The Capital Awaits a Masterstroke on Iraq

[boutons_]

December 17, 2006

Brainstorming on Iraq

The Capital Awaits a Masterstroke on Iraq

By HELENE COOPER
WASHINGTON

SOMEONE in Vice President Dick Cheney (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/dick_cheney/index.html?inline=nyt-per)’s office has gotten everybody on this city’s holiday party circuit talking, simply by floating an unlikely Iraq (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iraq/index.html?inline=nyt-geo) proposal that is worthy of a certain mid-19th century British naturalist with a fascination for natural selection.

We shall call it the Darwin Principle.

The Darwin Principle, Beltway version, basically says that Washington should stop trying to get Sunnis and Shiites to get along and instead just back the Shiites, since there are more of them anyway and they’re likely to win in a fight to the death. After all, the proposal goes, Iraq is 65 percent Shiite and only 20 percent Sunni.

Sorry, Sunnis.

The Darwin Principle is radical, decisive and most likely not going anywhere. But the fact that it has even been under discussion, no matter how briefly, says a lot about the dearth of good options facing the Bush administration and the yearning in this city for some masterstroke to restore optimism about the war.

As President Bush and his deputies chew over whether there’s a Hail Mary pass to salvage Iraq, it has become increasingly clear that the president will probably throw the ball toward his secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/condoleezza_rice/index.html?inline=nyt-per).

Make no mistake, the Rice way is a long shot as well. It’s a catchall of a plan that has something for everyone. Its goal — if peace and victory can’t be had — is at least to give a moderate Shiite government the backbone necessary to stand up to radicals like Moktada al-Sadr (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/moktada_al_sadr/index.html?inline=nyt-per) through new alliances with moderate Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.

In this plan, America’s Sunni Arab allies would press centrist Iraqi Sunnis to support a moderate Shiite government. Outside Baghdad, Sunni leaders would be left alone to run Sunni towns. Radical Shiites, no longer needed for the coalition that keeps the national government afloat, would be marginalized. So would Iran and Syria. To buy off the Sunni Arab countries, the United States would push forward on a comprehensive peace plan in Israel and the Palestinian territories.

The Rice plan seems diplomatic and reasoned. But it breaks no molds. Which is why examining the Darwin Principle better helps explain the mood of the capital right now.

“Deciding to side with the Shia is probably the most inflammatory thing we could do right now,” says Wayne White, a member of the Iraq Study Group who is now at the Middle East Institute, a research center here. “It would be a multi-headed catastrophe.”

At first glance, the idea of siding with the Shiites doesn’t seem that crazy. America has, after all, had more spectacular trouble of late from Sunni extremists like Al Qaeda (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/a/al_qaeda/index.html?inline=nyt-org) and the Taliban (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/t/taliban/index.html?inline=nyt-org) than from Shiites, whose best-remembered attacks on Americans were two decades ago, by hostage-takers in Iran and truck bombers in Lebanon.

But Middle East experts can provide a long list of reasons why a survival-of-the-fittest theory might not necessarily be the best way to conduct American foreign policy in Iraq. First, they say, it’s always dangerous to take sides in a civil war. Second, siding with the Shiites in a Shiite-Sunni war is particularly dangerous since most of the Arab world is Sunni and America’s major Arab allies are Sunni. Besides Iraq, Shiites form a large majority only in Iran, and, well, enough said there.

If America has problems now with Muslim extremists around the world, those would likely worsen if the United States was believed to have aided the uprooting or extermination of Iraq’s Sunni population.

On Monday, a group of prominent Saudi clerics called on Sunni Muslims everywhere to mobilize against Shiites in Iraq, complaining that Sunnis were being murdered and marginalized by Shiites.

So, where is the Darwin Principle coming from?

Well, there’s no proof Mr. Cheney really even backs it. Unnamed government officials with knowledge in the matter say the proposal comes from his office, but they stop short of saying it comes from Mr. Cheney himself.

Other top officials say it is highly unlikely that the administration would pursue such a radical course. (Of course, the radical nature of the Darwin Principle is all the more reason to assume it comes from Mr. Cheney himself.) But it is difficult to imagine the administration actually publicly announcing such a course even if it decided on it.

Can you just hear President Bush’s speech to the nation? “My Fellow Americans, the United States has decided that there are more Shiites than Sunnis in Iraq, so we are therefore going to side with the people most likely to win a fight to the death. We’ll figure out how to deal with the rest of the Arab world, where there are more Sunnis than Shiites, later.”

Still, somewhere deep inside the Beltway, someone has laid out the intellectual basis for the Shiite option. So some people with knowledge of the thinking behind the proposal were asked to explain it. None agreed to be identified, citing an administration edict against talking about President Bush’s change-of-strategy in Iraq before the president articulates exactly what that change will be. But here’s what they said:

America abandoned the Shiites in 1991 and look where that got us. Mr. Cheney has argued that America can’t repeat what it did after the Persian Gulf war, when it called on the Shiites to rise up against Saddam Hussein (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/saddam_hussein/index.html?inline=nyt-per), then left them to be slaughtered when they did. The result was 12 more years of the Iraqi dictator’s iron-fisted rule, which ended up leading to war anyway.

Reconciliation hasn’t worked. The logic of the past couple of years has been that Iraq’s Constitution and election process would bring together the Sunnis and the Shiites. Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/nuri_kamal_al-maliki/index.html?inline=nyt-per) was eventually able to formulate a so-called National Unity Government in which Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds all hold key positions.

That government has proved itself to be “disappointing,” one senior administration official acknowledged delicately. And violence has continued to surge.

Maybe America can scare the Sunnis into behaving. That’s the “stare into the abyss” strategy, another senior administration official said. He said that for the past three years, Sunni insurgent groups, and many Sunni politicians, have refused to recognize that the demographics of Iraq are not in their favor. Sunni insurgents can share the responsibility with Shiite death squads for the violence in Iraq, but the Sunnis have the most to lose in an all-out civil war, since they are outnumbered three to one. So perhaps Darwin Principle proponents — whoever they are — just want to scare Sunnis, including those in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other American allies, into trying harder for reconciliation.

Ms. Rice “does not believe we should plainly take one side over another,” said a State Department official, who said he doesn’t support the Shiite option but sees the convoluted logic of it. “But the demography of Iraq is a fact.”

The longer America tries to woo the Sunnis, the more it risks alienating the Shiites and Kurds, and they’re the ones with the oil. A handful of administration officials have argued that Iraq is not going to hold to together and will splinter along sectarian lines. If so, they say, American interests dictate backing the groups who control the oil-rich areas.

Darwin? Try Machiavelli. An even more far-fetched offshoot of the Darwin Principle is floating around, which some hawks have tossed out in meetings, although not seriously, one administration official said. It holds that America could actually hurt Iran by backing Iraq’s Shiites; that could deepen the Shiite-Sunni split and eventually lead to a regional Shiite-Sunni war. And in that, the Shiites — and Iran — lose because, while there are more Shiites than Sunnis in Iraq and Iran, there are more Sunnis than Shiites almost everywhere else.

Wow.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/17/weekinreview/17cooper.html?pagewanted=print

==============

Some crazy-assed shit.

The Repugs of course don't give shit about Iraq, only about the Repugs, who are now in mortal danger of being convicted and tatooed for decades in US and world opinion of having lied their way into an unnecessary war, and then incompently losing the war, and totally de-stabilizing a stable M/E.

The dominant reason dubya doesn't want to change course is, apart from dubya being a cretinous dumbfuck too dumb to realize how fucking dumb hie is, that if he changes course,

1) he admits his previous course (unnecessary war incompetently executed) was wrong

2) if the new course fails too, then there will be absolutely no way the dubya, dickhead, and the Repugs can escape the verdict of having lost Iraq.

My guess is that dubya will opt to stay the course, with minor, unannounced corrections, stumble along, wasting a 1000 more US military lives in 2007, 2008. Saying all the time "absolutely, I am winning", then, chickenshit/Melo-girly-slapper that he is, "get the fuck ouf of Dodge" in Jan 2009, dumping the stinking mess on the next (Dem) administration. Then the Repugs' lying/sliming machine will blame "losing Iraq" on the Dems, saying the Repugs were winning in Iraq, and it was the Dems who fucked up and lost Iraq.

We saw theis Repug lying/spining machine in full gale force last week as dubya and dickhead hit govt funds for $Ms and 1000s of military man-hours as they feted dicky's good buddy Rummy as a retiring national hero to whom the nation should bow down, when in fact, Rummy was ignominiously fired for total, demonstrable, murderous incompetence, matched or exceeded only by the criminal incompetence of the CPA, which was nothing but a political branch of the Repug party.

