Do you support the Troops?

[Marco Zee]

You say you support the troops....really?????

The new generals and the President want to send reinforcements to support the troops and their mission, but many libs (and even some nervous poll-watching GOP's) do not want to send in reinforcements to support the troops already there.....how is that supporting the troops already there ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

OK you libs out there...answer the above question for the record.

Marco

[Flying Lobster]

Tricky boy up to his tricks again! Sillly rabbit--trix are for kids!

A non-binding resolution of disapproval is not the same thing as not supporting the troops--(except maybe to syncophants that can see the world only in terms of black-or-white, yer either for us or against us).

Mr. Bush cannot possibly win this war--the global complexities of the situation is simply beyond his intellectual capacity to grasp and deal with. Throwing more money and lives into the Iraq meatgrinder is not going to change anything until a regional power asserts itself with the necessary strength to control all the warring factions. The illusion that some kind of representative democracy will flourish, much less even govern in a true representative manner, in a region with such a historic background in strong religious conflict, is pure ideological fantasy.

Back before the Iraq war even started I warned that this action would result in a severe destabilization of the region and an empowering of the Iranian fundamental ruling elite. This elite has a track record of supporting terrorist actions against the US through proxy forces that goes back to the seventies through organizations such as the Hezbollah. Just as I predicted, we are now faced with an emboldened Iran that is now expanding and threatening US and other interests in the region.

Ironically, the administration's bungling and manipulation of intelligence data leading up to the Iraqi invasion has in fact resulted in skepticism regarding Iran's activities in Iraq--such as the shaped IED's--which I personally do not doubt for second that the ruling elite in Iran know of at least through implicit policies of regional expansion and terrorist organization support.

How are we going to be able to engage Iran militarily--when our forces are already worn down and bogged down in Iraq?

The Iranians are a beautiful and highly-cultured people, who unfortunately are ruled by a minority despotic religous fundamental elite. They, like us, are a great country that stands to pay an awful price for having a small group of fools lead them astray.

marc

[Paul Tjaden]

A couple nights back on the evening news, I watched an embedded reporter and a squad of soldiers venture into Baghdad to try to add security to a religous meeting of some kind. They were lucky that the IED explosion was poorly timed and all survived with only damage to their vehicles. After returning to the Green Zone the reporter asked the soldiers how they felt about their duty in Iraq. To the man, every soldier answered that they felt they had no place being involved in a civil war. They felt trapped in a situation where they were hated by all sides and there was no viable way to achieve victory.

These are the troops I want to support (not the Generals who sit safely behind their desks in one of Saddam's old palaces) and I want to do it by bringing them home before any more give up their lives or limbs for the misguided machinations of our ignorant and stubborn president.

Paul

[Marco Zee]

These are the troops I want to support (not the Generals who sit safely behind their desks in one of Saddam's old palaces) and I want to do it by bringing them home before any more give up their lives or limbs for the misguided machinations of our ignorant and stubborn president.

Paul

OK Paul,

These troops are there right now, TODAY AND FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE, don't you want them to have whatever they need to be safe and successful in their jobs...which could be body armor, night vision goggles, up-armored humvees, or troop reinforcements?

Until we change our mission there (as you are recommending), shouldn't we send these troops WHATEVER they need, including reinforcements? Isn't this SUPPORTING THE TROOPS that are already there, including the ones that don't want to be there?

Marco

[Marco Zee]

OK Paul,

These troops are there right now, TODAY AND FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE, don't you want them to have whatever they need to be safe and successful in their jobs...which could be body armor, night vision goggles, up-armored humvees, or troop reinforcements?

Until we change our mission there (as you are recommending), shouldn't we send these troops WHATEVER they need, including reinforcements? Isn't this SUPPORTING THE TROOPS that are already there, including the ones that don't want to be there?

Marco

Paul,
You never answered this poignant question. Anyone else can chime in also, not to pick on Paul exclusively.
Marco

[Flying Lobster]

Listen carefully Marco:

The commander of US forces in Iraq has said it,
The secdef has siad it:

The way to end the civil war in Iraq is to find a POLITICAL solution.

Lacking that, there is no VICTORY within a military sense--regardless of how many troops and material you throw at the problem.

marc

[Paul Tjaden]

OK Paul,

These troops are there right now, TODAY AND FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE, don't you want them to have whatever they need to be safe and successful in their jobs...which could be body armor, night vision goggles, up-armored humvees, or troop reinforcements?

Until we change our mission there (as you are recommending), shouldn't we send these troops WHATEVER they need, including reinforcements? Isn't this SUPPORTING THE TROOPS that are already there, including the ones that don't want to be there?

Marco

Paul,
You never answered this poignant question. Anyone else can chime in also, not to pick on Paul exclusively.
Marco

So Marco, You're idea of "supporting the troops " is to send in more troops to become canon fodder for the on going civil war, right? So I guess we then send in more troops to support that group and so on..... Don't you see a problem with this logic (or should I say lack of logic.

