For those trying the link to a free download of the PDF of the report, be patient. The link is the only one I could find and apparently the same is true for many others, so it's running slow and sometimes not downloading at all.

Dave

..."main instigators of conflict in the area, Syria and Iran."

It's interesting how some are so willing to forget how all this got Lesstarted.

What bothers me about the ISG is that they don't seem to have even tried to look at real solutions to the iraq situation. They just focused on the most politically expedient way to cut and run.

..."main instigators of conflict in the area, Syria and Iran."

It's interesting how some are so willing to forget how all this got Lesstarted.

That all depends on how you define 'all this'. I define 'all this' as the post-war influx of Al Qaeda and Iranian and Syrian sponsored agitators. The war was effectively over by the time they started coming into the country and turning the situation there into a new and different sort of conflict. If they had not come in then it would have just been a matter of pacifying and/or negotiating with the Baathists. Their entry into the situation, not the US presence, is what created the current mess, and the responsibility for that is clearly and undeniably on them.

Dave

"Their entry into the situation, not the US presence, is what created the current mess,..."

No, you really cannot shift the blame so easily. The U.S. clearly precipitated a vacuum that the likes of Al Qaeda and outside state-sponsored agitators were more than eager to fill. It does not matter if such consequences were unforeseen or not -- the cause and effect remain what they are.

Sisyphus, the idea was that a new Iraqi government would fill that void. Admittedly the US didn't make that transation happen quickly enough, but that wouldn't have been a problem had the Syrians, Iranians and Al Qaeda not taken advantage of it. Don't try to blame the victim - well, one of the victims. Fault still lies primarily with those who have been actively promoting terror and the killing of civilians.

Dave

"What bothers me about the ISG is that they don't seem to have even tried to look at real solutions to the iraq situation. They just focused on the most politically expedient way to cut and run."
- Lumpy

It's still not too late to enlist, Lumpy.

Dave: the planning for the peace was pretty poor, you must admit. Sisyphus is absolutely right about the power vacuum and as a student of such things you would know this too.

The sad thing about it is, it's always been there and has had to be filled by heavy-handed if not murderous dictatorships (which the US and Britain clearly are not) - right from the time of independence from the British in the 1930s.

The first civilian government in Iraq only lasted four years before the first coup and it's been game on since then.

I can't understand the reasoning of people like Rumsfeld, who just thought we could all merrily go in there with a very successful military campaign - and it was - and just think that everything would take care of itself.

There was such a glaring risk from a historical perspective even blind freddy could have seen it.

Now we must find a course of action that spares Iraq further horror and saves face for everyone without opening the region up to more Iranian meddling. It WILL decend into a real civil war otherwise.

This is the wretched course that GWB set us on when he frivolously decided to invade Iraq. And it is the wretched course that his supporters kept us on when we discovered no WMD but they decided to keep at war anyway. This dreadful conundrum is the result of warrior civilians who were so dead sure certain of the future that they could make no future plans. They have eliminated all the good options and left us with nothing but ignominy in our futures.

Unlike Vietnam, this isn't a military defeat. The coalition won the war but forgot that other things needed to be done straight afterwards. They weren't. And how anyone can think that it wasn't a good thing to rid this country of Saddam Hussein is beyond me.

As I've said before, the majority of Iraqis - those who aren't setting off roadside bombs or sniping at coalition soldiers - are not unhappy about Saddam being removed.

They are unhappy about what happened afterwards. But they also share the same aims as the coalition: one of which is the right to live without being blown up.

These are the people who shouldn't be forgotten in our haste to piss off out of the place to save face.

Blaming Iran and Syria for the insurgency is simplistic. Even experienced American commanders in Iraq don't seem to have a clear handle on exactly who makes up the insurgent groups...they're a mix of ex-soldiers, ex-criminals, Baathist Iraqis, other Sunnis who fear a Shiite state. "Al Qaeda types" [not clear whether they are really Al Qaeda, whatever that is, or other Islamists] may make up only a small percentage, but they have caused very visible violence.

Iran's influence is not with the Sunni insurgency, but with the Shia militias, which are certainly a problem, but a very separate one. The Shia-Sunni conflict, formerly kept in check by Saddam's oppression, may well continue no matter what we do.

Baker's suggestion that we "negotiate" with Syria and Iran is certainly not intended to mean we should roll over and do whatever those countries want...the goal would be to open a dialogue with two countries that would face massive refugee problems if the war keeps spiralling - and even to expose them as obstructionists if that is indeed the case.

Isolating them, threatening them, and assuming we know their intentions without any attempt at even the most basic diplomacy is typical of the Bush-Cheney-Rice worldview, which is what got us into this mess to begin with.

There are very few viable options left that are likely to work, certainly not quickly. We are in for a long, unpleasant couple of years (at least).

MCH. We've been over this before. No branch of the military wants someone who can barely walk. I did work as a civilian contractor for the pentagon for several years, but that's as close as I'm likely to come to serving in the military despite my desire, at least until they start bringing in people for electronic warfare solely on the basis of their video game skills.

Since you're so concerned about everyone's military service I wonder why you didn't stay in the service after fulfilling the minimum requirement when you were drafted. Surely your experience would have been valuable.

the planning for the peace was pretty poor, you must admit. Sisyphus is absolutely right about the power vacuum and as a student of such things you would know this too.

Sure, the planning was poor. But the fact that a power vacuum was created doesn't excuse those who took advantage of it for nefarious purposes.

The sad thing about it is, it's always been there and has had to be filled by heavy-handed if not murderous dictatorships (which the US and Britain clearly are not) - right from the time of independence from the British in the 1930s.

It's a fair bet that it will be filled by a heavy handed dictator before this decade has come to an end, and that may be the best solution.