The Repugs can't win in Iraq, so they will murder truth by spinning out "Repug history", which is as credible as "Repug science"

[boutons_]

Condi is going around spinning that the "instability" that Repug fuckups created in the M/E is actually good for the USA.

I think this will morph eventually into, as the goal posts get moved yet again, "the primary justification for invading Iraq was to create instability and thereby the conditions for all-out regional war between Sunni and Shia".

[PixelPusher]

"There's been a certain amount of pop sociology in America, that the Shia can't get along with the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There's been almost no evidence of that at all." - Bill Kristol, head neocon at the National Review

[boutons_]

Hey, Kristol, there's no evidence that there ever was a functioning country called Iraq, never mind a democracy.

[Extra Stout]

I'm speechless.

[spurster]

It's simple to implement The Darwin Principle. Just leave Iraq.

I think a better idea is to partition the country into Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiittes. It's pretty clear that they aren't going to get along with each other. To have democracy, you need to have a "loyal opposition", and that just doesn't exist in Iraq.

[boutons_]

dubya: "Absolutely, we’re winning."

but:

Iraq Violence Reaches Record Levels, Pentagon Report Says

By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 18, 2006; 5:24 PM

Violence in Iraq rose across the board this fall to the highest levels on record, fueled by the growth of Shiite militia that have replaced al-Qaeda as the most dangerous force propelling the nation toward civil war, according to a new Pentagon report released this afternoon.

( Pentagon is actually a news diffusing subsidiary of CNN, WP, NYT http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif )

Attack levels reached record highs in all categories as the number of coalition casualties surged 32 percent and the number of weekly attacks rose 22 percent nationwide from mid-August to mid-November, compared with the previous three months, according to the congressionally mandated Pentagon report.

The report documents that U.S. and Iraqi operations to quell violence in Baghdad ultimately failed, with attacks dipping in August before rebounding in September as death squads adapted to the increased presence of U.S. and Iraqi troops.

Meanwhile, Iraqi public fears of civil war grew, while confidence in the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki dropped significantly as Maliki's efforts at political reconciliation have shown "little progress," the report said.

Titled "Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq," the 50-page report is issued quarterly and compiled by the Pentagon at the behest of Congress.

It found that Iraqi civilian casualties rose 60 percent following the rise of the Maliki government in May.

=====================

you're doing a heckuva a job, dubya

.... just like rummy did


dubya: "Absolutely, we’re winning."

[ChumpDumper]

The president announces a major shift in the execution of a war, then delays it for a month.

Has anything like this ever happened in the history of this country?

[Yonivore]

The president announces a major shift in the execution of a war, then delays it for a month.

Has anything like this ever happened in the history of this country?
Yes, Virginia, prior to Vietnam, there were entire campaigns planned, scrapped, planned again, scrapped again, and then executed without ever being revealed to the American people.

When did Americans hear about D-Day?

[ChumpDumper]

So your answer is no.

RIF.

[boutons_]

http://www.prankplace.com/bushtoiletpaper.htm

http://www.prankplace.com/images/bushgags/bushpaper.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

So is Bushie trying to work some kind of Hail Mary troop surge to try to, well, do whatever he says constitutes victory this week?

Or what?

[ChumpDumper]

I get the feeling that the AEI surge plan is going to be used because their report had the word "Victory" in the title. Maybe they will call it Operation Forward Together Again.

Then I will ask the question: Has the US president ever announced a major shift in war policy, then delayed it for a month, and then ended up going with a plan put forth by a history professor who was selling his plan in print, on TV and radio?

[boutons_]

White House, Joint Chiefs At Odds on Adding Troops

By Robin Wright and Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, December 19, 2006; A01

The Bush administration is split over the idea of a surge in troops to Iraq, with White House officials aggressively promoting the concept over the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to U.S. officials familiar with the intense debate.

Sending 15,000 to 30,000 more troops for a mission of possibly six to eight months is one of the central proposals on the table of the White House policy review to reverse the steady deterioration in Iraq. The option is being discussed as an element in a range of bigger packages, the officials said.

But the Joint Chiefs think the White House, after a month of talks, still does not have a defined mission and is latching on to the surge idea in part because of limited alternatives, despite warnings about the potential disadvantages for the military, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the White House review is not public.

The chiefs have taken a firm stand, the sources say, because they believe the strategy review will be the most important decision on Iraq to be made since the March 2003 invasion.

( Gates, the WH's new fall man, said he would listen to the military, let's see if does )

At regular interagency meetings and in briefing President Bush last week, the Pentagon has warned that any short-term mission may only set up the United States for bigger problems when it ends. The service chiefs have warned that a short-term mission could give an enormous edge to virtually all the armed factions in Iraq -- including al-Qaeda's foreign fighters, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias -- without giving an enduring boost to the U.S military mission or to the Iraqi army, the officials said.

The Pentagon has cautioned that a modest surge could lead to more attacks by al-Qaeda, provide more targets for Sunni insurgents and fuel the jihadist appeal for more foreign fighters to flock to Iraq to attack U.S. troops, the officials said.

The informal but well-armed Shiite militias, the Joint Chiefs have also warned, may simply melt back into society during a U.S. surge and wait until the troops are withdrawn -- then reemerge and retake the streets of Baghdad and other cities.

Even the announcement of a time frame and mission -- such as for six months to try to secure volatile Baghdad -- could play to armed factions by allowing them to game out the new U.S. strategy, the chiefs have warned the White House.

The idea of a much larger military deployment for a longer mission is virtually off the table, at least so far, mainly for logistics reasons, say officials familiar with the debate. Any deployment of 40,000 to 50,000 would force the Pentagon to redeploy troops who were scheduled to go home.

A senior administration official said it is "too simplistic" to say the surge question has broken down into a fight between the White House and the Pentagon, but the official acknowledged that the military has questioned the option. "Of course, military leadership is going to be focused on the mission -- what you're trying to accomplish, the ramifications it would have on broader issues in terms of manpower and strength and all that," the official said.

The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, said military officers have not directly opposed a surge option. "I've never heard them be depicted that way to the president," the official said. "Because they ask questions about what the mission would be doesn't mean they don't support it. Those are the kinds of questions the president wants his military planners to be asking."

The concerns raised by the military are sometimes offset by concerns on the other side. For instance, those who warn that a short-term surge would harm longer-term deployments are met with the argument that the situation is urgent now, the official said. "Advocates would say: 'Can you afford to wait? Can you afford to plan in the long term? What's the tipping point in that country? Do you have time to wait?' "

Which way Bush is leaning remains unclear. "The president's keeping his cards pretty close to his vest," the official said, "and I think people may be trying to interpret questions he's asking and information he's asking for as signs that he's made up his mind."

Robert M. Gates, who was sworn in yesterday as defense secretary, is headed for Iraq this week and is expected to play a decisive role in resolving the debate, officials said. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's views are still open, according to State Department officials. The principals met again yesterday to continue discussions.

The White House yesterday noted the growing number of reports about what is being discussed behind closed doors. "It's also worth issuing a note of caution, because quite often people will try to litigate preferred options through the press," White House press secretary Tony Snow told reporters.

Discussions are expected to continue through the holidays. Rice is expected to travel to the president's ranch near Crawford, Tex., after Christmas for consultations on Iraq. The administration's foreign policy principals are also expected to hold at least two meetings during the holiday. The White House has said the president will outline his new strategy to the nation early next year.

As the White House debate continues, another independent report on Iraq strategy is being issued today by the International Crisis Group, a Brussels-based crisis monitoring group that includes several former U.S. officials. It calls for more far-reaching policy revisions and reversals than did even the Iraq Study Group report, the bipartisan report issued two weeks ago.

The new report calls the study group's recommendations "not nearly radical enough" and says that "its prescriptions are no match for its diagnosis." It continues: "What is needed today is a clean break both in the way the U.S. and other international actors deal with the Iraqi government, and in the way the U.S. deals with the region."

The Iraqi government and military should not be treated as "privileged allies" because they are not partners in efforts to stem the violence but rather parties to the conflict, it says. Trying to strengthen the fragile government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki will not contribute to Iraq's stability, it adds. Iraq's escalating crisis cannot be resolved militarily, the report says, and can be solved only with a major political effort.

The International Crisis Group proposes three broad steps:

First, it calls for creation of an international support group, including the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Iraq's six neighbors, to press Iraq's constituents to accept political compromise.

