The Surge

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 10, 2007, 4:19 am

Isn't working.

How many more people have to die before the US admits that its been defeated and will continue to be defeated in Iraq?

Are we going to continue with more Friedman Units until everyone just gets really bored with it all or what?

Should the US pull out, or remain until Iraq becomes more stable? Given that the US and its allies are the reason it is unstable and continues to be, wouldn't it be best to pull out now?

Admittedly, lots of people will die if the US leaves, but lots of people are dying now anyway, and will continue to do so regardless of what the US does at this point. So is a long, drawn out murder rate preferable to a shorter, quicker one?

If it can be compared to pulling off a band aid, do you pull it off slowly, or quickly?

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » August 10, 2007, 9:04 am

Nick wrote:Isn't working.

How long has it been in place? I believe it is only a couple weeks now.

Mak · Post by **Mak** » August 10, 2007, 1:15 pm

Nick wrote:Isn't working.

= opinion of someone who isn't there.

Here are some opinions of people who have been there.

Your band-aid analogy was weak, btw. If you want to insist on using it, though, remember this: band-aids are supposed to stay on until the wound is healed.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 10, 2007, 1:20 pm

There are plenty of people who "are there" that disagree with what you just posted. Also, having an informed opinion doesn't necessarily require that I go to the bloody frontline. As anyone with a brain knows.

Mak · Post by **Mak** » August 10, 2007, 1:43 pm

Nick wrote:There are plenty of people who "are there" that disagree with what you just posted.

Such as...?

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » August 10, 2007, 2:05 pm

I would like to hear some first hand accounts from people who have been there or people here on VV who have friends who have been there. Every single person I know that was in or around Iraq (Around a dozen, I'd say), has not said a single word about disagreeing with what's going on, nor did anyone that they spoke about that they served with.

That's not to say that there aren't people in the military there that do disagree, but again - the (liberal) media entities make focus on the handful of people that come home and have issues coping with what they did (which does not necessarily mean they disagree with us being in Iraq) and end up committing suicide. Then all of the sudden this means that all the soldiers there hate Bush and want to come home.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » August 10, 2007, 2:13 pm

The only complaint I have heard from a soldier in Iraq has been that the Iraqi people are "starting to act stupid." He said that the way many of them were acting was causing more danger in the area for themselves than the troops. Sadly, he's also the first person that I know personally which will not be coming home. At least the wackos from the Westboro Baptist Church will not be attempting to disrupt the procession/services.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » August 10, 2007, 2:15 pm

I just had a Surge in my pants. It's working really well.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 10, 2007, 2:16 pm

http://www.ivaw.org/

There are also a myriad of articles in the papers about this, and you're perfectly aware of that too.

It doesn't really matter what the troops think anyway when a sizeable majority of the population in the US (and effecively the entirety of the rest of the world) thinks its been a unmitigated disaster and that the troops should be pulled out, or at the very least decreased dramatically. (http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm).

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » August 10, 2007, 2:26 pm

Nick wrote:http://www.ivaw.org/

There are also a myriad of articles in the papers about this, and you're perfectly aware of that too.

It doesn't really matter what the troops think anyway when a sizeable majority of the population in the US (and effecively the entirety of the rest of the world) thinks its been a unmitigated disaster and that the troops should be pulled out, or at the very least decreased dramatically. (http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm).

and why does the majority of the US and the world feel that way?...because they were told to feel that way, lemmings.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 10, 2007, 2:29 pm

Nice troll.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » August 10, 2007, 2:29 pm

Nick wrote:Nice troll.

Like the initial post?

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 10, 2007, 2:36 pm

Oh for fuck sake, idiot. If every post ever made about Iraq = troll, then yes, it was a troll, as opposed to a fucking question about one of the most important global political events of the last 25 years.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » August 10, 2007, 2:37 pm

Boogahz wrote:
Nick wrote:Nice troll.
Like the initial post?

I agree. Like a hot girl going to the club wearing almost nothing - nick knew exactly what he was aiming to do. And he succeeded.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » August 10, 2007, 2:44 pm

Funkmasterr wrote:
Boogahz wrote:
Nick wrote:Nice troll.
Like the initial post?