I can't understand the reasoning of people like Rumsfeld, who just thought we could all merrily go in there with a very successful military campaign - and it was - and just think that everything would take care of itself.

I think they banked on Chalabi having the support he claimed to have and setting him up as a puppet. Then when it turned out he didn't have the backing he had claimed they had to start improvising and that's where it all went bad.

Dave

This is the wretched course that GWB set us on when he frivolously decided to invade Iraq.

"Frivolously" ???

After the UN voted 15-0 in favor of "serious consequences" for Iraq?

After both Houses of the US Congress voted in favor of invasion by wide margins?

Polls of American voters at the time showed support for the invasion at about 70%...

"Frivolously" ???

"[W]e discovered no WMD but they decided to keep at war anyway.

1 - We did discover WMDs, just not any enormous stockpiles...

2 - Do you think the US should have fled Iraq immediately after no major stockpiles of WMDs were found? Despite the fact that al-Qaeda terrorists had infiltrated the country by then?

"Unlike Vietnam, this isn't a military defeat."

Hell, even Vietnam wasn't really a military defeat. The US and its allies (including Australia) has won almost every battle fought. The "defeat" in Vietnam was a political one, just like the "defeat" we are about to face in Iraq.

RJ Elliot:

"Frivolously" ???

After the UN voted 15-0 in favor of "serious consequences" for Iraq?

I don't share your high opinion of the UN

After both Houses of the US Congress voted in favor of invasion by wide margins?

Sheep, led by sheepish Rs and Ds afraid of being called peacenik pussies. Besides, they didn't vote to invade, they voted, in their usual cowardly way, to allow GWB to decide to invade.

Polls of American voters at the time showed support for the invasion at about 70%...

Sure, even I supported the invasion, under sway of the lies they promulgated. At least I admitted I was deceived by lies and recanted, unlike most.

"Frivolously" ???

"[W]e discovered no WMD but they decided to keep at war anyway.

1 - We did discover WMDs, just not any enormous stockpiles...

Trivial WMD, and NO NUKES!

2 - Do you think the US should have fled Iraq immediately after no major stockpiles of WMDs were found?

Why not? Leaving then would not have been fleeing, but it will soon become 'fleeing'.

Despite the fact that al-Qaeda terrorists had infiltrated the country by then?

Sez who? We need a good anti-AQ guy in Iraq, like Saddam. Who's the bonehead who decided to get rid of him?

Iraq?

Can we be done with this?

WE LOST.

...A long time ago.

THERE IS NOTHING LEFT TO *DISCUSS.

USA: get the fuck out.


*unless it's... "How many Republican/Libertarian, **macho typists on Blogcritics can pine for an imaginary 'victory' dance on the head of a pin?"


** as MCH so often points out: it's interesting how many right-wingers want to continue a futile, unwinnable american foreign policy -- as long as it's ***SOME OTHER AMERICAN GETTING KILLED FOR NO GOOD REASON. (3 died yesterday, 12/11/06)

***speaking of Vietnam, John Kerry's 1971 words come back to haunt us: "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"



So how do you, ya pack of delusional, chickenshit blowhards?

See comment #4 for a good example of Nalle's DELUSIONAL rewriting of history.

BTW: Here's the key to the problem, Davey: (read it carefully)

one can't "rebuild -- institute democracy -- unite --stabilize" (etc etc etc) Iraq --

BECAUSE:

~get this~

THERE AIN'T NO IRAQ.

There never was.

It's a FANTASY of early 20th century western imperialists who redrew the maps for a buncha uneducated, macho, medieval, misogynistic, TRIBAL assholes.

LUMPY: "...What bothers me about the ISG is that they don't seem to have even tried to look at real solutions to the iraq situation. They just focused on the most politically expedient way to cut and run."

Um, Lump-boy, the folks at The Karl Rove Center for Orwellian Media Manipulation called: they want their empty, meaningless, irrelevant old phrase back.

Yer welcome.

RJ, just shut up. Okay?

Seriously, man, that shit is SOOOO FUCKING TIRED.

Go play football with your little buddies.

We'll talk after Bush's reign ends -- when Colin Powell and about a hunerd other Bush administration employees start writing books and singin' like canaries on crack.

You should wait until then before attempting to continue your bullshit about their War Marketing Program.

Thanks in advance,
S

CONTEXT:

As of 12/10/2006

2,932 AMERICAN SOLDIERS KILLED

22,057 AMERICAN SOLDIERS WOUNDED.

========

...and to anyone who wants our troops to stay in Iraq ONE MORE day:

Fuck you. You're evil.

========



PS: Two names I know yall don't wanna be REMINDED OF:

Scott Ritter
Cindy Sheehan

~next~

1 - We did discover WMDs, just not any enormous stockpiles...

Trivial WMD, and NO NUKES!

To be fair, even the administration didn't claim there were actual nukes in Iraq, just that Iraq was stockpiling nuclear materials, which was certainly absolutely true. If I recall correctly they found 1800 kilos of enriched uranium and about 10 times that much yellowcake. That alone pretty much fills all the requirements for WMD materials anyone could ask for.

Dave

Yes we cannot win with our current feeble efforts.

In WWII we would kill over 80,000 people a night with incendiary bombs. Nobody has that kind of backbone today.

What Would Reagan Do (WWRD) with Fallujah? He would have bombed the shit out of it.

The military is currently being abused. They should be allowed to kill people and break things until our enemies surrender. That is their purpose. Do not send them if you don't want them to fullfill their purpose.

The best parts of the ISG report do not directly concern Sunnis or Syrians or Iranians. There were never going to be any miraculous or brilliant new solutions in the report, and it was unrealistic for us to expect any.

No, the best parts of the report are the rebukes to the Bush administration, such as:

- Stop leaving funding for the war out of the budget and putting it in "emergency requests" - a slight of hand designed to skew deficit numbers. (This is from recommendation #72)

- Stop under-reporting violence. The report uses as an example one day in July when the US reported 93 acts of violence, while the ISG was able to identify 1100!