Second, it urges a conference of all Iraqi players, including militias and insurgent groups, with support from the international community, to forge a political compact on controversial issues such as federalism, distribution of oil revenue, an amnesty, the status of Baath Party members and a timetable for U.S. withdrawal.

Finally, it suggests a new regional strategy that would include engagement with Syria and Iran and jump-starting the moribund Arab-Israeli peace process.

==================

I'm sure the WH knows Iraq is lost, and they are now debating really not how to turn Iraq around (WH isn't bold, creative, visioary, or intelligent enough) but how to muddle on for 2 years, at the cost 2000 more military dead in attempt to save only the WH's reputation, until this WH is out of office and the heat is on the next WH, then this WH crew and its dwindling cadre of dubya suckers will be say saying how they were winning, and the next WH lost Iraq.

Nobody forget that McCain, commander-in-chief wannabe, is a "pro-surger", against the JCoS's position.

[ChumpDumper]

Damn, the board neocons are pretty quiet about this one.

[Yonivore]

Damn, the board neocons are pretty quiet about this one.
What's to say? It's a circle-jerk thread informed by "...U.S. officials familiar with the intense debate" who happen to be unnamed.

Y'all have your fun.

[Oh, Gee!!]

What's to say? It's a circle-jerk thread informed by "...U.S. officials familiar with the intense debate" who happen to be unnamed.

Y'all have your fun.


in other words, the blogs and foxnews have not told me how to respond

[ChumpDumper]

What's to say?You could say which strategy you want followed in Iraq, but I understand your masters haven't given you a clear direction yet.

[gtownspur]

You could say which strategy you want followed in Iraq, but I understand your masters haven't given you a clear direction, yet I will have provided no input or oppinion here since I would make a fool out of myself allwhile acting extremely autistic.

[ChumpDumper]

Say, gtown. Which strategy do you want to follow?

[ChumpDumper]

I think the ISG had some decent ideas, although their attempt to depoliticize it made it the most political plan.

[Ocotillo]

I think a better idea is to partition the country into Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiittes.

Who gets Baghdad?

[boutons_]

You knew it what was coming.

dubya fucks up again and does the wrong thing

==================

Bush to Expand Size of Military
By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 19, 2006; 4:18 PM


President Bush said today that he plans to expand the size of the U.S. military to meet the challenges of a long-term global war against terrorists, a response to warnings that sustained deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan have stretched the armed forces to near the breaking point.

In an interview with The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/audio/2006/12/19/AU2006121900839.html), Bush said he has instructed newly sworn-in Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates to report back to him with a plan to increase ground forces. The president gave no estimates about how many troops may be added but indicated that he agreed with suggestions in the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill that the current military is stretched too thin to cope with the demands placed on it.

"I'm inclined to believe that we do need to increase our troops -- the Army, the Marines," Bush said in the Oval Office session. "And I talked about this to Secretary Gates and he is going to spend some time talking to the folks in the building, come back with a recommendation to me about how to proceed forward on this idea."

....


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/19/AR2006121900880.html

[ChumpDumper]

Or rather, the right thing five years too late.

[boutons_]

"the right thing five years too late."

the numbers, probably well under 50K more, would still have been too small in Mar 2003, esp with the Repug dumbfuck CPA disbanding the Iraqi army and police.

[ChumpDumper]

Build up the military numbers after 9/11 when everyone wanted to join, have plenty of troops for all the places they had a hard on to attack and or threaten afterwards.

More could have been trained in Arabic.

More could have been trained to instruct the new armies in Afghanistan and Iraq, like the ISG is pretending we can do next week.

[boutons_]

http://www.uclick.com/feature/06/12/19/ta061219.gif

http://www.uclick.com/feature/06/12/19/jd061219.gif

http://www.uclick.com/feature/06/12/19/po061219.gif

http://www.uclick.com/feature/06/12/19/tt061219.gif

[boutons_]

Only a short while ago, dubya said "we are winning, absolutely" but now :

=======================

"U.S. Not Winning War in Iraq, Bush Says for 1st Time

President Plans to Expand Army, Marine Corps to Cope With Strain of Multiple Deployments

By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 20, 2006; 6:52 AM

President Bush acknowledged for the first time yesterday that the United States is not winning the war in Iraq and said he plans to expand the overall size of the "stressed" U.S. armed forces to meet the challenges of a long-term global struggle against terrorists.As he searches for a new strategy for Iraq, Bush has now adopted the formula advanced by his top military adviser to describe the situation. "We're not winning, we're not losing," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post. The assessment was a striking reversal for a president who, days before the November elections, declared, "Absolutely, we're winning."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/20/AR2006122000268.html

====================

Which is it dubya?
which is the lie this time?
do we every get ANY truth from you, you lying, ignorant, incompetent motherfucker?

[smeagol]

Iraq War: What a fucking mistrake!

The US forced the war under weak premisses and will have to leave Iraq with its tail in between its legs.

I guess 40 years and a war in South East Asia taught you guys nothing.

:depressed

[MannyIsGod]

Iraq War: What a fucking mistrake!

The US forced the war under weak premisses and will have to leave Iraq with its tail in between its legs.

I guess 40 years and a war in South East Asia taught you guys nothing.

:depressedIt really fucking annoys me when you say things like this. I don't agree witht the Iraq war, but when someone who is a guest in this country says an idiotic blanket statement in that way it really does piss me off. I guess one day I'll have the nerve to go to Argentina and enquire about the lessons of the Falklands War. Perhaps there are things we can learn from your country.

[MannyIsGod]

Smeagol, if you ever visit any of our Vietnam Memorials around the country, perhaps you would be so kind as to share your words with those visiting those monuments. I'm sure they'd be very receptive of your position.

[boutons_]

MIG, it doesn't matter who the speaker is.

The truth is the truth.

Is there some requirement that legal resident non-American have to shut their mouths?

If the Repugs listened to the world, or just their friends in the world (eg, Germany and France), the Repugs wouldn't be in this horrible Iraq mess, and we'd have many more 1000s of US military alive and whole.

[MannyIsGod]

I'm sorry, but there is no way in hell that the mistake in Iraq means:


I guess 40 years and a war in South East Asia taught you guys nothing.

Thats a foolish and ridiculous thing to say.

Anyone is free to speak their minds in regards to the criticism on the Iraq situation but saying we learned nothing from Vietnam is not a criticism of the Iraq situation.

[boutons_]

The parallels with VN are much more instructive and useful and true than the non-parallels.

If VN/war vets like Powell had prevailed pre-Iraq, we wouldn't be quaqmired in Iraq by VN-war-evaders like dubya and dickhead, and by neo-con desk jockey idelogues like Perle, Feith, Wolfowitz.

[MannyIsGod]

Its like talking to a wall.

Nevermind.

[clambake]

Bush said, to him, we're winning in the spirit of winning.

The guy needs to up his medication. He honors Rumsfeld for making our military lean and lethal, then says we need to fatten up our military. wishy washy. He's already laid the foundation of blame squarely on the shoulders of Iraqis. He just can't hammer down it's validity. He will always refuse to accept responsibility.

[boutons_]

MIG, the 50K lives and 250K injured (plus how many more US minds fucked up?) in VN were at TOTAL FUCKING WASTE. (not counting 1000s of VN babies still being fucked up by Agent Orange )

No matter that the "US military never lost a battle in VN", the US accomplished absolutely nothing in VN.

The Repugs have accomplished absolutely nothing (positive) in Iraq, and it sure looks like the Repugs have accomplished a hell of a lot negative in Iraq, while Aghanistan, Horn of Africa, Pakistan FATA slide more under terrorist influence and control.

VN was a war of choice on a non-threatening country based on a bullshit theory by non-warriors (domino theory).

Iraq war is a war of choice on a non-threatening country based on a bullshit theory by non-warriors. Now, apparently, bring democracy to the M/E, hidden behind lies (WMD, WTC=Saddam, Saddam = war on terror, etc)

The current Repugs, alive during the VN war, didn't learn that:

1) military battle superiority doesn't mean war victory

2) the US public has limits to its capacity in accepting US and civilian bodies and lives lost for no apparent, demonstrable gain, with no end in sight.

The Repugs fuckups in Iraq have now lost the US public, just like Johnson and Nixon were incapable of producing anything in VN that would keep the US public behind the war.

The nightmarish "unparallel" is the that the US pulling out of VN had no negative consequences for the US, while the Repugs de-stabilizing and losing Iraq will have major, long-term dangers for the Western world.

