Iraq is getting worse...

Eternal Footman · #31 (**permalink**) 03-06-2007, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadshot

Let me give you an analogy, and maybe you'll understand why history plays a role in a decision.

You decide that we HAVE to go on a trip, I'm totally against it - but if you go, I must follow (it's my analogy so let me set it up.

) I tell you "EF, don't go down this path, it's dangerous and full of quicksand." You tell me you know best and not only is this the right path, that you've got it all planned out and will take care of me. Again, I don't want to come, but I follow because I must. Half way there we begin to sink in quicksand, you state everything's fine and up ahead it'll get better. I cannot change your course or mind, but must follow. Later we are knee deep and I, being the wit that I am, point that out and you get angry for my "defeatist attitude." You say we must press on, you know best and my opinion is weak and does not count. You continue forward, I must follow. Now the sand is up to our necks, we can't really move back and we can't really move forward, again I point out your folly, and you get pissed.

Actually I saw a mythbusters episode about quicksand, and I think we could make it through.

Deadshot · #32 (**permalink**) 03-06-2007, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eternal Footman

Actually I saw a mythbusters episode about quicksand, and I think we could make it through.

I've got a survival book at home, I think we'd be fine too.

But I do believe my analogy does hold true. Bush was the leader, the decider, the man with a plan - I was told that my defeatist, weak on defense, liberal Democrat views were unwelcomed. Now that we're in up to our necks, NOW, you want to know what my plan is to get us out of the mess you, not you personally EF - more the Bush Admin., got us into!

I don't have a plan because you said everything would be all right and my opinion was not required.

Eternal Footman · #33 (**permalink**) 03-06-2007, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadshot

I don't know how to get out of Iraq properly, YOUR side said that they'd take care of it. Now your side is upset, maybe not you in particular EF but many Republicans and especially the Bush Admin., because I don't have a plan to get us out of a situation I NEVER wanted to be in, in the first place.

I don't know the best way out, I only know - without a doubt or question - we never should have done this in the first place and many DEM's have been saying that for years.

How do we get out, I don't know. I just know I want out and the sooner the better, ergo my mention of the '08-'09 dates.

On a serious note, what do you think will happen to the Iraqi people when we leave?

This is war and not a trip to grandmothers house. If it starts to rain halfway through the trip, we can always turn back, but we don't have that luxury when in war. Granted, there is a point of diminished return, but I don't think we are at that point. . . I think we need to make some definite changes and soon, but an immediate withdraw is not the answer. As for the timeline, I don't think war should be decided by schedules. If the war begins tanking the economy, pull-out, if we are getting slaughtered, pull-out, if we see diminished return after exhausting our efforts, pull-out, but don't cite +3000 American casualties through +4yrs of battle as a reason to abandon the cause.

Eternal Footman · #34 (**permalink**) 03-06-2007, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadshot

I don't have a plan because you said everything would be all right and my opinion was not required.

This logic makes absolutely no sense to me. I'm really quite suprised you said it.

Deadshot · #35 (**permalink**) 03-06-2007, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eternal Footman

On a serious note, what do you think will happen to the Iraqi people when we leave?

This is war and not a trip to grandmothers house. If it starts to rain halfway through the trip, we can always turn back, but we don't have that luxury when in war. Granted, there is a point of diminished return, but I don't think we are at that point. . . I think we need to make some definite changes and soon, but an immediate withdraw is not the answer. As for the timeline, I don't think war should be decided by schedules. If the war begins tanking the economy, pull-out, if we are getting slaughtered, pull-out, if we see diminished return after exhausting our efforts, pull-out, but don't cite +3000 American casualties through +4yrs of battle as a reason to abandon the cause.

Personally, I would pull out. I would cite our losses, the continued high Iraqi losses and the fact that the majority of the country no longer is behind the war. But what would be your criteria for leaving?

Is it a stable Government at all costs?
Or would it be that as long as our casualties are below 1K a year we would stay up to 10 years?
What timetable, or if you don't like those, what objectives must the Iraqi's reach and THEN we'll leave? If they don't reach an objective, do we still stay?

Just curious. Also you mention the Iraqi slaughter that would ensue upon our leaving. I'd like to remind you of two things....

1st, what was America's greatest "slaughter" in a war? Dat's right - our Civil War.

2nd, before you holler about world reaction, Darfur doesn't have the world coming to their rescue and they're over the 1 million mark. So let the Iraqi's fight it out. We've been there for 4 years and will be there for at least 2 more. 6 years is enough.

