea we endorse will be D.O.A. with almost the entire population. The best we can hope for is some sort of face saving plan to get the hell out (right now dividing it into seperately governed territories/states/provinces seems to be the most popular idea of how) and let them sort out the eventual political situation once we're gone.

 

[Chi City 81]

Stay the course. [/Fredo]

 

[ifilus]

 

[old_tony]

I know Doc and the other lefties of this board will call me an asshole, but here's a novel idea:

WIN the ****ing thing. Fight like we're trying to win the ****ing thing instead of just play defense and be sitting ducks.

 

[Chi City 81]

I know Doc and the other lefties of this board will call me an asshole, but here's a novel idea:

WIN the ****ing thing. Fight like we're trying to win the ****ing thing instead of just play defense and be sitting ducks.

Interesting idea. I can't believe no one ever thought of that.

Of course, to do this they'll likely have to at least double the current troop level. Where do you propose we find several hundred thousand more conscripts? A draft, perhaps? You may be too old to have to worry about it, but I'm not. And I'm registered with the SSA.

 

[old_tony]

I know Doc and the other lefties of this board will call me an asshole, but here's a novel idea:

WIN the ****ing thing. Fight like we're trying to win the ****ing thing instead of just play defense and be sitting ducks.

Interesting idea. I can't believe no one ever thought of that.

Of course, to do this they'll likely have to at least double the current troop level. Where do you propose we find several hundred thousand more conscripts? A draft, perhaps? You may be too old to have to worry about it, but I'm not. And I'm registered with the SSA.

Tell you what, Doc: If you get drafted, I'll join up. I might need an extra couple weeks of basic, though.

 

[pallister]

C. The answer is always C.

 

[Chi City 81]

C. The answer is always C.

Mancow fan, eh?

 

[buckweaver]

I'm eligible for the draft, too. And now that I'm out of school and single ... yeah.

I fail to see the humor in fighting in a war that I protested against three times. (Had to explain that one to my USMC buddies from back home the first time around, but we're all on the same side now.)

 

[pallister]

What humor? I don't think even people who support the military action think a draft is the answer.

 

[Herbert Anchovy]

Find a pus-encrusted cyst on your ass like El Rushbo did and take out a medical deferment. It'll work every time.

What's the answer to this? Well, first of all, take some time to figure out who the **** you're fighting, where you want to fight them and what their tactical weaknesses are. Goes all the way back to Sun Tzu. But nobody ever accused any of these people of thinking things through.

The classical U.S. military doctrine of overwhelming firepower and close air support is now antiquated. Gone. See ya at the movies. It held up in the early days of the invasion, back when everyone thought this was going to be a homecoming game against McNeese State, and led to a smashing victory by coalition forces. But as the war in Iraq turned from Axis and Allies-type tabletop battles to a swarming insurgency, Rumsfeld and friends found it difficult to make needed adjustments on the fly.

Mainly because they didn't have the faintest clue what they were getting themselves into in the first place.

 

[Songbird]

The answer is that it's going to get a thousand-fold worse on so many levels. I don't know the answer, either. It's not just Iraq anymore. It's Iran and Syria and Israel and, well, the entire damn region.

 

[Football_Bat]

Find me a cleaner copy of that and I will put that in my sig.

 

[MCEchan36]

I say we pull out and take EVERYTHING with us. They don't like us that much? OK, that's fine. We'll just leave and take all of our medicine, food and supplies. Want to complain? Talk to the assholes that kept blowing both your people and ours up all the time. And let's not kid ourselves here: this war was about oil, so unfortunately (and I hate to say this b/c I know people over there), a lot of good men and women have died in vain. If it was really about getting rid of Hussein, a small SEALs team would have gone in, taken out some of his top men and then given him a double-tap to the noggin. That's all she wrote.

 

[kingcreole]

I know Doc and the other lefties of this board will call me an asshole, but here's a novel idea:

WIN the ****ing thing. Fight like we're trying to win the ****ing thing instead of just play defense and be sitting ducks.

Tony, that's a noble concept, but it's impossible. Terrorists will never go away. They've been fighting in Iraq/Middle East for centuries. They'll be fighting for more centuries.

This is an unwinnable war and it has been from the start.

 

[Pilot]

['

This is an unwinnable war and it has been from the start.
[/quote]

has it? Seems like a little better plan back in '03 might have worked ... now I don't know what that plan would have been, but it seems that way.

I was reading a short piece in the latest Time, and they had some "interview" with one of the biggest guys doing all the kidnapping. Lord knows if it was even him -- they sent a paper with some questions to a source who gave it to this guy, who answered the questions and set the paper back -- but he was like "Oh yeah, I used to love the US when they came in and took Saddam down, but now I see what their true goals were, so that's why I kidnap thousands of people and kill them all" .... I might have paraphrased a bit.

Anyway, if there's any truth to that at all, maybe if the cards had been played a little better early, we wouldn't be in this mess. I'm not sure why that guy's opinion of us has changed so much ... I mean, does he think we want to keep 100,000+ troops there for 100 years? If so, someone should sit down and explain a few things. What did he expect, anyway? Did he think we'd just roll the tanks in, knock off Saddam, then throw them in "R" and move out two weeks later? That would have been pretty stupid too, I think. Where did we loose all the people of Iraq? Obviously when their houses got blown to hell, their fathers got shot to **** bla bla bla, but I think if they'd just stop blowing the **** out of one another for a few days, kick the insane Pakistani out of their guest bedroom and chill the **** out, we'd be able to have most people gone in six months. They clearly don't agree, however. Why not?

I didn't have a huge problem with the war when it started, and for a long time I didn't have a HUGE problem with the way it was being run. Up until a few weeks ago I thought giving the country up to the vultures would be far worse than staying, but now ... what a cluster ****. I don't know that we can do anymore good, no matter how many more troops are there. Short of moving in damn near everything we have, all the way down to Civil War reenactors and putting people on every street corner until **** settles down, I don't think there's any way to win it. Maybe six months ago, but not now. And even if we tried that now, it'd probably just reinforce the Iraqies thoughts that we're trying to turn them into the 51st state.

I'm glad this hasn't turned into a complete and total Bush-bash fest of a thread ... it clearly has the potential. But these are real questions, and there are real answers (pull out, included, as is "we're ****ed"), questions that usually get igorned with the "Bush sucks" comedy hour begins.

 

[Ace]

I know Doc and the other lefties of this board will call me an asshole, but here's a novel idea:

WIN the ****ing thing. Fight like we're trying to win the ****ing thing instead of just play defense and be sitting ducks.

Win? If the goal is to create a stable, Democratic Iraq that will work with us and be an ally, how do we win?

 

[MCEchan36]

As my dear old Dad would say: get all of our boys out of there and if any jerks out there start causing trouble, push the Big Red Button.