(The Repugs also failed to learn from the Russian disaster in Afghanistan, which was also a hugely unpopular war with the Russian people, and accomplished absolutely nothing positive for the USSR, and helped bankrupt the USSR when the 80s oil prices collapsed. The US helped defeat the Russians there as proxy war by supporting the Afghanis, which in turn gave us the Taleban and al-Quaida )

So, MIG, just what is it you claim that the current Repugs learned from the VN war that they applied to the Iraq war?

[boutons_]

December 20, 2006

Military Analysis

New Iraq Strategy Emerges: Security, Then Politics

By MICHAEL R. GORDON

WASHINGTON, Dec. 19 — The debate over whether to increase the American military presence in Baghdad is much more than a dispute over troop levels. It reflects a more fundamental dispute over the American mission.

In proposing to send tens of thousands of additional troops, proponents of reinforcing the American military effort argue that the violence in Iraq is increasing at such an alarming rate that Washington can no longer wait for the newly minted Iraqi security forces to take on the main burden of securing the Iraqi capital.

The United States, they assert, needs to expand its mission by making the protection of the Iraqi population its primary objective.

The calculation is that by sending additional troops and taking up positions in mixed Shiite and Sunni neighborhoods, the American military can finally break the escalating cycle of sectarian killings. Only after restoring some semblance of security, the proponents of a troop increase maintain, can the Bush administration reasonably expect Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki to rein in the Shiite militias.

As President Bush mulls his Iraq strategy, the idea of deploying 20,000 additional American troops or more, at least temporarily, has emerged as a leading option. Mr. Bush intends to unveil his plan in early January, and the realization that the White House is approaching a fateful decision on the level of American involvement in Iraq has set off a spirited debate among retired officers, lawmakers and policy experts.

( I figure the WH told McCain some time ago about increasing the troops, so McCain could publicly get on that band wagon. Then if dubya "wins" in Irag, McCain will be able to campaign in 2008 as "presidentially" supporting the winning strategy of more troops. Of course, if dubya loses, the McCain loses, too )

By most accounts, a decision to substantially increase the American military presence in Baghdad would signal an important strategic shift. For years, the generals have argued that their military strategy could not work unless the Iraqis simultaneously made progress toward political reconciliation, a development that American commanders calculated would reduce the support among Sunnis for the insurgency and ease sectarian tensions.

In effect, the advocates of sending more troops have turned that logic on its head by arguing that the Iraqis cannot make political headway toward overcoming their sectarian differences until military action is taken to blunt the Sunni-led insurgency, and security is improved. That could lessen the increasing dependence on militias by Iraqis who feel the need for protection against sectarian violence.

( motherfuckers! The in/security problem has been to to have pre-empted success in Iraq from summer of 2003. Insecurity has greatly increased the cost of reconstruction, aborted most reconstruction, and led the Iraqis to lose all confidence in the US ability to help them).

The idea of sending reinforcements to Baghdad is not a new one. The United States dispatched a Stryker brigade and several Army battalions to the capital in August as part of a joint American and Iraqi operation to improve security there. Those additions brought the number of American troops involved in the Baghdad operation to 15,000.

Sectarian killings initially declined, only to soar after death squads adapted to American tactics.

Some critics of the Bush administration’s approach in Iraq have argued that the effort begun in August shows that more American troops are not the answer. Expanding the American military presence in Baghdad, they say, will only increase American casualties, add to the strain on an overburdened military and put off the day when the Iraqis begin to take over their own security.

“The Iraqis need to understand that the responsibility for their future is theirs,” said Ike Skelton, a Missouri Democrat and the incoming chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. “We should at least begin to do some redeployment right away to show the American people that we are not there to stay forever.”

Advocates of sending additional forces acknowledge that troops can be only part of the answer. To be effective, the strategy must include efforts to train the Iraqi Army and deal with political and economic issues. But they also say that too few reinforcements were sent this summer to decisively improve security.

“It was not done to the necessary scale and not to the point where the people felt they were secure and protected,” said Daniel Dwyer, a retired major who served with the Army’s Third Armored Cavalry Regiment in Baghdad and Tal Afar.

( .... aka, just another Repug fuckup)

“The people right now feel that there is no tactical design toward securing them, that we come in and conduct operations that are short-lived and leave, and their problems don’t go away.”

Another problem with the Baghdad security operation, critics say, is that it depended on Iraqi policies that were never adequately carried out. The Iraqi Army supplied only two of the six battalions that American commanders requested. Iraqi-funded reconstruction projects to generate jobs and win popular support have been too few or too late.

To address these shortfalls, some advocates of sending reinforcements have proposed that the United States substantially expand its military mission. There are a variety of possible options for adding troops.

Gen. Jack Keane, a former Army vice chief of staff, has argued for sending four or five additional brigades to Baghdad, effectively doubling the American military presence there. The United States would also change its concept of operations in Baghdad.

Instead of limiting themselves to conducting patrols from bases in the capital, American troops would take up new positions in 23 mixed Shiite and Sunni neighborhoods to better protect the population. Millions of dollars in new American reconstruction assistance would be provided. Iraqi forces would also be involved in the operation.

American forces would not initially confront the Mahdi Army, which is controlled by Moktada al-Sadr, a Shiite cleric. Once security was improved, Prime Minister Maliki would be encouraged to negotiate with the Shiite militias to stop attacks against Sunnis.

There is a risk that an adversary could wait out the American forces, evading major combat until American troops levels began to subside. For that reason, General Keane has argued that the United States should be prepared to carry out the expanded mission for 18 months, or perhaps longer, a far cry from the increase of several months that some Democratic lawmakers support.

Whether the Bush administration will opt for such a demanding strategy is far from clear. It would be an approach with huge political risks and one that would dramatically escalate American involvement in Iraq. President Bush has, however, taken one step that is a prerequisite for any effort to sustain expanded military operations in Iraq: he has signaled his intention to increase the size of the American armed forces.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/20/world/middleeast/20assess.html?hp&ex=1166677200&en=a15e670d718315ea&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[boutons_]

So let's see "securing only Bagdad" will save the Repugs bacon in Iraq?
hmm, what about this extra-Bagad little problem:

December 19, 2006

Iraq Insurgents Starve Capital of Electricity

By JAMES GLANZ

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/12/19/world/1219-for-webELECTRICITY.jpg


BAGHDAD, Dec. 18 — Over the past six months, Baghdad has been all but isolated electrically, Iraqi officials say, as insurgents have effectively won their battle to bring down critical high-voltage lines and cut off the capital from the major power plants to the north, south and west.

The battle has been waged in the remotest parts of the open desert, where the great towers that support thousands of miles of exposed lines are frequently felled with explosive charges in increasingly determined and sophisticated attacks, generally at night. Crews that arrive to repair the damage are often attacked and sometimes killed, ensuring that the government falls further and further behind as it attempts to repair the lines.

And in a measure of the deep disunity and dysfunction of this nation, when the repair crews and security forces are slow to respond, skilled looters often arrive with heavy trucks that pull down more of the towers to steal as much of the valuable aluminum conducting material in the lines as possible. The aluminum is melted into ingots and sold.

What amounts to an electrical siege of Baghdad is reflected in constant power failures and disastrously poor service in the capital, with severe consequences for security, governance, health care and the mood of an already weary and angry populace.

“Now Baghdad is almost isolated,” Karim Wahid, the Iraqi electricity minister, said in an interview last week. “We almost don’t have any power coming from outside.”

That leaves Baghdad increasingly dependent on a few aging power plants within or near the city’s borders.

Mr. Wahid views the situation as dire, while Western officials in Baghdad are generally more optimistic.

Mr. Wahid said that last week, seven of the nine lines supplying power directly to Baghdad were down, and that just a trickle of electricity was flowing through the two others. Western officials agreed that most of the lines were down, but gave somewhat higher estimates on the electricity that was still flowing.

“There’s quite a few that are down, and that does limit our ability to import power into Baghdad,” said a senior Western official with knowledge of the Iraqi grid. “The goal and the objective is to get them up as quickly as we can.”

Mr. Wahid said he has appealed both to American and Iraqi security forces for help in protecting the lines, but has had little response; Electricity Ministry officials said they could think of no case in which saboteurs had been caught. Payments made to local tribes in exchange for security have been ineffective, electricity officials said.

Neither the Defense Ministry nor the American military responded to requests for comment on the security of the lines.

In response to the crisis, Mr. Wahid has formulated a national emergency master plan that in its first stage involves bringing some 100 diesel-powered generators directly into Baghdad neighborhoods by next summer. That would be followed by the construction of a spate of new power plants in Baghdad and major work on existing ones.