- Allow and encourage the military to offer independent advice to the Pentagon and the president. (Rumsfeld did the opposite, and Bush reinforced this by tolerating it.)

As the NY Times put it:
"It is mind-boggling that this commission felt compelled to deliver Governing 101 lessons to the president of the United States. But that fits with the implicit message of the entire exercise -- a rebuke of the ideologically blinkered way Mr. Bush operates."

You'd think the admin would have been a little more welcoming to the ISG since not one of the ISG members was against the invasion in the first place.

So I guess we can lay to rest the notion that only hawks have the cajones to discuss peace.

I decided to read this report insted of all the bullshit being thrown around about it. Right in the guts of the report are its problems, so far as I'm concerned.

Jim (fuck the Jews) Baker has decided that our asses are the sacrificial goat for America's failure in Iraq, and that the US will not attack Iran to destroy its efforts at nuclearization, or, a simpler operation, destroy its oil wealth so that it could not proceed further.

Since the Olmert regime is a bunch of lying traitors, after a little squeeze from the US, they will accept this report and start shoving the knife in our own backs as the Americans order.

If this report is adopted as American policy, then it will be time for Jews like me to figure out how to overthrown the regime in Jerusalem by any and all means necessary, and to engage in the active defense of the Jewish people.

The report reiterates that "the United States will never abandon Israel."

BULLSHIT The knife's already in the back and being twisted.

My shekels' worth.

Maurice writes:

The military is currently being abused. They should be allowed to kill people and break things until our enemies surrender. That is their purpose. Do not send them if you don't want them to fullfill their purpose.

I couldn't agree with you more.

Thank you.

Maurice/Clavos: "The military is currently being abused. They should be allowed to kill people and break things until our enemies surrender."

Like that worked in Nam.

Go read a fuckin' history book.

One way in which Iraq may end up like Vietnam is as a pipe dream military victory that coulda/shoulda been.

For a long time now, voices on the right have claimed that we could easily have won the war in Vietnam, if only the politicians had let the army do its job. John McCain seems to be setting up a similar scenario to add to his 2008 campaign speeches: "If only they had listened to me, we coulda won this thing."

These woulda/coulda/shoulda's seem pretty dubious to me. But of course they are basically unprovable one way or the other. So they make a good rallying cry for hawks when it comes time to ratchet up defense spending or cheer themselves up about election results.

(Even with the army's hands putatively "tied behind its back," nearly 60,000 US soldiers and over 1 million Vietnamese died. How much more violence should we have wrought, anyway? And now, thirty years after North Vietnam won, we have a peaceful happy relationship with a partly capitalist Vietnam. Dominoes did not fall, the world spun on, the Soviet Union eventually collapsed in on itself. So why hang on to this delusion of a Victory That Never Was? What kind of comparable delusions will we be looking back on in Iraq?)

finny one,

I WAS THERE.

And that's EXACTLY why we didn't win: we didn't kill enough people (civilians) and we didn't break enough things.

US is a pussy in conducting wars. We shouldn't go to war against anybody, unless ready to blow 'em ALL to kingdom come, because that's how war is won. And since we're no longer prepared to do that, we should stop going to war altogether, because all we're doing now (and all we did in Vietnam) is sacrificing American lives needlessly.

The last war we won decisively was WWII, and as Maurice says, we did it by killing large numbers of people.

My point was [partly] that after we finally left Vietnam, everything eventually turned out more or less ok. So what purpose would killing more civilians have served?

Killing the first million served no purpose, either. The answer is not that we did it wrong, but that we never should have been there in the first place. Same with Iraq. This seems very painfully obvious. And talking so casually about a million deaths is just obscene.

Gotto agree with Clavos about his general assessment of war.

War is organized slaughter, and the way to successfully prosecute a war is to slaughter the enemy - military and civilian both. Our enemies in the neighborhood, Hamas, HizbAllah, the PLO, Iran, Syria and Egypt, understand the concept very well.

#32 -- December 11, 2006 @ 13:22PM -- Ruvy in Jerusalem

Gotto agree with Clavos about his general assessment of war.

War is organized slaughter, and the way to successfully prosecute a war is to slaughter the enemy - military and civilian both. Our enemies in the neighborhood, Hamas, HizbAllah, the PLO, Iran, Syria and Egypt, understand the concept very well.

...And I would like to add, they (Hamas, HizbAllah, the PLO, Iran, Syria and Egypt) employ (organized slaughter) in all their war efforts relentlessly. They have done it in all yesterdays, they do it today, and they will do it for all tomorrows.

The question is now, when it the US going to address the business at hand. By not doing so we are loosing the war, on the ground, politically, and through world opinion that all of the enemies that Ruvy listed above are using against us in massive propaganda efforts.

It's time to look the real devil in the eye and without any hesitation or any resivation and demand unconditional surender or send him lock stock and barrel to hell where he belongs.

Written for the benefit of those like SHARK who live in ignorance and fear and can not even grasp the thought of how to face the enemy, and yes, how to win.

to post #33

I would like to add. We do have the mility men and women to do this. Just like we did in Vietnam. We did not have the political will then, and now that brings us to Dave's question, do we have the political will this time.

We can win it if we want to. Do we want to?

great plan Franco...now who's the 'real devil' again - ?

who is it that we're to slaughter until They say 'uncle' - ?

If the US military on the ground in Iraq are willing to face the enemy and willing to die, why can't Congress, thousands of miles away enjoying highball lucnhes face the enemy of world opion and let our military win this war.