The only intelligent way out of George's mess is a phased withdrawl and the only way to really support the troops is to bring them home.

Paul

[Marco Zee]

Listen carefully Marco:

The commander of US forces in Iraq has said it,
The secdef has siad it:

The way to end the civil war in Iraq is to find a POLITICAL solution.

Lacking that, there is no VICTORY within a military sense--regardless of how many troops and material you throw at the problem.

marc

Wrong again, Marc.
A) There is NOT a civil war in Iraq (unless you read the NYT) according to the Iraqi people.
B) Victory is not only possible, but likely, assuming the Dems don't pull the funding of the war, which they do not have the courage to do.
Actions speak louder than words: the secdef has just sent 22,500+ troops to Iraq....why would he send them if the situation was as "hopeless" as you suggest that he has suggested.
Political solutions require negotiation and diplomacy, and the use of military force is a time tested form of diplomacy...so your desire for a "political" solution actually demands a military component. Reducing or eliminating the military component weakens your political standing and leverage.
And don't forget about those Al-quada types in Iraq....have they vanished? I think not.

Cutting and Running is not the path to victory in Iraq.

Marco

[deveil]

Political solutions require negotiation and diplomacy, and the use of military force is a time tested form of diplomacy...so your desire for a "political" solution actually demands a military component.Marco

there is, of course, truth to that statement. problem is - there may not be any relevance. ya see, one can go about spouting truisms all dang day long - the thing that points out an ideologue ('looked it up: syn. is fool) is that they don't bother doing a reality check about the relevance. and the ideologue - instead of adjusting his truisms to the reality - well he just goes ahead and whitewashes reality til it fits his truism. follow that marco? no? try reading more slowly.

Reducing or eliminating the military component weakens your political standing and leverage.

that's definitely true . . . Except when it's definitely not true.
it's only Absolutely true in the universe of someone who is an Absolutist (read ideologue).

Cutting and Running is not the path to victory in Iraq.

that's why the circular argument is one of an ideologues favorite crutches. better if they use just a singule crutch actually - it facilitates their signature flailing, circular staggering movement when they're really up to full rant speed. (a 'visual', of the pathetic guy faking being crippled, from the movie "there's something about mary" comes to mind )

circular arguments. ever heard of the em? that's why we're chasing our tails in the middle east, that's why there HAS to be wmd's, why this HAS to have been the right thing to have done - because it IS what we're DOING, and it looks like an impossibility to STOP doing it.
chasing your tail? you guys are more like a dog , chasing its tail and a car at the same time, in the middle of the friggin beltway. all the while maintainig, " i may not have caught anything yet, but if i stop, it's gauranteed that i won't catch anything!" "if YOU'RE so smart, YOU come up with a plan! ", you say.
unfortunately, we all ended up out there with you. but then, that WAS your plan.
now nobody has much of a choice but to keep running, because if we stop, not only will YOU not catch anything, but WE'LL ALL get run over.

[deveil]

Cutting and Running is not the path to victory in Iraq.

preciscion is when you can consistently keep hitting the same spot.

accuracy is when you actually hit a fricking target - with preciscion.

tossing pathetic sound bites about is neither.

unfortunately, in that you guys see Everything as merely mud-slinging contests - that's all you came supplied with.
but, as your brilliant hero rummy noted (irrelevantly) - you fight with what you got, not with what you wished you had.
so i suppose we should be tolerant when it becomes apparent (as it has) that Crap is All you Got - and all you'll ever Have.
and wishing won't change that - for any of us.

[Paul Tjaden]

[quote="Marco Zee"]
A) There is NOT a civil war in Iraq (unless you read the NYT) according to the Iraqi people.


Paul writes:

Oh Sure, Marco!!! The Sunni's love the Shia's, The Shia's love the Sunni's, and everyone loves the Kurd's! There ARE no Shia death squads or Sunni insurgents. The only people causing trouble are those damn Al Qaeda terrorists!!!

C'mon man if you'd use a small modicum of intelligence iand logic instead of quoting right wing bull shit from Sean Hannity, you might have a little bit of credibility in this forum. The way it is you just sound like an idiot.

Paul

[Marco Zee]

Paul, Look this over, then tell me if what I said still sounds idiotic.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 530526.ece

Excerpt: From The Sunday Times
March 18, 2007
Resilient Iraqis ask what civil war?
Marie Colvin
DESPITE sectarian slaughter, ethnic cleansing and suicide bombs, an opinion poll conducted on the eve of the fourth anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq has found a striking resilience and optimism among the inhabitants.

The poll, the biggest since coalition troops entered Iraq on March 20, 2003, shows that by a majority of two to one, Iraqis prefer the current leadership to Saddam Hussein’s regime, regardless of the security crisis and a lack of public services.