All together, Mr. Wahid estimates, the program would cost $27 billion over 10 years, although some electricity experts knowledgeable about the plan say that even under optimistic assumptions, those enormous expenditures would not bring electrical supplies in line with demand before 2009.

“I don’t know how the people in Iraq are going to accept that reality,” said Ghazwan al-Mukhtar, an Iraqi electrical engineer who recently left the country because of the security situation, “that after five years, six years, they are still suffering from a lack of electricity.”

The reason that the attacks on the high-voltage electrical lines, known as 400-kilovolt lines, have been especially devastating is that they serve as the arterial roads of the national grid, the gargantuan electrical circuit that was designed to carry power from the energy-rich north and south to the great population center in Baghdad.

Throughout the country, there are perhaps 15 particularly critical 400-kilovolt lines, carried by their unmistakable 150-foot towers. The entire network runs for 2,500 miles, often passing through uninhabited desert, said Fouad Monsour Abbo, the assistant director for transmission in the Electricity Ministry.

Statistics maintained by the ministry over this year chronicle the dissolution of sections of the grid and the gradual isolation of Baghdad.

In March, at most one or two of the lines were severed at any one time, but by the summer the typical number had risen to six or seven and had soared to a peak of 12 by early fall. Electricity officials say the decisive moment came July 6, when saboteurs mounted coordinated attacks across the country, gaining a lead in the battle that the government has not been able to reverse.

“They targeted all the lines at the same time, and they all came down,” Mr. Abbo said.

Mr. Abbo said a typical strategy was to set off explosives at the four support points of a single tower, which would then pull down two or three more towers as it toppled. As repair crews moved in hours or days later, another tower farther up the line might be struck, and then another, in a race the government had little chance of winning.

On Sunday, Mr. Abbo recited the most recent measures of the devastation. That day, 40 towers were down on a line running to Baghdad from one of the nation’s largest power plants in Baiji, in the insurgent-ridden north, and 42 more towers were down on a line connecting Baiji to a huge power plant in Kirkuk.

Towers were also down on two lines that pass through the “triangle of death” to connect Baghdad with a power plant to the south in Musayyib, and on four other lines in the Baghdad area or its environs. And the city was entirely cut off from the huge hydroelectric dam at Haditha, to the west in Anbar Province, the homeland of the Sunni insurgency.

Even the destruction of one tower generally shuts down a line.

“All the transfer lines are in hot spots and are targeted by terrorist attacks,” said Saadi Mehdi Ali, who as the Electricity Ministry’s inspector general follows the issue closely.

The attacks have an immediate impact on the lives of ordinary Iraqis. Last week even the official United States State Department figures, which many Iraqis contend lean toward the optimistic side, said there was an average of 6.6 hours of electricity per day in Baghdad and 8.9 hours nationwide.

Before the war, Baghdad had 16 to 24 hours of power and the rest of Iraq 4 to 8 hours, according to the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, an independent United States federal office. While the redistribution has always been cast by American officials as a deliberate reversal of Saddam Hussein-era inequities, the statistics revealing the isolation of Baghdad show that the government no longer has much choice about the amount of power to direct to the city.

Also included in Mr. Wahid’s master plan is a centralized, automated control system to move that electricity around what is now an antiquated grid run by engineers who manually throw switches at power stations and substations scattered around the country. The control system would also help stabilize a grid that is increasingly unstable and prone to large-scale blackouts — and make deliberate manipulation of the electricity supply harder.

Iraqi and American officials say another reason that the amount of electricity in Baghdad is down is that power-rich areas like southern Iraq are finding ways to work their switches to keep more of the electricity they generate for themselves.

“That’s a fact of life,” said a senior Western official who would not be quoted by name. But with the plans for a control system, the official said, “it is becoming less and less of an issue.”

The combination of factors draining the city of electricity is reflected in a separate set of figures that gauge the electricity on the so-called “Baghdad ring” of power lines. Those figures reached a peak of 1300 megawatts in early June and had dropped to 800 megawatts by November. It rebounded slightly to 890 megawatts this month. In contrast, current demand within the Baghdad ring is estimated at 2000 megawatts and growing.

As Baghdad relies increasingly on aging local plants to satisfy the bulk of its demand, Iraqi officials say that poor decisions in the American-financed reconstruction program have made those plants much less effective than they could be.

For example, the Qudis plant, just north of Baghdad, was outfitted with turbine generators modeled on 747 airplane engines that work efficiently only when using fuel of higher quality than the Iraqis can provide with any regularity, a fact that has led to damaging breakdowns.

But there have also been important successes, including the installation of two enormous new turbines by the American contractor Bechtel at the Baghdad South power plant on the banks of the Tigris River. Without the approximately 200 megawatts generated by the turbines, which were transported under heavy security across the perilous Anbar desert to Baghdad in 2004, basic services in the city could be verging on desperate by now.

“It is a battle,” said Mr. Abbo of the Electricity Ministry. “But we still have hope.”

[ChumpDumper]

Unreal. First the president ignores Generals Powell and Shinseki in favor of draft deferrments Cheney and Wolfowitz, and now they are ignoring the current joint chiefs in favor of a history professor and the editorial board of a magazine.

This is the Republicans' guy?

Really?

[boutons_]

The new SecDef Gates already caught in a lie.

He comes in making a big deal about listening to the the military, who are dead set against increasing the troops, so he increases the troops.

As the French say: "Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose"

("The more things change, the more they stay the same")

As the Americans say: "same ol' same ol' "

[ChumpDumper]

To be fair, Gates isn't the CINC. Bush has made his bed and now he's shitting in it.

[boutons_]

Gates is the WH's man with primary operational responsbility for conducting the war, just like Rummy was.

Are you saying the WH has already cut Gates out of the loop?

[ChumpDumper]

I'm saying that Gates doesn't have the final say in the execution or overall strategy of the war.

He's not the decider.

This surge business was adopted by the administration before Gates was sworn in, so how can he take the blame for it?

[boutons_]

ok

[clambake]

I thought Gates was involved in the ISG?

Was his selection based on that?

[smeagol]

It really fucking annoys me when you say things like this.



Why? And what "other things" like this have I said that piss you off?


I don't agree witht the Iraq war, but when someone who is a guest in this country says an idiotic blanket statement in that way it really does piss me off.

I'm as much a guest in this country as your parents or grand parents were. WTF has that have to do with anything?

And you think no parallels can be drawn between Vietnam and Iraq? Think again, dude.



I guess one day I'll have the nerve to go to Argentina and enquire about the lessons of the Falklands War. Perhaps there are things we can learn from your country.

Come to Argentina and say whatever the fuck you want. You want me to feed you some lines about the Falklands war? It was a fucking stupid war, ran by bunch of drunk military generals who saw Argentine population discontent and came up with a phony war.

[smeagol]

Smeagol, if you ever visit any of our Vietnam Memorials around the country, perhaps you would be so kind as to share your words with those visiting those monuments. I'm sure they'd be very receptive of your position.
Huh?

Care to explain further this statement.

[smeagol]

I'm sorry, but there is no way in hell that the mistake in Iraq means:



Thats a foolish and ridiculous thing to say.

Anyone is free to speak their minds in regards to the criticism on the Iraq situation but saying we learned nothing from Vietnam is not a criticism of the Iraq situation.

Why is it a foolish thing to say?

[smeagol]

I guess one day I'll have the nerve to go to Argentina and enquire about the lessons of the Falklands War. Perhaps there are things we can learn from your country.

Funny you would mention this given a couple of years ago you made a pretty stupid and derogatory comment about the Falklands war. I recall the thing escalating so much Kori had to shut the thread.

[ChumpDumper]

I guess it might help if you were more specific in your comparison. Some parallels can be drawn, but as we have seen blanket statements can really piss people off.

[MannyIsGod]

Funny you would mention this given a couple of years ago you made a pretty stupid and derogatory comment about the Falklands war. I recall the thing escalating so much Kori had to shut the thread.Would you walk up to a the Vietnam Memorial and say what you said Smeagol? I reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaally fucking doubt it.

The things I said about the Falkands war years ago were wrong. I have no qualms admitting that.

[smeagol]

The things I said about the Falkands war years ago were wrong. I have no qualms admitting that.

Nice to see you've grown up because at the time, in that same thread, you said something like "I do not have to appologize for a joke . . ."


Would you walk up to a the Vietnam Memorial and say what you said Smeagol? I reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaally fucking doubt it.