Eternal Footman · #36 (**permalink**) 03-06-2007, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadshot

Personally, I would pull out. I would cite our losses, the continued high Iraqi losses and the fact that the majority of the country no longer is behind the war. But what would be your criteria for leaving?

Is it a stable Government at all costs?
Or would it be that as long as our casualties are below 1K a year we would stay up to 10 years?
What timetable, or if you don't like those, what objectives must the Iraqi's reach and THEN we'll leave? If they don't reach an objective, do we still stay?

Just curious. Also you mention the Iraqi slaughter that would ensue upon our leaving. I'd like to remind you of two things....

1st, what was America's greatest "slaughter" in a war? Dat's right - our Civil War.

2nd, before you holler about world reaction, Darfur doesn't have the world coming to their rescue and they're over the 1 million mark. So let the Iraqi's fight it out. We've been there for 4 years and will be there for at least 2 more. 6 years is enough.

If you believe letting them "fight it out" is the answer, I really don't have any more to say.

Deadshot · #37 (**permalink**) 03-06-2007, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eternal Footman

If you believe letting them "fight it out" is the answer, I really don't have any more to say.

Then what's your plan? What's your answer?

Convince me that your plan is right. What happened to a logical debate? I admit I don't have a plan for getting out. I don't think there is a good or even a poor option. Right now, IMHO, all options are really bad.

But you neither admit that the course of the war has been FUBAR'd by Bush, nor that the Iraqis should be held accountable for something nor that the current plan isn't working.

To go back to my previous analogy, we're up to our necks in quicksand and your mad because I don't have a plan. What's yours?

rdnor · #38 (**permalink**) 03-06-2007, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadshot

You see rdnor, you got that wrong. It's "Gee another terrorist attack, TODAY"

See 93 are dead and 140+ wounded today, 6 March.

9 U.S. soldiers killed on 5 March.

4 March a terrorist attack killed 8 Iraqis.

3 March terrorist blow up a bus killing 12.

Dude at least 4 times a week, sometimes EVERY day of the week Iraqis are dying. So yeah it's time to leave.

Don't ever call me dude ! It is called war . In wars civilians die . In wars soldiers die . And hopefully , many many more of the enemy die . From what I have heard from people that are THERE , the latter is the norm .

steve k · #39 (**permalink**) 03-17-2007, 11:18 PM

The Sunday Times
March 18, 2007
Iraqis: life is getting better
Marie Colvin

MOST Iraqis believe life is better for them now than it was under Saddam Hussein, according to a British opinion poll published today.

The survey of more than 5,000 Iraqis found the majority optimistic despite their suffering in sectarian violence since the American-led invasion four years ago this week.

One in four Iraqis has had a family member murdered, says the poll by Opinion Research Business. In Baghdad, the capital, one in four has had a relative kidnapped and one in three said members of their family had fled abroad. But when asked whether they preferred life under Saddam, the dictator who was executed last December, or under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, most replied that things were better for them today.

Only 27% think there is a civil war in Iraq, compared with 61% who do not, according to the survey carried out last month.

By a majority of two to one, Iraqis believe military operations now under way will disarm all militias. More than half say security will improve after a withdrawal of multinational forces.

Margaret Beckett, the foreign secretary, said the findings pointed to progress. “There is no widespread violence in the four southern provinces and the fact that the picture is more complex than the stereotype usually portrayed is reflected in today’s poll,” she said.

TheHarshTruth · #40 (**permalink**) 03-17-2007, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve k

The Sunday Times
March 18, 2007
Iraqis: life is getting better
Marie Colvin

MOST Iraqis believe life is better for them now than it was under Saddam Hussein, according to a British opinion poll published today.

The survey of more than 5,000 Iraqis found the majority optimistic despite their suffering in sectarian violence since the American-led invasion four years ago this week.

One in four Iraqis has had a family member murdered, says the poll by Opinion Research Business. In Baghdad, the capital, one in four has had a relative kidnapped and one in three said members of their family had fled abroad. But when asked whether they preferred life under Saddam, the dictator who was executed last December, or under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, most replied that things were better for them today.

Only 27% think there is a civil war in Iraq, compared with 61% who do not, according to the survey carried out last month.

By a majority of two to one, Iraqis believe military operations now under way will disarm all militias. More than half say security will improve after a withdrawal of multinational forces.

Margaret Beckett, the foreign secretary, said the findings pointed to progress. “There is no widespread violence in the four southern provinces and the fact that the picture is more complex than the stereotype usually portrayed is reflected in today’s poll,” she said.

Sure would be nice if you had a reference here so we could see where they found 5000 Iraqi's.