I agree. Like a hot girl going to the club wearing almost nothing - nick knew exactly what he was aiming to do. And he succeeded.

yep

rhyae · Post by **rhyae** » August 10, 2007, 2:53 pm

I read Fick's book One Bullet Away and all of his recent essays and he makes a lot of sense. As a Marine he served in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq, then came back and got his masters in International Security Policy from Harvard.
http://www.nathanielfick.com/more/more.asp.
His website has a paper he wrote called "How we got here in Iraq- and why a Surge wont help."

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » August 10, 2007, 2:59 pm

Nick wrote:Oh for fuck sake, idiot. If every post ever made about Iraq = troll, then yes, it was a troll, as opposed to a fucking question about one of the most important global political events of the last 25 years.

Let's see, you dismiss one person's link as "slanted" and follow up with IVAW.org? Seriously, you have no wish to hear anything "positive" about the situation in Iraq, and you knew this when you posted the thread. I am sorry that you got called out for it before page 5.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » August 10, 2007, 3:23 pm

I know 4 people that are, or have been in Iraq.

First. A friend I've sort of lost touch with. He is with the Air National Guard. He fixes jets and helicopters. He was trapped in Iraq for 3 times longer than he was suppossed to be. Everytime the date came up to return home, the moved it back. Three times in a row. Once, his return date was only 2 weeks away. He had to stay another 6 months. He contributes his long stay in Iraq as a major factor in his divorce. He's extremely bitter. When I asked him about why we're over there and if he thinks we're doing good, he really didn't care. He said he was bored sensless all the time and didn't trust a single Iraqi. He thinks they can't wait for us to leave so they can go apeshit killing each other. He was against the war.

Second. A co-worker's son I'd met throughout the years. He enlisted right out of highschool and was killed in action last month. When I asked him about his views on the war, he repeated exactely what his recruiter wanted him too. He was fresh out of boot camp when he died. He had graduated highschool less than a year eariler.

Third. A man I used to run with back in the day. He was one of a large group of friends. He'll be going off to Iraq within the next several months to build roads. He hates George Bush and hates the war, but he's a good man who basically says "This is what I signed up for. This is what I get paid for". He will do his duty to the best of his ability. He's had a handful of friends die in Iraq, but he dosen't seem nervous to go himself.

Fourth. My wife's best friend's husband. He trains pilots in the Air Force. He's your typical Republican. White, rich, christian, and completely for George Bish and the war in every concievable way. He's a very intelligent man and I enjoy talking about politics with him, although his stances frequently scare the bejesus out of me. God enters the equation waaaaay too much when talking with him. He'll be in Iraq for a short period of time within the next year.

In my personal life, within my circle of friends, family, and co-workers, I don't know a single person who approves of the war. Take it for what it's worth.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 10, 2007, 3:33 pm

Boogahz wrote:Let's see, you dismiss one person's link as "slanted" and follow up with IVAW.org? Seriously, you have no wish to hear anything "positive" about the situation in Iraq, and you knew this when you posted the thread. I am sorry that you got called out for it before page 5.

Anyone who honestly thinks there's anything positive about Iraq needs their fucking head examined.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » August 10, 2007, 3:38 pm

Nick wrote:
Boogahz wrote:Let's see, you dismiss one person's link as "slanted" and follow up with IVAW.org? Seriously, you have no wish to hear anything "positive" about the situation in Iraq, and you knew this when you posted the thread. I am sorry that you got called out for it before page 5.
Anyone who honestly thinks there's anything positive about Iraq needs their fucking head examined.

That's your opinion and you have every right to believe that sir, but why do you start conversations about this and pretend like you want to hear differing opinions when all you really want to do is spout your usual hateful close minded bullshit at the first person that doesn't agree with you?

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 10, 2007, 3:50 pm

Well then surprise me, show me some "positive" stories that outweigh the carnage of that place.

miir · Post by **miir** » August 10, 2007, 3:56 pm

Mak wrote:Here are some opinions of people who have been there.

Haha, nice source.
News World Communications Inc...
lolz....

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » August 10, 2007, 4:03 pm

Nick wrote:Well then surprise me, show me some "positive" stories that outweigh the carnage of that place.

