CM
Rookie
Posts: 0
|
Post by CM on Feb 2, 2009 10:52:19 GMT -5
Ending the war in Iraq Follow and read below link first: www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4625Well, I can boil Mr. Lynch's thesis down to one sentence; The U.S. should get out of Iraq quickly even if the whole country blows up in our faces as we do so. Okay, if it's so important to leave quickly, and if even horrible events are not reason enough to stay or even to make major efforts to quell violence while we are still there, why not just send everybody to the nearest airport and get all personnel out within 60 days? Seriously, if not offending Iraqi sensibilities are so important, why keep anybody there a minute longer than it takes to evacuate? Get as much equipment and supplies out in the 60 days as we can and blow up the rest so it is not used to arm various rival groups in Iraq. The author has raised a number of nasty possibilities that could arise as we are retreating, but says we should not use such flair-ups as an excuse to become re-engaged. Fine, he may be correct. But I still can't see why we would ask anybody to stay in harms way if we are not going to do our best to maintain order while we are there. Notice that Mr. Lynch says that staying an extra few months would not do any good because how do we know that the situation in Iraq would be any better if we delayed even that short time. I say let's go Mr. Lynch one further and ask what makes us think that things are going to be any better in 16 months than if we withdrew in 60 or 90 days? This business of leaving some (how many? 1,000? 5,000? 10,000?) to do training and go after terrorists is silly. Well, the second part is for sure. If you stick a few units out in the desert or somewhere and then ask them to go into Baghdad neighborhoods here and there to go after terrorists who might already have disappeared or set ambushes is senseless. The whole reason the Surge has worked is that we tried staying in bases and only going into harms way once in a while and that was a bust. Why would it work any better now that we have stopped keeping forces in neighborhoods to stabilize the situation? Lynch is just another of those who think that the war was a terrible mistake and we should leave precipitously no matter how bad things get in Iraq. He may very well be correct. If so, let's not ask our people to put their lives on the line a minute more than necessary. Warm up those transports and fly them out immediately.
|
|
|
Post by lou on Feb 2, 2009 13:30:30 GMT -5
CM, Mr Lynch is a professor who writes gobbledygook which his colleagues take as sparkling truth! Note common sense is not part of his thesis outline. If he had been born earlier (early 20th century) he would have been a stalwart supporter of Neville Chamberlain!
|
|
|
Post by jackoliver on Feb 2, 2009 14:42:09 GMT -5
sounds like Lou prefers the Bush / Cheney view of foreign policy...
KILL THEM ALL, LET GOD SORT THEM OUT...
Thank god your boy Palin lost Lou.... Better luck next time for your candidate to win and destroy the world...just for the GOP ;D
|
|
|
Post by lou on Feb 2, 2009 15:13:16 GMT -5
sounds like Lou prefers the Bush / Cheney view of foreign policy... KILL THEM ALL, LET GOD SORT THEM OUT... Thank god your boy Palin lost Lou.... Better luck next time for your candidate to win and destroy the world...just for the GOP ;D Oh my, what a brilliant response! You know you do provide comedic relief!
|
|
VOR
banned
BANNED FOR LIFE
VOR
Posts: 294
|
Post by VOR on Feb 2, 2009 17:17:17 GMT -5
No Louie, maybe we should stay in Iraq another few years and accomplish nothing and lose another 3-4,000 young Americans.....wow I love YOUR solution.....stay the course.
|
|
VOR
banned
BANNED FOR LIFE
VOR
Posts: 294
|
Post by VOR on Feb 2, 2009 17:19:50 GMT -5
What terrorists remain in Iraq CM? Iraq will ALWAYS be in religious strife. Today, tomorrow and the next day.
Forever they will be at war with each other. We have been fighting insurgents. Citizens of Iraq. Not Al Queada. Why hasn't that sunk in yet???
|
|
|
Post by jackoliver on Feb 2, 2009 17:20:56 GMT -5
yes VOR. Lou believes 3-4 thousand dead us soldiers is comic relief... STay the course LOU....it leads you straight to Sarah Palin Stay the course LOU,,,you might end up in Crawford with your other hero..the worst president in history.
|
|
VOR
banned
BANNED FOR LIFE
VOR
Posts: 294
|
Post by VOR on Feb 2, 2009 17:23:54 GMT -5
Remember, there were Al Queda is the US on 9-10-01 and there probably are some in here today with open borders North and South anyone can walk in. We have never fought a war against terrorists in Iraq, but against the people in religious trife. Shia vs. Sunni vs Kurd. Al Queda was nothing more then an irratant that was quickly destroyed by all sides.