The survey, published today, also reveals that contrary to the views of many western analysts, most Iraqis do not believe they are embroiled in a civil war.

Officials in Washington and London are likely to be buoyed by the poll conducted by Opinion Research Business (ORB), a respected British market research company that funded its own survey of 5,019 Iraqis over the age of 18.

The poll highlights the impact the sectarian violence has had. Some 26% of Iraqis - 15% of Sunnis and 34% of Shi’ites - have suffered the murder of a family member. Kidnapping has also played a terrifying role: 14% have had a relative, friend or colleague abducted, rising to 33% in Baghdad.

Yet 49% of those questioned preferred life under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, to living under Saddam. Only 26% said things had been better in Saddam’s era, while 16% said the two leaders were as bad as each other and the rest did not know or refused to answer.

Not surprisingly, the divisions in Iraqi society were reflected in statistics — Sunnis were more likely to back the previous Ba’athist regime (51%) while the Shi’ites (66%) preferred the Maliki government.

Maliki, who derives a significant element of his support from Moqtada al-Sadr, the hardline Shi’ite militant, and his Mahdi army, has begun trying to overcome criticism that his government favours the Shi’ites, going out of his way to be seen with Sunni tribal leaders. He is also under pressure from the US to include more Sunnis in an expected government reshuffle.

The poll suggests a significant increase in support for Maliki. A survey conducted by ORB in September last year found that only 29% of Iraqis had a favourable opinion of the prime minister.

Another surprise was that only 27% believed they were caught up in a civil war. Again, that number divided along religious lines, with 41% of Sunnis believing Iraq was in a civil war, compared with only 15% of Shi’ites.

The survey is a rare snapshot of Iraqi opinion because of the difficulty of working in the country, with the exception of Kurdish areas which are run as an essentially autonomous province.

Most international organisations have pulled out of Iraq and diplomats are mostly holed-up in the Green Zone. The unexpected degree of optimism may signal a groundswell of hope at signs the American “surge” is starting to take effect.

This weekend comments from Baghdad residents reflected the poll’s findings. Many said they were starting to feel more secure on the streets, although horrific bombings have continued. “The Americans have checkpoints and the most important thing is they don’t ask for ID, whether you are Sunni or Shi’ite,” said one resident. “There are no more fake checkpoints so you don’t need to be scared.”

The inhabitants of a northern Baghdad district were heartened to see on the concrete blocks protecting an Iraqi army checkpoint the lettering: “Down, down with the militias, we are fighting for the sake of Iraq.”

It would have been unthinkable just a few weeks ago. Residents said they noted that armed militias were off the streets.

One question showed the sharp divide in attitudes towards the continued presence of foreign troops in Iraq. Some 53% of Iraqis nationwide agree that the security situation will improve in the weeks after a withdrawal by international forces, while only 26% think it will get worse.

“We’ve been polling in Iraq since 2005 and the finding that most surprised us was how many Iraqis expressed support for the present government,” said Johnny Heald, managing director of ORB. “Given the level of violence in Iraq, it shows an unexpected level of optimism.”

Despite the sectarian divide, 64% of Iraqis still want to see a united Iraq under a central national government.

One statistic that bodes ill for Iraq’s future is the number who have fled the country, many of them middle-class professionals. Baghdad has been hard hit by the brain drain — 35% said a family member had left the country.

Additional reporting: Ali Rifat

ORB interviewed a nationally representative sample of 5,019 Iraqi adults between February 10-22. The margin of error was +/- 1.4%.

[Flying Lobster]

"One question showed the sharp divide in attitudes towards the continued presence of foreign troops in Iraq. Some 53% of Iraqis nationwide agree that the security situation will improve in the weeks after a withdrawal by international forces, while only 26% think it will get worse."

Sharp divide? Looks like a clear 2 to one majority. I guess the above quote does make perfect Dr Strangelovian sense to increase the troop presence.

marc

[huddlec]

Paul,
From your response to Marco, it sounds like you might be a Tom Lehrer fan. Is that the case? Too bad Tom Lehrer isn't around writing songs for that show he used to write for (That Was The Week That Was). He would be having a field day.

And, Marco, if you have never heard of Tom Lehrer, you don't know what you're missing. He was both a Harvard math prof and a great writer of politically relevant songs. To listen to some: http://members.aol.com/quentncree/lehrer/

Christy

[huddlec]

Paul,
From your response to Marco, it sounds like you might be a Tom Lehrer fan. Is that the case? Too bad Tom Lehrer isn't around writing songs for that show he used to write for (That Was The Week That Was). He would be having a field day.