You didn't answer my question.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » August 10, 2007, 4:56 pm

Well then surprise me, show me some "positive" stories that outweigh the carnage of that place.

http://www.examiner.com/a-872285%7EThe_ ... _now_.html

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/? ... E2ZmFhNWY=

http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/20 ... er-anyway/

Sure, these are biased sources which contain healthy measures of opinion. But so are yours. And these blurbs (which I found via a very very quick and unthorough search) include quotes from folks like generals and democratic senators who acknowledge that the surge is to some extent successful.

I was against the war in the first place, and I'm against withdrawal now. I seem to like unpopular positions. We need to think of this as a sunk costs situation-- sure we shouldn't have gone in there, and sure the progress we're making now is dwarfed by the destruction we've caused. But the choice now isn't undoing the destruction and unmaking our decision v. stay the course. It's face the consequences of abandoning Iraq v. maintaining the small positive momentum we've managed to generate. Anti-war folks can't allow themselves to be so blinded by the futility of the war in the first place that they ignore what the situation is now in favor of focusing on what the situation was five years ago. We cannot unmake the invasion.

Here's a slightly less biased one:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wir ... id=3452706

Oh, and from that article:

On compelling Iraq's political leaders to move toward reconciliation, few American officers appear to believe that an early pullout would do the trick. They think it would propel the country further into chaos.

Crocker is explicit on that point.

"A massive human catastrophe (could follow), with the bloodshed among the Iraqi civilians on a scale we have not seen and may find hard to imagine," he told AP.

Whole new meaning to "bleeding heart liberal."

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 10, 2007, 5:24 pm

But so are yours.

How is finding lots of peope dying unnecessarily a "biased opinion"?

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » August 10, 2007, 5:32 pm

I'm disappointed in that response. I specifically respond to your question and that's the constructive response I get?

Well Nick, the answer is that a group which specifically advocates a particular policy position is biased by definition. I imagine if you asked IVAW whether they consider themselves unbiased in a journalistic sense, they would tell you "no."

Nick wrote:How is finding lots of peope dying unnecessarily a "biased opinion"?

Sueven wrote:
ABC News wrote:On compelling Iraq's political leaders to move toward reconciliation, few American officers appear to believe that an early pullout would do the trick. They think it would propel the country further into chaos.

Crocker is explicit on that point.

"A massive human catastrophe (could follow), with the bloodshed among the Iraqi civilians on a scale we have not seen and may find hard to imagine," he told AP.

Ask yourself the same thing.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » August 10, 2007, 5:35 pm

Sueven wrote:I'm disappointed in that response. I specifically respond to your question and that's the constructive response I get?

Well Nick, the answer is that a group which specifically advocates a particular policy position is biased by definition. I imagine if you asked IVAW whether they consider themselves unbiased in a journalistic sense, they would tell you "no."

Nick wrote:How is finding lots of peope dying unnecessarily a "biased opinion"?

Sueven wrote:
ABC News wrote:On compelling Iraq's political leaders to move toward reconciliation, few American officers appear to believe that an early pullout would do the trick. They think it would propel the country further into chaos.

Crocker is explicit on that point.

"A massive human catastrophe (could follow), with the bloodshed among the Iraqi civilians on a scale we have not seen and may find hard to imagine," he told AP.
Ask yourself the same thing.

You shouldn't be surprised. The same guy that has told me to get the facts who knows how many times couldn't give me a simple answer to the clear question I posed to him above.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 11, 2007, 1:28 am

First of all Funk, what you posed was barely a question. It was an assumption and attack that I do not wish to hear alternative opinions. You can be cynical if you like and assume that I posted this thread without wanting to get alternative opinions, on your own head be it. You would be wrong.

So let's not fool ourselves into thinking I was dodging your question, because it wasn't really a question in the first place. It was bullshit trolling.

Sueven wrote:http://www.examiner.com/a-872285%7EThe_ ... _now_.html

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/? ... E2ZmFhNWY=

http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/20 ... er-anyway/

The first article is nonsense, lumping in every single attack caused by non coalition forces as caused by "Al Qaida in Iraq." Which is a ridiculous way of describing the Civil War currently taking place in the country. This assumption is patently false. It's also conjecture from unreliable sources (Patreus is a renowned apologist and, admittedly biased as this is, in my opinion one of the last people I would go to for reliable commentary on whether the surge is working or not.)

The second article isn't loading for me at the moment, I'll get back to you on that if/when it works.

The third article is little to do with anything optimistic coming out of Iraq, it's more a dig at the Democratic Party than anything else. It's also REALLY badly written.