Again, why is my statement so wrong. I view the Vietnam war as a mistake. I see the US, at the time, taking justice in it's own hands and going thousands of miles away, to fight a war on premisses that were weak. I have nothing against the soldiers who fought that war. I would never disrespect them (as I would never disrespect the ones fighting the Iraq war).

I would have no problem saying that the Vietnam war was a mistake to anyone (the same way I have no problem saying the Iraq war is a mistake).

I fail to see your logic. So you are saying that 20 years from now, people should not say the Iarq war was a mistake to families of Iraq Vets?

Bottom line: if somebody explains to me why my comments were disrespectful, or if anybody feels offended (and explains why) I will take back my comments in a second.

[MannyIsGod]

You did not say the Vietnam war was a mistake. Reread your statement.

[smeagol]

You did not say the Vietnam war was a mistake. Reread your statement.
I'm not sure what you read into my post.

What I meant is that Vietnam was a mistake, 40 yrs have gone by, the US has not learnt any lessons from that mistake and now has made a new mistake: Iraq.

Now tell me what you think I meant with my post.

[MannyIsGod]

I guess 40 years and a war in South East Asia taught you guys nothing.

Does NOT equal


The Vietnam war was a mistake

in any sense of the words used. First of all, the vast majority of this country is against the damn war. 2nd of all, your post is insulting to our country. If a guest came into my home and insulted my family, would I not be upset?

Whatever, I'm over it, but your words did annoy me. Perhaps next time you'll choose your words more carefully, but don't try to paint a picture as though you said that Vietnam was a mistake, because thats not at all what you said.


I guess 40 years and a war in South East Asia taught you guys nothing.

Does NOT equal


The Vietnam war was a mistake

[AFE7FATMAN]

Unreal. First the president ignores Generals Powell and Shinseki in favor of draft deferrments Cheney and Wolfowitz, and now they are ignoring the current joint chiefs in favor of a history professor and the editorial board of a magazine.

This is the Republicans' guy? Hell LBJ a democrat didn't listen either
Really?

The generals didn't get GWB elected. and

I don't want to bust anyone's bubble but the Generals execute
Policy they don't establish it,and havenot since WWII go look at the recent retirements, they are beginning to find that out themselves, they didn't hear about Truman firing McCarther :lol

Ask Gen Zunni, or in the case of Vietnam, Westmorland, Powell,etc,etc
LBJ said, "Hell they can't even Bomb an Outhouse, without my Permission"

Maybe the fn Democrats will cut off the money for the war in Iraq. :clap

I hope they don't cut off the $ for the War in Afganistan. LOOK
for a major influx of troops in afganistan by March/April for a BIG
Spring offensive.

IMO we backed IRAQ against IRAN during that war,(MISTAKE) so now if we back IRAN it would make the Russian's happy, along with a lot of others.

[ChumpDumper]

The best you can say is Bush = LBJ?

That's your argument?

[AFE7FATMAN]

NO CHUMP
Bush or any other President doesn't have to listen to Generals
Clinton didn't, LBJ didn't, it is something called the constitution.
It seems your argument is "Let the Generals run the War"
what would have happened if McCarther wasn't fired by Truman
What would have happened if General Curtis LeMay had not ran
for vice -President but stayed in the Military and ran the Air Force?

No Comment on" IMO we backed IRAQ against IRAN during that war,(MISTAKE) so now if we back IRAN it would make the Russian's happy, along with a lot of others."

[ChumpDumper]

So your argument is, Bush = LBJ = Clinton

How proud you must be.

Remember, Bushie said he would listen to the Generals.

Was he lying?


No Comment on" IMO we backed IRAQ against IRAN during that war,(MISTAKE) so now if we back IRAN it would make the Russian's happy, along with a lot of others."Now you are bashing Reagan? Is this Bizarro AFE7FATMAN?

[AFE7FATMAN]

So your argument is, Bush = LBJ = Clinton

How proud you must be.
No, anything but PROUD


Remember, Bushie said he would listen to the Generals.

Was he lying? No he Listened. He didn't say he would follow their advice.
Now you are bashing Reagan? Is this Bizarro AFE7FATMAN?
Nope, I don't know how to get it to you :bang
but the President is the Head of the Military.
Now as for
REAL HISTORY OF VIETNAM for those too young to remember & those that haven't learned

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48728

[ChumpDumper]

:lol

So presidents have never taken the advice of the military in matters of war because they weren't required to by the Constitution.

Was Logic your major?

[AFE7FATMAN]

:lol

So presidents have never taken the advice of the military in matters of war because they weren't required to by the Constitution.

For the most part the advice of the Military is just that ADVICE.
The President has the final decision, scarry isn't it.
Think what it was like when varous Presidents had thir fingers on the Nuke Button.

Was Logic your major?
Nope and neither was it for Presidents

[smeagol]

First of all, the vast majority of this country is against the damn war. 2nd of all, your post is insulting to our country. If a guest came into my home and insulted my family, would I not be upset?

Whatever, I'm over it, but your words did annoy me. Perhaps next time you'll choose your words more carefully, but don't try to paint a picture as though you said that Vietnam was a mistake, because thats not at all what you said.


You still have not explained why saying 40 yrs since the Vietnam war has not taught the people who have started another unnecessary war (Iraq) is so disrespectful.

And I cannot understand why you fail to see the parallelisms between the two wars.

Even though IMO the Vietnam war has more justifications than the Iraq war, I still think both could have been avoided were the US slower to pull the trigger.

In the 1960s the US goes to war in a remote country in SouthEast Asia most Americans didn't it even existed to stop communism (or so they say) and in the 2000s they go to a remote country to stop terrorism (or so they say). In the first war, there was a true threat in Vietnam (communism was taking over the country). No real threat of terrorism in Iraq, IMO. At least none until the US invaded.

But as I said, if you feel disrespected by my words, I will take them back.

[boutons_]

"true threat in Vietnam (communism was taking over the country)."

so fucking what. The VN "domino" fell to ... Vietnamese wanting to unite their country (under the pretext of communism). The VN didn't want Chinese or Russian Communist running/all over VN. The VN did not want to and did not invade and take over all of SE Asia for Communism.

No other dominoes fell, and not because the Communists were scared of defeated US "committment", becasue after the US pulled out of VN, there was no commitment by US to invade on SE Asia countries imagined to be at risk form Communsim. The traumatized US public would not have supported invading another SE Asian country.

The VN war was fought by the US to stop Communism is VN. The US pulled out and VN "fell" to native Communists. iow, the US invasion of VN failed to achieve its objective, no matter how the Army has tried to spin it since.

Just like the Aghans outfought and out-waited the Russians in Afgahnistan, just like the VN got out-fought but out-waited the US in VN, the Iraqis will out-wait the US invasion. Iraq will "fall' to the Islamic Iraqis, obliterating all trace of US invasion, just as happened with the foreign invaders in Afghanistan and VN.

The US invasion of Iraq is failing, and will fail, sooner or later. Saddam in power was much, much better than what Iraq will become after the US leaves.

[johnsmith]

"true threat in Vietnam (communism was taking over the country)."

so fucking what. The VN "domino" fell to ... Vietnamese wanting to unite their country (under the pretext of communism). The VN didn't not want Chinese or Russian Communist running/all over VN. The VN did not want to and did not invade and take over all of SE Asia for Communism.

No other dominoes fell, and not because the Communists were scared of defeated US "committment", becasue after the US pulled out of VN, there was no commitment by US to invade on SE Asia countries imagined to be at risk form Communsim. The traumatized US public would not have supported invading another SE Asian country.

The VN war was fought by the US ot stop Communism is VN. The US pulled out and VN "fell" to native Communists. iow, the US invasion of VN failed to achieve it's objective, no matter how the Army tries to spin it.

Just like the Aghans outfought and out-waited the Russians in Afgahnistan, just like the VN got out-fought but out-waited the US in VN, the Iraqis will out-wait the US invasion. Iraq will "fall' to the Islamic Iraqis, obliterating all trace of US invasion, just as happened with the foreign invaders in Afghanistan and VN.

The US invasion of Iraq is failing, and will fail, sooner or later.


Ok.

[xrayzebra]

"true threat in Vietnam (communism was taking over the country)."

so fucking what. The VN "domino" fell to ... Vietnamese wanting to unite their country (under the pretext of communism). The VN didn't not want Chinese or Russian Communist running/all over VN. The VN did not want to and did not invade and take over all of SE Asia for Communism.