|
|
|
Post by lou on Feb 2, 2009 19:45:40 GMT -5
What terrorists remain in Iraq CM? Iraq will ALWAYS be in religious strife. Today, tomorrow and the next day. Forever they will be at war with each other. We have been fighting insurgents. Citizens of Iraq. Not Al Queada. Why hasn't that sunk in yet??? Ah yes, wisdom is speaking! My what a fount of knowledge! Such assurance and they do say ignorance is bliss! And you provide truth to that maxim.
|
|
|
Post by lou on Feb 2, 2009 20:17:41 GMT -5
yes VOR. Lou believes 3-4 thousand dead us soldiers is comic relief... STay the course LOU....it leads you straight to Sarah Palin Stay the course LOU,,,you might end up in Crawford with your other hero..the worst president in history. i know it is tough for someone like you to grasp; but, it is called a backbone (you know an American trait pre-progressive era), it is called commitment, another American trait, apparently you haven't learned! The only thing you can do is continue with your, frankly put, obsessive fascination with Sarah Palin and her family!
|
|
|
Post by tpfkalarry on Feb 2, 2009 22:53:25 GMT -5
Begging The Question,
If we are waiting until we acheive victory in Iraq, would someone please tell me what victory means. I asked this question on the RR blog for going on three years. The elections we just witnessed in Iraq are very telling. Frankly they surprised me. Even in the south, a former Al-sadr stronghold we are seeing al-Maliki supporters scoring big. The voters, in interviews and on their blogs, are crediting al-Maliki with ending or at least attempting to end the sectarian violence. They are rejecting the al-Sadr candidates in places where they used to seem impregnable. This has a turning point feel to it. If we leave Iraq than really al-Sadr has nothing. We were seemingly his entire reason for existing. I still think the gradual drawdown is the way to do it. The current negotiations about the results of this election and the next set of elections will be very telling in terms of whether al-Maliki has indeed gained dominance over the sadrists and if the nationalistics in Iraq are ready to limit Irans influence there. The recent elections are the most positive sign coming out of Iraq since the statue came down.
|
|
|
Post by lou on Feb 3, 2009 12:30:35 GMT -5
Begging The Question, If we are waiting until we acheive victory in Iraq, would someone please tell me what victory means. I asked this question on the RR blog for going on three years. The elections we just witnessed in Iraq are very telling. Frankly they surprised me. Even in the south, a former Al-sadr stronghold we are seeing al-Maliki supporters scoring big. The voters, in interviews and on their blogs, are crediting al-Maliki with ending or at least attempting to end the sectarian violence. They are rejecting the al-Sadr candidates in places where they used to seem impregnable. This has a turning point feel to it. If we leave Iraq than really al-Sadr has nothing. We were seemingly his entire reason for existing. I still think the gradual drawdown is the way to do it. The current negotiations about the results of this election and the next set of elections will be very telling in terms of whether al-Maliki has indeed gained dominance over the sadrists and if the nationalistics in Iraq are ready to limit Irans influence there. The recent elections are the most positive sign coming out of Iraq since the statue came down. I believe you have soundly described that victory.
|
|
|
Post by jackoliver on Feb 3, 2009 18:52:58 GMT -5
Looks like Lou likes the idea of 4000 US troops dead for Bush's lie and mistakes...
Good job Lou,,,you should be proud...do me a favor, never look a brave soldier in the eyes...you are not worthy,,,,my military family has NO RESPECT FOR BUSH REPUBLICANS>>>NONE>>>
They have called them SCUM of the EARTH>..that is their hard EARNED OPINION by serving our country...
|
|
|
Post by lou on Feb 3, 2009 19:08:32 GMT -5
Looks like Lou likes the idea of 4000 US troops dead for Bush's lie and mistakes... Good job Lou,,,you should be proud...do me a favor, never look a brave soldier in the eyes...you are not worthy,,,,my military family has NO RESPECT FOR BUSH REPUBLICANS>>>NONE>>> They have called them SCUM of the EARTH>..that is their hard EARNED OPINION by serving our country... You are such a poor, misguided, ignorant buffoon! You don't have the first clue to what my background is or who I have lost, and, of course, that allows you to drivel your pathetic nonsense as clarity of thinking and patriotism! I know this is going to be difficult for you; but, you might want to pause and THINK before you send out your usual ugly claptrap!
|
|
|
Post by EscapeHatch on Feb 3, 2009 19:19:52 GMT -5
Looks like Lou likes the idea of 4000 US troops dead... Jack Oliver, I don't think that's fair to say of anyone that has NOT actively worked against this country in any way shape or form. Would it be fair to say that you like the idea of 4000 US troops being dead because of the split in the support for taking out Saddam when it was clearly the thing that had to be done in the opinion of the Clinton administration, the president's wife and the majority of Congress? I didn't think so. No American likes the idea of American deaths, no matter one's leanings.
|
|