I was against the war in the first place, and I'm against withdrawal now. I seem to like unpopular positions. We need to think of this as a sunk costs situation-- sure we shouldn't have gone in there, and sure the progress we're making now is dwarfed by the destruction we've caused. But the choice now isn't undoing the destruction and unmaking our decision v. stay the course. It's face the consequences of abandoning Iraq v. maintaining the small positive momentum we've managed to generate. Anti-war folks can't allow themselves to be so blinded by the futility of the war in the first place that they ignore what the situation is now in favor of focusing on what the situation was five years ago. We cannot unmake the invasion.

I agree to an extent, as you know I was against the invasion. However, there's plenty of evidence to suggest that the American occupation is in fact making the situation worse, not better (See the last 4 years in Iraq). This is an assumption thats hard to swallow for a country thats starting to realise its caused a massive fuck up.

The further the US is from Iraq the better.

The bloodbath is already happening and has been happening ANYWAY, regardless of whether the US thinks it can fix it. Time has shown that they can't. How much more time do you think is reasonable to demand?

MAYBE If there was a UN/Nato multi-national team (that is, if you could persuade the rest of the world to clean up America's mess) then that MIGHT help the situation but even that is being optimistic.

It has nothing to do with Anti war folk being so blinded by the futility of the war by focusing on 5 years ago. It has to do with the fact that America isn't helping the situation as it stands now.

Here's a slightly less biased one:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wir ... id=3452706

This is not an optimistic article!

On compelling Iraq's political leaders to move toward reconciliation, few American officers appear to believe that an early pullout would do the trick. They think it would propel the country further into chaos.

Crocker is explicit on that point.

"A massive human catastrophe (could follow), with the bloodshed among the Iraqi civilians on a scale we have not seen and may find hard to imagine," he told AP.

American Officers are not people that the rest of the world considers to be reliable sources.

I'm not actually in favour of leaving the Iraqi's to rot. That would be criminal in the extreme. But the fact is that America sure as fuck isn't going to fix it, they have proven that beyond all doubt. A UN/Nato force is needed, and even that will mean several years of cleaning up the US' mess, whether the US can persuade the rest of the world to send their men to die for their constantly predicted, now proven accurate right cock up remains to be seen. If America really wanted a fix in Iraq, rather than this desperately inept continued (useless) attempt to save face, it would go back to the UN/Nato or whoever the fuck deals with this sort of thing and ask for real help.

It hasn't.

The reality is, we are now fighting religious zealots, a multi national force isn't really going to fix that either. But if any western involvement is to be considered, right now the worst people on Earth to be in charge are the Yanks.

Still disappointed? I didn't have time earlier

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » August 11, 2007, 9:10 am

Nick wrote:MAYBE If there was a UN/Nato multi-national team (that is, if you could persuade the rest of the world to clean up America's mess) then that MIGHT help the situation but even that is being optimistic.
...
I'm not actually in favour of leaving the Iraqi's to rot. That would be criminal in the extreme. But the fact is that America sure as fuck isn't going to fix it, they have proven that beyond all doubt. A UN/Nato force is needed, and even that will mean several years of cleaning up the US' mess, whether the US can persuade the rest of the world to send their men to die for their constantly predicted, now proven accurate right cock up remains to be seen. If America really wanted a fix in Iraq, rather than this desperately inept continued (useless) attempt to save face, it would go back to the UN/Nato or whoever the fuck deals with this sort of thing and ask for real help.
...
The reality is, we are now fighting religious zealots, a multi national force isn't really going to fix that either. But if any western involvement is to be considered, right now the worst people on Earth to be in charge are the Yanks.