#35 -- troll

Anything and anyone who gets in our way of of bringing security and stability to the greater Iraqi population as has been and remains our goal. Who is the "real" devil. What say you on Iran and Syira. As they pull their dick out of their pants and try to piss all over our efforts, we need to kick their ball squarly up their asses. If that kick causes Iran to do something stupid like shinking oil tankers not belonging to them, let the unconditional slaugher begin.

troll,

Every watched a terrorest beading on a web video of an American, or European, or Asian with there hands tied behind their back and then watched as they set the head on the chest of the victiim as the body is still quivering.

I can't however seem to find any such video taking place at any US detention centers of torture yet, but they MUST be out there. I'll keep looking!

"What Would Reagan Do (WWRD) with Fallujah? He would have bombed the shit out of it."

Well,
going by his record

1) He would have pulled our troops out of Iraq when he realized we were dealing with well armed fanatics, like the one's who bombed the Marines in Beirut

2) He would have invaded Grenada so you idiots would shut up and leave him alone

3) If the Russians or Iranians stepped in some shit and found themselves in a long, draining war, Reagan would've armed and trained any lunatic he had to to make sure the Russians/Iranians paid the highest possible price. And I do mean ANY lunatic, whether they hated us or not, whether they were terrorists or not, whether they gassed a few thousand Kurds here or there...
Didn't matter to Ron as long as they killed Russians (or Iranians). More importantly, as long as they tied the Russians down for as long as possible in a hopeless stalemate.
Kind of like it doesn't matter to the Iranians today if they're shaped charge devices are being used by Takfiris, as long as they're killing Americans, and, more importantly, keeping us tied down in a hopeless stalemate for as long as it takes for them to detonate their first nuke.
Rightly or wrongly, they believe a country with nukes can't be invaded.


Reagan, despite the Alzheimer's and the many other flaws, never lost sight of the enemy he really wanted to go after. So much so in fact his Middle Eastern policy has proven to be,
well
the seeds of many of our current problems there.
But he did stay focused enough to help keep Gorbachev out of the top spot until it was to late for the Soviets.

My point was [partly] that after we finally left Vietnam, everything eventually turned out more or less ok.

Come again? More or less okay maybe 30 years later, but in the immediate aftermath there was serious social repression, reeducation, boat people and a high casualty count among those not loyal to the communist government, not to mention that we also left behind the Cambodian situation with millions dead.

Dave

Notice the real answer to the question 'What would Reagan do?' is-
Almost anything to keep your enemy in a war that is damaging to him while you pick the quickest, easiest fight you can find.

Ruvy, what say you.

Talk about missing opportunities. Just about every last HizbAllah in Lebanon is out in the open, clearly identifiable, and all in one general area. Dose anyone have the intestinal fortitude to act militarily in one grand move that proclaims. NO MORE SYRIA. Talk about sending a message to Iran.

Of course troll, while we discuss all this, the Arabs are busy rapping, butchering masses in Sudan to perpetuate more Hamas and HizbAlla supporters for future web beheadings.

Franco - don't see why you've left out the Saudis...'come on..let's do the whole damned vil'...

This thread has gone off the deep end. The idea that the U.S. can win anything by blowing up the rest of the world is patently absurd. And in essence, this is what is being advocated by some here. Thankfully, such ridiculous notions are embraced by a shrinking minority of voters. Otherwise, it might be cause for concern.

me: My point was [partly] that after we finally left Vietnam, everything eventually turned out more or less ok.

DN: Come again? More or less okay maybe 30 years later, but in the immediate aftermath there was serious social repression, reeducation, boat people and a high casualty count among those not loyal to the communist government, not to mention that we also left behind the Cambodian situation with millions dead.

I was not suggesting our withdrawal from Vietnam was all sunshine, lollipops and roses...only that our remaining there postponed the inevitable and cost a lot in blood and treasure. And the whole reason we got so deeply involved originally was a Domino Theory that never came to pass after we left. We caused incredible damage there [to ourselves as well as the Vietnamese], but the woulda/coulda/shoulda militarists look back and wish we had done even more damage. Why? To me, this is insanity, absurd.

And I have come to feel very similarly about Iraq. Listening to Bill Kristol foam at the mouth yesterday on Fox News as he acknowledged that we will not be fighting his stupid, wasteful, immoral war much longer was very instructive. His only response: "But this is a war! Of course there are ups and downs and bad things happen...but we have to keep on and on!" [I'm paraphrasing...he wasn't very coherent.]

Just because our leaving may be followed by tragedy is no reason to pretend we are accomplishing something by staying, when very clearly we are not. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

"War is organized slaughter, and the way to successfully prosecute a war is to slaughter the enemy"

I agree. So please, next time you want to go to war someplace, don't come with euphimisms and lies to me saying things like "limited war", "surgical airstrikes", "advisors", etc.

I'm perfectly willing to slaughter and obliterate an enemy that we MUST fight, and I think most Americans are. Just don't try to lie about how small the damn war is going to be!

war isn't war until it's total war

Franco - are you willing to put China in the position of having to choose between the US market and her allies (and oil supply) in the middle east - ?

#44 -- Sisyphus

This thread has gone off the deep end. The idea that the U.S. can win anything by blowing up the rest of the world is patently absurd. And in essence, this is what is being advocated by some here.

This assertion is fallacy because it is based on to reactionary statement that this thread is discussing the US blowing up the rest of the world. It is also a prejudus statement and nothing could be further from the truth.

FYI Sisyphus

This thread is discussing the need to prevent another Vietnam (which we can afford to allow to happen) through failed policies that now questionably exist in the ISG proposal.

This has lead this thread to discuss alternatives to the ISG proposal like the need to fight this war through nothing short of unconditional surrender or total elimination of our enemies in Iraq and those who support them.

If that requires organized slaughter of the enemy and its supporters Syria and Iran, then this thread is discussing this type of commencement in general terms.