No other dominoes fell, and not because the Communists were scared of defeated US "committment", becasue after the US pulled out of VN, there was no commitment by US to invade on SE Asia countries imagined to be at risk form Communsim. The traumatized US public would not have supported invading another SE Asian country.

The VN war was fought by the US ot stop Communism is VN. The US pulled out and VN "fell" to native Communists. iow, the US invasion of VN failed to achieve it's objective, no matter how the Army tries to spin it.

Just like the Aghans outfought and out-waited the Russians in Afgahnistan, just like the VN got out-fought but out-waited the US in VN, the Iraqis will out-wait the US invasion. Iraq will "fall' to the Islamic Iraqis, obliterating all trace of US invasion, just as happened with the foreign invaders in Afghanistan and VN.

The US invasion of Iraq is failing, and will fail, sooner or later.

First, the kooks, liberals and leftest pulled defeat from the jaws of victory
in VN.

Second, over a million VN citizens died after the communist took control
of the South and millions more were imprisoned in so called re-education
centers.

Third there was a domino effect, Cambodia fell to the communist and
millions more died and suffered from their rule.

Get your damn facts straight before spouting off.

[johnsmith]

First, the kooks, liberals and leftest pulled defeat from the jaws of victory
in VN.

Second, over a million VN citizens died after the communist took control
of the South and millions more were imprisoned in so called re-education
centers.

Third there was a domino effect, Cambodia fell to the communist and
millions more died and suffered from their rule.

Get your damn facts straight before spouting off.


While I agree that he should get his facts straight, he never will, nor will the suggestion you have given merit him looking into his statements because he has you on ignore. Just like he has everyone on ignore that doesn't agree with him.

[MannyIsGod]

You still have not explained why saying 40 yrs since the Vietnam war has not taught the people who have started another unnecessary war (Iraq) is so disrespectful.

And I cannot understand why you fail to see the parallelisms between the two wars.

Even though IMO the Vietnam war has more justifications than the Iraq war, I still think both could have been avoided were the US slower to pull the trigger.

In the 1960s the US goes to war in a remote country in SouthEast Asia most Americans didn't it even existed to stop communism (or so they say) and in the 2000s they go to a remote country to stop terrorism (or so they say). In the first war, there was a true threat in Vietnam (communism was taking over the country). No real threat of terrorism in Iraq, IMO. At least none until the US invaded.

But as I said, if you feel disrespected by my words, I will take them back.Smeagol, if you feel the Vietnam war is more justified than the Iraq war then I'm going to venture out on a limb and say that you have very little understanding of either war.

The Vietnam war was a CIVIL war which the US had absolutely no need to be involved with.

The Iraq war has been a poorly exectuted preemptive war to remove a dictator with WoMD.

Yes, there are similarites but that you would feel the US more justified to be involved in a civil war is ridiculous.

So, what else can you teach us about Vietnam, Smeagol? http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smirolleyes.gif

[smeagol]

Smeagol, if you feel the Vietnam war is more justified than the Iraq war then I'm going to venture out on a limb and say that you have very little understanding of either war.

I might have little understanding of the Vietnam war but what I do know is that ultimately, the US went there to fight communism (same as Korea War).

I know as much as you do on the Irak war, so don't play the condesending card.


So, what else can you teach us about Vietnam, Smeagol?

Before I answer any questions, why don't you further explain why is it that my comment about the Vietnam war was so offensive inlight of my further explanations.

[smeagol]

Manny, another question.

You say:


The Vietnam war was a CIVIL war which the US had absolutely no need to be involved with.

which is essentially what I'm saying, that the US could've avoided going into that war.

So again, why are you so mad at what I said?

[boutons_]

"why are you so mad at what I said?"

He blew another forecast, no SA snow this weekend.

[xrayzebra]

Smeagol, if you feel the Vietnam war is more justified than the Iraq war then I'm going to venture out on a limb and say that you have very little understanding of either war.

The Vietnam war was a CIVIL war which the US had absolutely no need to be involved with.

The Iraq war has been a poorly exectuted preemptive war to remove a dictator with WoMD.

Yes, there are similarites but that you would feel the US more justified to be involved in a civil war is ridiculous.

So, what else can you teach us about Vietnam, Smeagol? http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smirolleyes.gif


So you are saying that Germany, East vs West,
Korea, North vs South were not civil wars? Just
what are you saying? We should not have been
involved?

[xrayzebra]

oh, and back on the thread. The Master Stroke has
happened. The dimm-o-craps are back in power.
And it's Christmas. Oh, I forgot, the holidays.

[ChumpDumper]

Hey, X, what do you want to see done in Iraq?

Are you pro-surge?

[MannyIsGod]

Manny, another question.

You say:



which is essentially what I'm saying, that the US could've avoided going into that war.

So again, why are you so mad at what I said?Jesus fucking christ.

You said




I guess 40 years and a war in South East Asia taught you guys nothing.You did not say


The US should not have gone into VietnamI don't know how much more clearly to put it. Your statement was INSULTING Smeagol. And I think one should be careful to INSULT their hosts. How much more clearly can I put it?

[MannyIsGod]

If I went into Argentina and said "I guess you guys learned nothing after 30 years and a war on those islands" what do you think the reaction would be?

[clambake]

The reaction would probably be "that was a dumbass idea".

[PixelPusher]

Third there was a domino effect, Cambodia fell to the communist and
millions more died and suffered from their rule.

One country (actually 2 counting Laos) does not equal the "domino effect" which stated that all of Indochina would become communist. Turns out communism wasn't a monolith, with Vietnam, China and the Soviet Union putting their own national agendas ahead of any "communist ideal".

In a roundtable discussion held in Vietnam several years ago, A Vietnamese official told MacNamara that there never was any chance Vietnam would be China's pawn, due to their centuries long rivalry.

[MannyIsGod]

Its funny, its almost as if some people here have no idea what the subject and predicate of a sentence are.

[clambake]

Thats true. They would have fought all enemies with the same vigor. They wanted their independence from all obstructors.

[PixelPusher]

Its funny, its almost as if some people here have no idea what the subject and predicate of a sentence are.
Yeah?


So?



You suck.



I rule.



O'Doyle rules.



(unintelligible grunt)

:toast

[smeagol]

If I went into Argentina and said "I guess you guys learned nothing after 30 years and a war on those islands" what do you think the reaction would be?

Why would you say that to any Argentine? People would look at you and think "What the fuck is this guys talking about?".

We didn't go into any war, thank God, after the stupid fuck-up of 1982.

You guys, on the other hand, in the 1960s start a war where


the US had absolutely no need to be involved with

and 40 years later, you start another war under weak premisses where you admitedly said that:


the vast majority of this country is against the damn war

Can't you follow the logic here? That is why I said your leaders have not learned shit with regards to going to war based on phony reasons.

[MannyIsGod]

Once again, its like talking to a wall.

Nevermind Smeagol, you did nothing wrong. Carry on.

[smeagol]

Once again, its like talking to a wall.

Nevermind Smeagol, you did nothing wrong. Carry on.
Take the easy way out.

There are more American posters, who should be as ofended as you are, (assuming what I said was so out of line), that agree with me than with you.

Actually no American poster has agreed with you yet.

But I'm sure you could care less because I have never seen you admit a mistake on this board ever.

I will look for that 2004 thread because you said some pretty stupid shit (and insulting as well) on that thread, and now you are playing the "holier than thou" card, getting all ofended by a comment of mine which (i) you can't even explain why it's so offensive, and (ii) nobody else got ofended by.

[Guru of Nothing]

Take the easy way out.

There are more American posters, who should be as ofended as you are, (assuming what I said was so out of line), that agree with me than with you.

Actually no American poster has agreed with you yet.

But I'm sure you could care less because I have never seen you admit a mistake on this board ever.

I will look for that 2004 thread because you said some pretty stupid shit (and insulting as well) on that thread, and now you are playing the "holier than thou" card, getting all ofended by a comment of mine which (i) you can't even explain why it's so offensive, and (ii) nobody else got ofended by.

http://www.boomspeed.com/mateo/popcorn.gif

[MannyIsGod]

Take the easy way out.

There are more American posters, who should be as ofended as you are, (assuming what I said was so out of line), that agree with me than with you.

Actually no American poster has agreed with you yet.

But I'm sure you could care less because I have never seen you admit a mistake on this board ever.