I am guessing that you missed the fact that the UN actually LEFT because THEY were getting attacked back in 2003. Also, you might have missed that the UN Security Council JUST approved the re-entry into Iraq to assist in issues there. Who sponsored the resolution? The US and Britain (OMGZWTFNO!). That is a step in the right direction, but I haven't seen anything about that on the news because people are so set on BADBADBAD that they cannot see anything good. It's the same reason people here are calling you a troll. You refuse to see ANY good. Nobody here has ever claimed that everything was going well in Iraq, but that is the only way you seem to be able to wrap your mind around it. All Good or All Bad. The world does not work that way. You say that the US is the worst to be in charge, so why not shut the fuck up about it here and go take charge? Do you really think that the US would not allow anyone else to step in to help? Nobody IS stepping up to do so.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » August 11, 2007, 9:13 am

Boogahz wrote:
Nick wrote:MAYBE If there was a UN/Nato multi-national team (that is, if you could persuade the rest of the world to clean up America's mess) then that MIGHT help the situation but even that is being optimistic.
...
I'm not actually in favour of leaving the Iraqi's to rot. That would be criminal in the extreme. But the fact is that America sure as fuck isn't going to fix it, they have proven that beyond all doubt. A UN/Nato force is needed, and even that will mean several years of cleaning up the US' mess, whether the US can persuade the rest of the world to send their men to die for their constantly predicted, now proven accurate right cock up remains to be seen. If America really wanted a fix in Iraq, rather than this desperately inept continued (useless) attempt to save face, it would go back to the UN/Nato or whoever the fuck deals with this sort of thing and ask for real help.
...
The reality is, we are now fighting religious zealots, a multi national force isn't really going to fix that either. But if any western involvement is to be considered, right now the worst people on Earth to be in charge are the Yanks.

I am guessing that you missed the fact that the UN actually LEFT because THEY were getting attacked back in 2003. Also, you might have missed that the UN Security Council JUST approved the re-entry into Iraq to assist in issues there. That is a step in the right direction, but I haven't seen anything about that on the news because people are so set on BADBADBAD that they cannot see anything good. It's the same reason people here are calling you a troll. You refuse to see ANY good. Nobody here has ever claimed that everything was going well in Iraq, but that is the only way you seem to be able to wrap your mind around it. All Good or All Bad. The world does not work that way. You say that the US is the worst to be in charge, so why not shut the fuck up about it here and go take charge? Do you really think that the US would not allow anyone else to step in to help? Nobody IS stepping up to do so.

Well said Boog.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » August 11, 2007, 12:17 pm

Nick wrote:This is not an optimistic article!

Well, Iraq is not a positive situation, and any all-cheery article would be unfair. It does contain some positives, however, most notably the opening line:

A reporter from a liberal source who is actually in Iraq wrote:The new U.S. military strategy in Iraq, unveiled six months ago to little acclaim, is working.

Nick wrote:American Officers are not people that the rest of the world considers to be reliable sources.

Fine by me, I agree. But you go with the sources you have, not the sources you wish you had. And there is nobody else on the ground who is capable of making such an assessment. I absolutely trust an American officer in Iraq more than I trust an Irishman on his couch or an American political pundit in his office in New York. Or myself on my couch, for that matter.

Nick wrote:I'm not actually in favour of leaving the Iraqi's to rot. That would be criminal in the extreme. But the fact is that America sure as fuck isn't going to fix it, they have proven that beyond all doubt. A UN/Nato force is needed, and even that will mean several years of cleaning up the US' mess, whether the US can persuade the rest of the world to send their men to die for their constantly predicted, now proven accurate right cock up remains to be seen. If America really wanted a fix in Iraq, rather than this desperately inept continued (useless) attempt to save face, it would go back to the UN/Nato or whoever the fuck deals with this sort of thing and ask for real help.

It hasn't.

Well, Boogahz already pointed out that the U.S. in fact did (a) initially involve the U.N. and (b) is now actively trying to re-involve the U.N. That said, U.N. peacekeeping forces are historically not particularly effective. They sit around and watch atrocities occur, because they have neither the manpower/weaponry to stop them, and because they don't have the mandate to use force in many situations. Then the soldiers commit far worse atrocities than anything U.S. troops have been involved in (example: The Congo) before they come home without having solved anything and write weepy books about how sad they are. I'd much rather have what Bush initially proposed: A multinational coalition, free from the controls of strict institutionalism. Unfortunately, Bush failed to build that coalition in a sufficient way, but even still I'm not sure I'd choose the U.N. over a vastly U.S. dominated coalition.

Nick wrote:The bloodbath is already happening and has been happening ANYWAY, regardless of whether the US thinks it can fix it.

This is an issue which I believe is criminally understudied. It's a two part question. First, would violence and unrest become significantly worse if the U.S. pulls out? If so, second, is the U.S. presence simply stalling the inevitable, or do we have the capacity to change that situation such that violence and unrest do not become significantly worse when we pull out?