Those who are unwilling to fight, or scream at others not to fight, or talk down to those who are willing to fight, are the problem in the war effort only if we allow them to be. Non-combatives seek compromise with an enemy which has proven over and and over will not compromise. We either fight all out or we loose. Are military all ready over there is willing to do it and trained for it. The only question that remains is Congress willing to allow us to win.

Thanks for stopping by to throw in two cents based on a fallacy. If you have the capacity to engage in discussion with more articulation and substance please do.

Franco: "It's time to look the real devil in the eye..."

Take a gander at yer fellow Diablos, macho-boy:

Ruvy: "...slaughter the enemy - military and civilian both."

There's one real devil, babe.

And here's a mirror to aid in yer inventory of evil:

Franco: "...let the unconditional slaug[t]her begin..."

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

Yall are so fucking full of shit.

Here's the deal:

WE CAN'T WIN A MILITARY VICTORY in an URBAN environment against a civilian guerilla force in a nation of some 25,000,000 people who are divided BY an ancient HATRED based on religious/tribal identities.

~Next!

"Hell, even Vietnam wasn't really a military defeat. The US and its allies (including Australia) has won almost every battle fought. The "defeat" in Vietnam was a political one, just like the "defeat" we are about to face in Iraq."
- RJ Elliott

Look, if you're going to give military advice, stick to your own personal experiences; like how you support sending someone else to fight your battles for you, and how you've mocked the appearance of a dismembered combat vet...OK?

dunno Shark - how about we declare the Kurds to be the good guys and rightful rulers of all Iraq - and everybody else the enemy

we could help the Kurdish strongman with arms tech and biochemicals with which he could force the population to submit...all in keeping with that Islamic tenet

#47 -- December 11, 2006 @ 18:22PM -- troll

war isn't war until it's total war

Franco - are you willing to put China in the position of having to choose between the US market and her allies (and oil supply) in the middle east - ?

If not now, when!

Give me liberty or give me death! Liberty dose not live on paper or in some book. Its only chance at life is through flesh and blood.

If we Americas can not carry that kind of commitement and courage then we should stop speaking of liberty.

From there we can retreat into our cowardice justified by poltical correctness and continue in our overweight and selfish life styles where we can continue to argue amount ourselves on the political battle lines that are dividing us even future.

From there we can wait in our denials over cowardice for the day they come knocking to take the flammables torch of liberty from our hands.

But hell, I'm an extremist to think such a paranoid delusion. No one out there in the world would do that to us.

#49 --SHARK

WE CAN'T WIN A MILITARY VICTORY in an URBAN environment against a civilian guerilla force in a nation of some 25,000,000 people who are divided BY an ancient HATRED based on religious/tribal identities.

Yes we can win. Saddam proved it could be done one way. There is always another way to fry a fish. Just because you cant see one and or offer intellectual discussion dose not mean they do not in fact exist.

If the US military and Iraqi security forces went after the insurgency and all Sunni and Shia inter killers and it was done with gloves off in over whelming and unending and unstoppable intensity. They would be defeated. The instinct for survival for non-combatants in that kind of theater of oppression is overwhelming. The civilian "non-combatants" will get the hell out any way then can.

Do sharks have spines?

NEXT

Franco: "This has lead this thread to discuss alternatives to the ISG proposal like the need to fight this war through nothing short of unconditional surrender or total elimination of our enemies in Iraq and those who support them."

Our enemies in Iraq? Elimination and unconditional surrender? You are thinking of war in conventional terms such as when, for example, in WWII, we had the U.S. on one side and Japan on the other. The U.S. ultimately nuked two cities in Japan and forced the government of Japan to surrender. Thus ended the war in the Pacific. WWII, by the way, was the last time that Congress issued a declaration of war. What would you have the President do, nuke Baghdad? You are long on tough talk but short on specifics. How many more troops would you send? How many draftees? For how long? What sacrifices are you and the rest of the American people willing to make in order to achieve your idea of "victory" in Iraq? Such a misguided endeavor is not unlike the captain of the Titanic, standing aboard his sinking ship, hollering for more ice.

Franco: "If the US military and Iraqi security forces went after the insurgency and all Sunni and Shia inter killers and it was done with gloves off in over whelming and unending and unstoppable intensity. They would be defeated."

I think you're dreaming. U.S. troops have not been lazy or fighting with "gloves on" or holding back anything. What is your evidence of this? What have the generals requested that hasn't been supplied? The U.S. military is already stretched to its breaking point. What more would you ask of them?

#43 -- troll

Franco - don't see why you've left out the Saudis...'come on..let's do the whole damned vil'...

Come on troll, you have better then that.

Turn that around, The Saudis don't like Iran or Syria meddling things up in their own back yard and they too are sitting on an insurgence powder cage, but not something the can't seem to handle so far. There all politically gutless like the EU, especceily France who would even say they like baseball in fear of more cars being tourched by, guess who!

If Saudi saw us with a new commitment of intensify they very possibly could become an ally and assist the Iraqies. They have reasion for it and it would be opportunity for them.

This would of course be a choice in their eyes of the better of two evils but yet with results they would surly like.

But any and all talk about US troop withdrawals in Congress and or in the ISG only further cements their position to site it out on the sidelines gutlessly while they too wait for the day the insurgents try to take Saudi with Iranian and Syrian help via China war tech.

Here's one back to ya troll. Would China want to be put in the position of pissing off Saudi Arabia, the global oil superpower?

Everything hinges on the new Congress now. We have the people with the hearts, minds, and courage in the field to do it. The overwhelming majority of Americans want victory for the majority of Iraqi's. So the only question remaining is..........Congress?

Franco: The guy who said it first went to fight the war. When are you enlisting?

"Give me liberty or give me death! Liberty dose not live on paper or in some book. Its only chance at life is through flesh and blood.