I will look for that 2004 thread because you said some pretty stupid shit (and insulting as well) on that thread, and now you are playing the "holier than thou" card, getting all ofended by a comment of mine which (i) you can't even explain why it's so offensive, and (ii) nobody else got ofended by.Post #52 in this thread:



The things I said about the Falkands war years ago were wrong. I have no qualms admitting that.Although I could find tons of places I have admited I'm wrong, I find it really funny that you claim I never do it in a thread I did it in. You either suffer from incredibly poor memory or have as much of a problem understanding others as you

have understanding your own words.

The next time I am offended by something I'll make sure to conduct a poll to deterime whether or not I am allowed to be offended. God knows its not my decision.

Have fun looking up that thread.

[smeagol]

I don't know how much more clearly to put it. Your statement was INSULTING Smeagol. And I think one should be careful to INSULT their hosts. How much more clearly can I put it?

Explain to me why it was insulting instead of quoting it.

As I said before, if it was so insulting, one would think other posters would have noticed it and reacted accordingly. After a day of me posting it, it's only you who feels insulted and you have been incapable of telling me why.

And by the way, it's funny that of all posters you are the one who gets all rattled by my post when it was you, two years ago, who said (yes, I found the famous thread):


Now I understand how the Brit's got the Falklands back.

Nice :tu

So on a baskeball related thread two years ago, you through that nice bomb and now you are pissed off because in a thread about the war on Iraq I post a parallelism between Vietnam and Iraq?

But there are other revealing posts on that two-yr old thread.

Your post pissed some Argentines (predictable).

Manumaniac said:


Nice comment you insensitive MORON!! That's like someone telling an American "Now I understand how you managed to loose Vietnam" PERSONALLY I'd take offense at either. I had you pegged as a rational person, but after this thread you're just an asshole.

to which you replied:


:td is what I think of that.

Personally, I wouldn't offense at either, color me thick skined.

So you wouldn't take offense at Manumaniac's bolded quote, which is much more disrespectful than my quote (he obviously was using it as an example, he did not really mean it), but your panties get all in a bunch because of what I said?

But as you said: whatever.

You acknowledge that the Vietnam war was unecessary, but it's only you who can point it out. I, because I'm a "guest" in this country, for some obscure logic only you understand, can't. It doesn't matter that I've been here nine years, have a green card and have paid more taxes than you can imagine, saying that when it comes to war, America's leaders have not leaned from their mistakes, is something foreigners like me should simply not talk about.

Got it :tu

[MannyIsGod]

I admited I was wrong. You want to harp on it some more? Feel free.

I'm not sure in what version of English this:



I guess 40 years and a war in South East Asia taught you guys nothing.

means this:


The Vietnam War was unnecessary

You saying that we've learned nothing from a war is flat out insulting and it isn't a description of the war. It is a description of of our country. You're not saying the war was unnecessary, you're saying that America is so foolish it hasn't learned a thing from the previous war.

This isn't an isolated comment Smeagol. You have a continual pattern of being extremely critical of this nation in several different ways, yet you have no qualms about living here.

[smeagol]

Although I could find tons of places I have admited I'm wrong, I find it really funny that you claim I never do it in a thread I did it in.

Thanks for focusing on the substance of my post. You just did what you yourself critiziced joch of doing in the marriage thread.


You either suffer from incredibly poor memory or have as much of a problem understanding others as you have understanding your own words.

I was wrong. You did admit your mistake, although it took you 2 and a half years:


I'm not going to start apologizing because of a joke now, or never. If my comment really offended someone, then I suggest the develop thicker skin or use the ignore function for my posts.

Give me a damn break.


The next time I am offended by something I'll make sure to conduct a poll to deterime whether or not I am allowed to be offended. God knows its not my decision.

Did it ever occur to you you misread my post, or at least, you interpret it differently than what I meant (which I have further explained but your stubborn ass does not seem to acknowledge)?

With respect to a poll, it's telling that in a board full of Americans, it's only you who's offended. By the way, the same person who was not offended two years ago by this quote:


"Now I understand how you managed to loose Vietnam"


Have fun looking up that thread.

The fun part was extracting quotes from it :spin

[smeagol]

You saying that we've learned nothing from a war is flat out insulting and it isn't a description of the war. It is a description of of our country. You're not saying the war was unnecessary, you're saying that America is so foolish it hasn't learned a thing from the previous war.


I'm saying America's involvement in the Vietnam war was unnecessary. I'm also saying 40 years later, the Iraq war was also unnecessary. I'm saying the leaders of this country and the people who support the Iraq war, have not learned from the Vietnam mistake. And I'm not the only one saying it. Maybe I'm the only non-American saying, which is a sin according to you.



This isn't an isolated comment Smeagol. You have a continual pattern of being extremely critical of this nation in several different ways, yet you have no qualms about living here.


I'm as critical of America as you are. And you have no qualms about living here either. The only difference between you an me is that I was not born here.

I can assure you I'm less critical than many other people who post on this board. And every time I go to Argentina on vacation, the US has no stronger supporter than me.

[MannyIsGod]

:lol

So in a thread where the only mention of the Vietnam war was in passing, your intention was to say the Vietnam war was a mistake? Am I understanding you correctly now?

[smeagol]

I'm not sure in what version of English this:


I guess 40 years and a war in South East Asia taught you guys nothing.

means this:


The Vietnam War was unnecessary



I'm as sincere as I can telling you what I meant. More than once I tried to expand what I meant. Not much more I can do.

[smeagol]

:lol

So in a thread where the only mention of the Vietnam war was in passing, your intention was to say the Vietnam war was a mistake? Am I understanding you correctly now?

My intention was to draw a parellelism between the two wars. Other people see the parallelisms, do you?

[smeagol]

Hey Guru, share that fucking pop-corn!

[Guru of Nothing]

Wal-Mart is a helluva drug.

[MannyIsGod]

Wal-Mart is a helluva drug.Well, I suppose I could go the Guru route and just act like I never care about anything instead.

[MannyIsGod]

My intention was to draw a parellelism between the two wars. Other people see the parallelisms, do you?There are without a doubt comparisons to be drawn, and if that was your intention then I think you choose your words pretty damn poorly considering what you said means something totaly different than what you meant. I wasn't insulted by what your intentions were, I was insulted by what you said.

[MannyIsGod]

And Matt, just because your Wal-Mart shit is getting annoying, read this and try to think about when I started going to Wal-Mart again. If you don't support companies that make efforts like this companies are less likely to do things like this. I started shopping at the Gap again once they took huge steps against sweatshops etc etc

Anyhow, read:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/walmart.asp

[smeagol]

Look dude, as I told you once in some other thread, I prefer not fighting with you. I appreciate your posts and your intelligence. You can be and a-hole sometimes, but I think you know this :lol

I take back my comment, given that it ofended you. I'm still not sure how it did ofend but what I can say is that your skin has grown thinner.

I love this country but that does not mean I will not complain about the stuff I don't agree with, and one of the things I don't greee with is the war in Iraq.

Peace. I'm out.

[Guru of Nothing]

And Matt, just because your Wal-Mart shit is getting annoying, read this and try to think about when I started going to Wal-Mart again. If you don't support companies that make efforts like this companies are less likely to do things like this. I started shopping at the Gap again once they took huge steps against sweatshops etc etc

Anyhow, read:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/walmart.asp

Manny the Pimp! hahahahaha

Manny, you shop at Wal-Mart because you are a penny-pincher. End of story.

Laughing my ass off at your suggestion that I have to pay corporate entities to behave ethically. It's akin to paying Tony Soprano protection money.

And tell us, just what the fuck are you purchasing at the Gap? NTTIAWWT, you frickin' Mall Rat.

[MannyIsGod]

Look dude, as I told you once in some other thread, I prefer not fighting with you. I appreciate your posts and your intelligence. You can be and a-hole sometimes, but I think you know this :lol

I take back my comment, given that it ofended you. I'm still not sure how it did ofend but what I can say is that your skin has grown thinner.

I love this country but that does not mean I will not complain about the stuff I don't agree with, and one of the things I don't greee with is the war in Iraq.

Peace. I'm out.Smeagol, Ill be honest. I was bored today. :lmao

[MannyIsGod]

Manny the Pimp! hahahahaha

Manny, you shop at Wal-Mart because you are a penny-pincher. End of story.

Laughing my ass off at your suggestion that I have to pay corporate entities to behave ethically. It's akin to paying Tony Soprano protection money.

And tell us, just what the fuck are you purchasing at the Gap? NTTIAWWT, you frickin' Mall Rat.http://www.uhusnest.de/blog/media/o-rly.jpg

[Guru of Nothing]

No more beer. Gotta go.

G'Night whore.

[smeagol]

Smeagol, Ill be honest. I was bored today. :lmao
Me too :toast