It seems to me that our policy with regard to withdrawal ought to hinge on the answers to these two questions. Which is why it's disappointing to see that they're almost NEVER discussed either in the media or in general political conversation.

And thanks for the good response.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » August 11, 2007, 12:32 pm

Sueven wrote: Anti-war folks can't allow themselves to be so blinded by the futility of the war in the first place that they ignore what the situation is now in favor of focusing on what the situation was five years ago. We cannot unmake the invasion.

Thats exactly the way I feel about this subject too. The invasion was a bad idea and the results haven't been good and I fear the consequences of an early withdrawal will be catastrophic... but a lot of the "fast withdrawal" people, and especially some of those seeking the Democrat nomination, seem only concerned with American lives, not the lives of the Iraqi people endangered by American gov't action and policy. That may be a play to the pseudo-patriotism of some of the electorate but it leaves an observer more than a little cynical about the depth of understanding some American politicians have for the situation.

I agree with just about everything in Sueven's last couple posts on this: I also think its extremely disappointing the lack of study/conversation that has occured about what happens if the US (and the rest of the coalition) pulls out and how to improve things to where they can without leaving a humanitarian crisis.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 11, 2007, 12:47 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Boogahz wrote: I am guessing that you missed the fact that the UN actually LEFT because THEY were getting attacked back in 2003. Also, you might have missed that the UN Security Council JUST approved the re-entry into Iraq to assist in issues there. That is a step in the right direction, but I haven't seen anything about that on the news because people are so set on BADBADBAD that they cannot see anything good. It's the same reason people here are calling you a troll. You refuse to see ANY good. Nobody here has ever claimed that everything was going well in Iraq, but that is the only way you seem to be able to wrap your mind around it. All Good or All Bad. The world does not work that way. You say that the US is the worst to be in charge, so why not shut the fuck up about it here and go take charge? Do you really think that the US would not allow anyone else to step in to help? Nobody IS stepping up to do so.

Well said Boog.

Midnyte, stop trolling, if you can't actually take part in the discussion without being a fucking cheer leader, then just fuck off.

Boogahz, I am guessing you are missing the fact that the point you raised absolutely in no ways diminishes what I said, and is merely a bullshit attempt to try and paint me as black and white, when in reality, that would be you doing that, in regards to whenever I post.

so why not shut the fuck up about it here and go take charge?

I didn't realise it was our responsibility to clean up your mess, when did that happen?

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » August 11, 2007, 1:04 pm

Nick wrote:
so why not shut the fuck up about it here and go take charge?
I didn't realise it was our responsibility to clean up your mess, when did that happen?

Um, okay...are you serious here? Seriously...you can't be.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 11, 2007, 1:09 pm

Why?

You suggest anyone who dares criticise Iraq "shut the fuck up and take charge." (of your mistake).

Is that really the attitude you expect is going to bring the world onside?

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » August 11, 2007, 1:11 pm

Nick wrote:Why?

You suggest anyone who dares criticise Iraq "shut the fuck up and take charge." (of your mistake).

Is that really the attitude you expect is going to bring the world onside?

No, you mention that we have fucked it up and that others should step in and take charge. I indicated that you should do it, and you come back with "why should we fix your problem?"

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 11, 2007, 1:22 pm

Yes, thats about the only way any good will come about, but you can be damn sure it wont happen if America goes "fucking take charge then noobs lol."

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » August 11, 2007, 1:34 pm

So...

Your (a theoretical "your") decision as to whether to step in and help out in Iraq will be based not on the CONSEQUENCES of that decision (ie, would it be a good thing to do? would you save lives? would it be in your self-interest? would it be in Iraq's interests?), but instead will be based on your perception of the level of humility which the United States demonstrates in inviting you to help?

Yeah... I hope you can see why that's not even worth discussing.

I think you would be shocked if you were aware of the level of callous disregard you are demonstrating for the lives of Iraqis, and for the well-being of the country and region generally. You would be willing to idly sit by and watch a genocide/ethnicide/politicide/whatever that you think you're capable of stopping in order to teach the United States a lesson about etiquette??

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 11, 2007, 1:41 pm

So what do you do? Allow the US to run roughshod over absolutely everyone? Fuck that.