If we Americas can not carry that kind of commitement and courage then we should stop speaking of liberty.

Well? Enlist or shutup!

#46 -- Bliffle

"War is organized slaughter, and the way to successfully prosecute a war is to slaughter the enemy"

I agree. So please, next time you want to go to war someplace, don't come with euphimisms and lies to me saying things like "limited war", "surgical airstrikes", "advisors", etc.

I'm perfectly willing to slaughter and obliterate an enemy that we MUST fight, and I think.

I'm not sure what all your huff and puff is about. If you would do a little thinking and check it out before you speak you wouldn't have the handycape of tryng to speak from a small dark moist tunnel.

President Bush has said repeatedly from day one that this war would be a long war and fought on many fronts..

So who was it that lied to you Bliffle?

#54 -- Sisyphus

What more would you ask of them?

Not one thing. Turn them losse to slaughter and break things. Fuck the UN and all their NGO's and all the crap about civilian casualites. Were are not hunting civilians, but many will be killed.

Is it better to just let the civil war grow until more civilians are killed then would suffer under the necessary force to bring it under control. Like the UN is allowing in Sudan where far more people have died and still dying the have died in Iraq and all at the hands of Muslim Arab radicals. Somebody has to say NO MORE. In order to do that a lot of radicals have to die and a lot of civilians will unforturanly be caught up in it. If we reaman afrad of that fact our enimes will enjoy victory over us.

So Dave, what happens when we send forty thousand more troops and we are still in Iraq after ten years? It seems that we are being set up to garrison Iraq indefinitely. Will this satisfy you?
Will this allow you to feel like a winner? or safer?

Your solution seems to ad failure on top of failure. Oh wait, you haven't proposed a solution.

Just stay the course and keep adding more troops. That's the McCain way. Maybe we can finally get that flag burning amendment passed.

#56 -- Bliffle

From your comment it can clearly be seen that the WHOLE point to my post went cleanly right over your head.

#59 -- Mohjho

So Dave, what happens when we send forty thousand more troops and we are still in Iraq after ten years? It seems that we are being set up to garrison Iraq indefinitely.

What ever "it" takes my little insurgent sympathizer.. And "it" is discussed below following your next comment.

Will this allow you to feel like a winner? or safer?

It's not about the US winning., its about the Iraqi people winning. When they win we win.

Those causing all the trouble are not liked by the majority of Iraqis and each day more and more of them are getting sucked in by these radicals because the radicals know the Arab can be incensed very easily and are prostitutiing that weakness against their own brothers and sisters. Those packs of sick radicals need to be eliminated with out limited engagement measures.

Franco;

Just for the record, which branch of the military did you serve, and when?

"It's not about the US winning., its about the Iraqi people winning. When they win we win."

Not necessarily. Do you really trust the so-called democratically elected Iraqi government? Maliki is politically indebted to the likes of al-Sadr. Especially al-Sadr. He has refused to condemn Hezbollah, denounced Israel and has no qualms about meeting with Ahmadinejad in Tehran against the wishes of the U.S. Unfortunately, the strings of our puppet seem to be in the hands of opposing forces. Is the U.S. propping up the wrong guy? As if there is a another choice. But in any event, your statement that "when they win, we win," is tenuous at best. No matter your position, the situation in Iraq is anything but black and white. And like Vietnam, it is a quagmire.

emmy sez:

Franco;

Just for the record, which branch of the military did you serve, and when?

Good idea, emmy, from now on nobody in America gets to have an opinion about US foreign policy unless they've been in the military.

"If you ain't done the time you don't get to opine."

And the fucked up, druggie, PTSD'd Vietnam vets get a double say.

#62 -- MCH

I have not served in the military. The draft had ended before I was of age.

#63 -- Sisyphus

Do you really trust the so-called democratically elected Iraqi government?

Absolutely not for all the reasons you clearly stated and more.

As long as the current president of Iraq covers for any group fanning the flames of violent discord while US men and women, and the greater majority of non-combatant Iraqi citizens, along with their Iraqi sercrity forces truly fighting for them are all left in in harms way by this president, then he is part of the problem and not the solution.

So Dave, what happens when we send forty thousand more troops and we are still in Iraq after ten years? It seems that we are being set up to garrison Iraq indefinitely. Will this satisfy you?
Will this allow you to feel like a winner? or safer?

I already feel perfectly safe, and I don't see 'winning' as a goal in Iraq. We won the combat phase of the war and now we're just trying to figure out the best way to make the country functional and independent in the future. Nowhere did I suggest sending more troops or garrisoning Iraq indefinitely. I just would have liked to have seen a more creative plan come out of the ISG than this Vietnamization rehash which is guaranteed to fail.

Your solution seems to ad failure on top of failure. Oh wait, you haven't proposed a solution.

I've proposed solutions in the past, but this article is about the ISG report and the inadequate and unrealistic solution they've put forward.

Dave

After recommending wholesale, indiscriminate slaughter -- followed up by a misspelled semi-literate stump speech that sounded like a cross between retarded American Forefathers and Adolph Hitler after too many beers --

WE KNEW IT WAS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME...

Ya ready?

Franco to Mohjho: "What ever "it" takes my little insurgent sympathizer."

======

Franco. Yer a dick.

...OR you could be a creation by somebody who wants to mock the CONservative Right by posting blatanly outrageous bullshit in a barely literate manner.

End of "debate".

======

Mohjho to DaveNalle, et al: "Your solution seems to ad failure on top of failure. Oh wait, you haven't proposed a solution...:

Pretty much sums it up.

=======

re: Adding more troops --

These days, McCain seems to be as bat-shit crary as W. Bush -- except Bush is just plain stupid, whereas McCain is an opportunistic pig who wants to appeal to nut-bars like the "Let's Kill Everybody" advocates in this thread.