And, Marco, if you have never heard of Tom Lehrer, you don't know what you're missing. He was both a Harvard math prof and a great writer of politically relevant songs. To listen to some: http://members.aol.com/quentncree/lehrer/

Christy

[deveil]

modicum was the 'tell'
i believe he performed here in falls church at the wammies ceremony and is recently on somebodies album - just don't have the memory.

[Paul Tjaden]

[quote="Marco Zee"]Paul, Look this over, then tell me if what I said still sounds idiotic.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 530526.ece


The poll highlights the impact the sectarian violence has had. Some 26% of Iraqis - 15% of Sunnis and 34% of Shi’ites - have suffered the murder of a family member. Kidnapping has also played a terrifying role: 14% have had a relative, friend or colleague abducted, rising to 33% in Baghdad.

Paul writes:

I dunno Marco, this sounds pretty much like civil strife to me. I guess if the Iraqi's don't want to call it civil war they may be in denial like you and George.



One question showed the sharp divide in attitudes towards the continued presence of foreign troops in Iraq. Some 53% of Iraqis nationwide agree that the security situation will improve in the weeks after a withdrawal by international forces, while only 26% think it will get worse.

Paul writes:

Marco, If you're going to quote a news story that backs up your argument, you should make certain it doesn't end up winning the debate for the other side. I'd be happy to go along with this part. Let's get the hell out of there!

Paul

[hepcat1989]

Marco , I don't see you swaying anyone towards your side of the fence on any shit you stir up. You are always alone. Get George's dick out of your mouth. Go get a big bowl of potato chips and sit down in front of your Fox news! You're not changing anyone's opinion. We lost. (period) We accomplished nothing.(period) (Mission Accomplished?????) uh huh. George is so full of shit I can smell him at my house.You're not changing anyones opinion.

Sorry Pal.
Your friend Shawn.
P. S. I'm sure you will reply with a half a page, if not a full page of bla bla bla. It won't make a dent. Find some happiness. Go buy a dog or something. Dammm! Goldfish can be fun too!

[mcelrah]

It's all a kabuki dance. The new generals were chosen because they were willing to give it one last shot. It's a feeble effort - my number for making a real difference in Iraq is 500,000 troops - and even that might not be enough given how long the situation has been allowed to deteriorate. Obviously, neither Bush nor anyone else seriously entertains that. The mini-surge will run its course - with or without a supplemental appropriation (DoD can tighten its belt in other accounts - let contractors like me go, for instance - there will be no shortage of ammo) - and MORE troops will go home because they will have overstayed their deployment time, so the surge will be followed by a drawdown. We don't poll troops to see whether they want to deploy and we won't ask them whether they want to come home (but they all do). Contrary to Bush, it IS up to politicians here in Washington to decide, not the generals. Since he can't face the massive defeat he has led us into, it's up to Congress to withhold funding, admittedly a blunt instrument. Bush's game at this point is to try to spread the blame, claim the defeat wouldn't have happened if they kept the funding going - but Iraq was lost in 2004-5, if it was ever even winnable. - Hugh

[Flying Lobster]

Tighten your seat belts and get ready for the wild ride! Iraq was just the side show side to the main event which is about to happen--Iran.

marc

[mcelrah]

I would be very surprised if that happened. I think the Joint Chiefs would hunker down and refuse to give him a military option for Iran at this point. Not sure even Dubya is stupid enough to take on yet another conflict - Afghanistan could easily go sour (-er).

Last week I went to hear Lt Gen Carl Eikenberry, former commanding general in Afghanistan. The illicit economy (poppies) is 40% the size of the licit economy. Afghanistan is bigger than Iraq, and has a larger population. Absent a cash crop like poppies, I can't see how the economy can support 30 million people. So, assuming everything goes right there, we will be pouring tens of billions into Afghanistan for decades just to keep it afloat.

If we can just treat Iran with benign neglect for a few more years, I think there's a chance the younger generation will overthrow the mullahs. This is the only Muslim nation where the U.S. is still popular! The younger generation there is huge and they are fed up with the mullahs crap. They just want MTV and blue jeans - and jobs! The one way to change that is to invade...

- Hugh

[Flying Lobster]

I can't see how it's avoidable. Between their role as the #1 sponsor and supporter of international terrorism, soon to be builder and marketer of nuclear weapons, a leaning towards Husseinism martyrdom, and aggressively exploting the mess in Iraq--they will either keep eating away at the fringes or force an early confrontation. I don't believe GW will be able to keep his fingers off the trigger.

Can you say "$4.00 a gallon?"

marc

[mcelrah]

Bah! He shot his counter-proliferation wad prematurely with Iraq and has nothing left for Iran. He can't even sell deployment of anti-ballistic missile systems in Europe, whose only capability is against Iranian missiles and whose only beneficiaries are the Europeans themselves... - Hugh

[mcelrah]

$4/gallon - STILL too cheap! It's $7 in the Netherlands... - Hugh