As it stands the country I already live in supports America so the point is moot.

The lives of Iraqi's are important and work must be done, but if America thinks it can have its cake, eat it and be incapable of working with other nations, it is ultimately the country responsible for the deaths of those people (as it has been since the occupation began).

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » August 11, 2007, 2:32 pm

Despite this, you categorically reject a strategy wherein the U.S. accepts responsibility for minimizing Iraqi deaths and sacrifices it's own resources (political capital, military flexibility, money, and, of course, American lives) in order to minimize those deaths?

Instead, you'd prefer to see us follow a selfish strategy of saving our own resources and letting the Iraqi's fend for themselves with the help of whatever non-American entities feel like expending their own resources to step up to the plate.

You'll forgive me if I find this a bit puzzling. Pulling out would preserve our resources, as we're no longer getting any return on our investment in a Machiavellian self-interested sense, but would constitute an abdication of our responsibility to do right by the Iraqi people, a responsibility we accepted when we invaded in the first place. Wouldn't this be... bad?

I think that this should be a situation where non-American war critics should be saying "you made your own bed, now lie in it." And that's what we're trying to do.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 11, 2007, 7:08 pm

Interesting for both the retards and the non retards of the group:

So much for the September deadline. And no Boogahz, the surge didn't just start, it started months and months ago.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » August 11, 2007, 9:06 pm

Nick wrote:
I was against the war in the first place, and I'm against withdrawal now. I seem to like unpopular positions. We need to think of this as a sunk costs situation-- sure we shouldn't have gone in there, and sure the progress we're making now is dwarfed by the destruction we've caused. But the choice now isn't undoing the destruction and unmaking our decision v. stay the course. It's face the consequences of abandoning Iraq v. maintaining the small positive momentum we've managed to generate. Anti-war folks can't allow themselves to be so blinded by the futility of the war in the first place that they ignore what the situation is now in favor of focusing on what the situation was five years ago. We cannot unmake the invasion.

As long as I'm already raping you, I can't see why I should stop in the middle. I can't unfuck you.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » August 11, 2007, 9:10 pm

Sueven wrote: Well, Boogahz already pointed out that the U.S. in fact did (a) initially involve the U.N. and (b) is now actively trying to re-involve the U.N. That said, U.N. peacekeeping forces are historically not particularly effective. They sit around and watch atrocities occur, because they have neither the manpower/weaponry to stop them, and because they don't have the mandate to use force in many situations. Then the soldiers commit far worse atrocities than anything U.S. troops have been involved in (example: The Congo) before they come home without having solved anything and write weepy books about how sad they are. I'd much rather have what Bush initially proposed: A multinational coalition, free from the controls of strict institutionalism. Unfortunately, Bush failed to build that coalition in a sufficient way, but even still I'm not sure I'd choose the U.N. over a vastly U.S. dominated coalition.

The US was trying to involve the UN, and in fact get them to bring in a peacekeeping force, around about the time Sadam's statue was toppled. In a typical, "it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission" American style.

I don't see how asking the world to clean up your shit after you were told repeatedly to keep it in your pants is a "positive".

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » August 11, 2007, 9:17 pm

Sueven wrote:Despite this, you categorically reject a strategy wherein the U.S. accepts responsibility for minimizing Iraqi deaths and sacrifices it's own resources (political capital, military flexibility, money, and, of course, American lives) in order to minimize those deaths?

Instead, you'd prefer to see us follow a selfish strategy of saving our own resources and letting the Iraqi's fend for themselves with the help of whatever non-American entities feel like expending their own resources to step up to the plate.

You'll forgive me if I find this a bit puzzling. Pulling out would preserve our resources, as we're no longer getting any return on our investment in a Machiavellian self-interested sense, but would constitute an abdication of our responsibility to do right by the Iraqi people, a responsibility we accepted when we invaded in the first place. Wouldn't this be... bad?

I think that this should be a situation where non-American war critics should be saying "you made your own bed, now lie in it." And that's what we're trying to do.

There is a massive assumption here; that if you pull out things get *worse*.

Personally, I think the only thing a pullout will do to make the situation worse is complete the Vietnam analogy. Well. Worse for the US.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » August 12, 2007, 12:11 pm

Zaelath wrote:There is a massive assumption here; that if you pull out things get *worse*.