This whole line of bullshit is just a Cover-Yer-Ass/Safety Net for the people who supported the Iraq invasion in the first place.

No matter what the USA does -- or what happens in Iraq in the next decade or so -- (and make NO MISTAKE, Iraq WILL BE A MASSIVE FUCKING DISASTER FOR YEARS TO COME no matter what we or the next president does, thanks George!) -- these Right-Wing Hawks can always say,

"We lost the political will to win. They handcuffed the military. The politicians wouldn't allow the troops total victory. We didn't lose militarily; we lost because the American people don't have the will and the balls to send in lots of young male cannon-fodder..."

etc.

etc.

etc.

Ironically -- see earlier comments here about Vietnam for THE EXACT STATEMENTS/bullshit revisionism we'll see in the future concerning Iraq.

=====

The main points:

YALL WERE WRONG when you supported the invasion.

YALL ARE WRONG now.

=====

Troll to Shark: "...how about we declare the Kurds to be the good guys..."

My solution:

Move the Kurds to the Gaza Strip --

and give the Palestinians all of Arizona.

Bingo! Peace in the Middle East!

works for me

The main points:

YALL WERE WRONG when you supported the invasion.

YALL ARE WRONG now.

Maybe.

But every successful military commander from Genghis Khan forward says you are.

"yall" is not a word...

Just to get back to 'WWRD' for a second

'What would Reagan do?'

Exactly what Iran is doing to us.

"#62 -- MCH
I have not served in the military. The draft had ended before I was of age."
- Franco

"...Turn them losse to slaughter and break things. Fuck the UN and all their NGO's and all the crap about civilian casualites. Were are not hunting civilians, but many will be killed...Somebody has to say NO MORE. In order to do that a lot of radicals have to die and a lot of civilians will unforturanly be caught up in it. If we reaman afrad of that fact our enimes will enjoy victory over us."
- Franco

------------------------------

Since you endorse sending "somebody" else to fight your battles for you, all your macho war-speak is empty rhetoric.

Since you endorse sending "somebody" else to fight your battles for you, all your macho war-speak is empty rhetoric.

Bullshit.

Actually, Clavos, even though MCH is the most annoyingly repetitive commenter on the entire site, I think in this case he has a point.

This Franco character is coming out with some of the most hatefilled, idiotic and macho remarks made on BC since Ruvy's infamous call for the slaughter of all Arabs or giving his blessing to a hypothetical Iranian nuclear strike on Tel Aviv.

At least we know who Ruvy is and where, that he has at least the "courage" to be in Israel. Franco is simply baying for blood - or bating people - both of which seem somewhat inappropriate behaviour in the context of any credible political discussion...

I wonder what MCH is like in real life? Presumably not as monotonous as he is here in his BC life.

"A Vietnam lesson for Iraq" an Op-Ed by Quang X. Pham, The Orange County Register, 3/19/06

Former U.S. Marine and entrepreneur Quang X. Pham is the author of "A Sense of Duty: My Father, My American Journey." www.quangxpham.com

The first Americans I met were military advisers, much like the ones who are training security forces in Iraq. That year, 1970, the United States was in the process of Vietnamization - turning the war over to the South Vietnamese as U.S. troops simultaneously departed.

I remember as a boy visiting my father's South Vietnamese Air Force squadron and shaking hands with U.S. pilots who wore reassuring smiles, green flight suits and pistols.

Today, three years into the war in Iraq, memories of Vietnamization come back when I hear President Bush talk about his eventual plans to withdraw
U.S. troops. "As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down," he has said. Yet, Vietnamization is not the model for Iraq.

If U.S. troops cannot extinguish the insurgency and end the carnage from improvised explosive devices (IEDs), should we expect the Iraqis to fare much better with less than two years of training? Today, not one Iraqi battalion is capable of fighting independently. Now, as more members of Congress clamor for withdrawal of U.S. troops, the lessons of Vietnamization appear to have been forgotten.

Last month, an unprecedented conference took place at the JFK Presidential Library in Boston, featuring American historians, journalists and leaders from the Vietnam era. Not a single Vietnamese was invited to speak.

How we got into Iraq should not matter as much for now as how we will exit. Two of the key participants in Boston, Jack Valenti, a special assistant to President Johnson, and Henry Kissinger, former secretary of state and
national security adviser for President Nixon and the mastermind behind the "peace with honor" strategy in Vietnam, offered no solutions for Iraq.

Kissinger lamely reflected, "I know the problem better than the answer."

In 1961, U.S. pilots began training South Vietnamese pilots, including my father, when President Kennedy dispatched advisers en masse to Vietnam. They didn't leave until the cease-fire agreement 12 years later.

The Iraqis, too, are doomed as an independent military force if the United States makes the same critical mistakes made with the South Vietnamese:

* Vietnamization failed because U.S. advisers trained the South Vietnamese to fight the American way - with heavy firepower and air support, which
vanished with our troops. James Willbanks, author of "Abandoning Vietnam" and an Army adviser, recalled: "Advisers were needed for so long because we had trained the Vietnamese to fight the same way that we did, using massive firepower."

* U.S. advisers stayed too involved for too long, eroding the national identity of Vietnamese soldiers. Buu Vien, a personal aide to South Vietnam's president, recalled: "The presence of American advisers at all levels of the military hierarchy created among the Vietnamese leadership a mentality of reliance on their advice and suggestions."

Lewis Sorley, author of "A Better War," wrote about one Vietnamese officer who had 47 different U.S. advisers. The United States essentially
micromanaged South Vietnamese military and political affairs while Vietnamization's key assumption - that the South Vietnamese could
successfully fight entirely on their own without U.S. advisers and air power - was never tested until the very end of the war.