Personally, I think the only thing a pullout will do to make the situation worse is complete the Vietnam analogy. Well. Worse for the US.

Sueven wrote:This is an issue which I believe is criminally understudied. It's a two part question. First, would violence and unrest become significantly worse if the U.S. pulls out? If so, second, is the U.S. presence simply stalling the inevitable, or do we have the capacity to change that situation such that violence and unrest do not become significantly worse when we pull out?

It seems to me that our policy with regard to withdrawal ought to hinge on the answers to these two questions. Which is why it's disappointing to see that they're almost NEVER discussed either in the media or in general political conversation.

Hammerstalkerx · Post by **Hammerstalkerx** » August 13, 2007, 3:28 am

Ok lets get something straight. Was the war a good idea? No it wasn't but like most astute people have posted, running away isn't the answer. Oh and Nick stfu about how horrible America and Americans are. Historically the USA has helped far more than harmed when it comes to global issues.

By the way Nick what country were you born in?

The real problem in Iraq isn't just because the USA invaded. The real problem has been caused by the fanatical muslim terrorists that are not even Iraqi nationals. They are the ones preventing the rebuilding of Iraq, they are the ones behind the civil war. These terrorists are recruited from the poorest dregs of the muslim society and then lied to about their reward for killing not only Americans and British but every other nationality they can possibly target. Take your blinders off, if not Iraq these fanatics would have found somewhere else murder innocent people. They have been doing it for years and *Surprise* they do not represent even close to the majority of most muslims.

Look around the world Nick and tell me the Americans are responsilbe for the bombings in Bali, the murderous civil war in Southern Philippines or the bombings in Southern Thailand. Muslim fanatics are the ones that are 100% responsible for the continuing instability in Iraq and in other parts of the world.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 13, 2007, 6:44 am

I'll reply in more detail to that load of nonsense when I get home later.

miir · Post by **miir** » August 13, 2007, 10:37 am

Hammerstalkerx wrote:Ok lets get something straight. Was the war a good idea?

It's not a war.
It's an invasion and occupation of a soverign nation.

No it wasn't but like most astute people have posted, running away isn't the answer. Oh and Nick stfu about how horrible America and Americans are. Historically the USA has helped far more than harmed when it comes to global issues.

And Germany was an upstanding member of the european community before that Hitler fella did his thing....

The real problem in Iraq isn't just because the USA invaded.... blah blah blah blah blah.

How many terrorist attacks occurred in Iraq previous to the US invasion?

Look around the world Nick and tell me the Americans are responsilbe for the bombings in Bali, the murderous civil war in Southern Philippines or the bombings in Southern Thailand. Muslim fanatics are the ones that are 100% responsible for the continuing instability in Iraq and in other parts of the world.

The US bears the sole responsibility of destabilizing Iraq and creating the current situation.
The US has absolutely nothing to do with any of the other situations you mention.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » August 13, 2007, 10:41 am

Nick wrote:So much for the September deadline. And no Boogahz, the surge didn't just start, it started months and months ago.

Aha, I guess I was right. You were unaware that the requested "surge troops" did not all arrive until weeks ago. It's not like you're going through a fast food drive through where you place an order for troops and have them magically appear when you reach the second window.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » August 13, 2007, 10:51 am

Boogahz wrote:
Nick wrote:So much for the September deadline. And no Boogahz, the surge didn't just start, it started months and months ago.
Aha, I guess I was right. You were unaware that the requested "surge troops" did not all arrive until weeks ago. It's not like you're going through a fast food drive through where you place an order for troops and have them magically appear when you reach the second window.

Huh? The "troop surge" started about 6 months ago. Do a Google search. Here's one of a million articles that reference it.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266663,00.html

Suspected Sunni insurgents penetrated the Baghdad security net Wednesday, hitting Shiite targets with four bomb attacks that killed 183 people — the bloodiest day since the U.S. troop surge began nine weeks ago.

That article was from April 18, 2007. Do just a tiny bit of research before posting. What you are arguing against is basic knowledge. If you do not know the basics, how on earth can you discuss the more complex issues and expect anyone to take you seriously?

The question is, once you realize that the troop surge has been taking place over a much longer timeline than what you are obviously aware, will that effect your overall opinion or will you just gloss over that fact and hold steadfast to your current stance, irriguardless of the new information?