In this war, we should hand over responsibilities to the Iraqis at a faster pace and put them to the test while U.S. troops are still in country. U.S.
air power will not be available forever so we should not train the Iraqis to depend on it the way U.S. troops do.

In 1975, when North Vietnam invaded the South in violation of the two-year-old cease-fire agreement, Congress rejected President Ford's final plea to resume military support. The B-52s were no longer on call. Despite sporadic heroics, Saigon's million-man military, including an air force that ranked fourth in the world numerically, crumbled in two months.

There is no similar large-scale invasion threat in Iraq, yet taxpayers have to wonder what our trillion-dollar-war will bring to the American and the Iraqi people. The war in Iraq requires more than partisan politicking in favor of either "withdrawing our troops now" or "staying the course." Congress has to stop shirking its duty and demand a rigorous review of the Iraqi training program instead of just reacting to quarterly reports from the Pentagon.

The last Americans I saw in Vietnam were those who evacuated my family before Saigon fell. One of them had served as an adviser alongside my
father, who did not make it out. I wish the Iraqis better luck than the South Vietnamese. One can hardly imagine a scarier scenario than that of
U.S. and Iraqi troops taking the fight to Iran or Syria. Or Iraqis killing each other using American know-how.

"I wonder what MCH is like in real life? Presumably not as monotonous as he is here in his BC life."

Actually I have a fantastic wife, three wonderful children and the world's greatest grandson...I recognize local area veterans through a weekly column in my hometown newspaper...and I do fairly decent impersonations of Elvis Presley, Rodney Dangerfield, Cheech and Chong and Peter Lorey (if I do say so myself).

My annoying, repetitive BC persona is strictly a mission to point out the hypocrisy of the bellicose, annoying chickenhawks who endlessly spout their repetitive "support" of war...as long as SOMEONE ELSE does the fighting and dying.

Perhaps a good solution would be to package up Bush & Cheney, deliver them to the Iraqis, & let the Iraqis deal with them as they think best. This would rid US of two colossolly inept, arrogant, intriguing bunglers, & give the Iraqis somewhat to vent their spleens on besides each other. In any event, the world would be far better off without them.

I don't always agree with everybody, but I seldom think they're boring - except for JOM, who thankfully seems to have subsided or gone away for the nonce. In any event, MCH is hardly in THAT category.

Christopher: "This Franco character is coming out with some of the most hatefilled, idiotic and macho remarks made on BC..."

Possibly Franco equates inflammatory rhetoric with Saying Something Important. I consider it a badge of honor to have been called a "pompous ass" by him [when I suggested he do a little reading/research before letting loose with his oh-so-impressively ferocious mouth].

At least when Shark lets loose, the results are often hilarious, and usually to the point as well.

I was surprised to hear one of the panel of academics/experts on Meet the Press Sunday, when discussing the ISG report, say that the entire educated middle class has virtually already deserted Iraq, gone to neighboring countries or Europe or the US - leaving behind only the poor, the desperate, the 'hard men' with guns.

Doctors, scientists, lawyers, teachers, businessmen...they all gave up already.

If accurate, this doesn't bode well for the country's future, no matter what we do or don't do politically and militarily.

My comment about war seems to have hit a nerve. Truth tends to do that.

In my humble opinion, if you go to war at all, you go to war to win. That means that if I recommend going to war this old coot is willing to stand guard duty in a home militia with an M1, M16, Uzi or whatever weapon I'm given (suggesting that an old out of shape fart like me try to compete with 18 year old kids in a fighting unit is more likely to bring on their deaths - and mine).

In my humble opinion, Shark is right about Iraq not being a country, and that it should be allowed to devolve into the three governorates that comprised it originally.

From where I am sitting, the enemies are Saudi Arabia (which funds all those Wahhabi madrassas world-wide to spread its nightmare version of Islam), Egypt, Syria and Iran. When you talk about Iran, you are also talking about HizbAllah and all the fifth column Shia in the Persian Gulf States.

Why Egypt? Because Egypt is arming Hamas, Egypt is arming against us as if there were no tomorrow, and fomenting a powerful Jew-hating propaganda machine, and Egypt is sitting with soldiers (that is what they are, no matter what eupemism the press uses) in Gaza.

This is our fight, not yours.

Nota bene: I do not suggest the US get involved in our fight, except to prevent Europe from attacking us, which is something I fully expect to happen. But this is our fight. We have to defend our country, not the Americans. In the end, it may come down to us fighting with the US as well, thought I certainly hope not. One cannot rule out the possibility.

Nevertheless, let me lay out a war plan on the table. I'm not giving anything away here. I'm sure intelligent Arabs have figured this all out as well.

1. Withdrawal from the Gaza Strip of Israeli forces.

2. End Hamas' firing missiles at Israel by shutting off ALL electricity, water, and blocking ALL food from coming in via roads, ports or air. When there is no food or water in the Gaza Strip, there will be no missiles fired at Israel.

3. Bombing Damascus, Homs, al Anjar and Latakia to the stone age - NO MORE SYRIA.

4. Destroying all the Iranian oil wells and Iranian ability to process oil. Let them build an empire out of rock and sand if they want.

5. Attacking HizbAllah from the north and massacring any Shia who resists.

6. Americans pull out of Shiastan (southern Iraq) and occupy the Arab oil wells in Saudi hands now. The Saudi monarchy gets toppled by losing its money, which becomes American oil (and therefore American money).

7. The PLO gets murdered off, Hamas gets murdered off and the PA is put out of business.

8. Israelis suggest (strongly) that a peace deal can be reached with Abdallah II of Jordan reigning as "king or the Palestinians."

9. The Egyptians are told publicly and in plain Arabic that any threatening act to Israel will bring the immediate destruction of the Aswan High Dam - a threat that Israel must be willing to carry out if necessary.

Results.

1. Americans leave Iraq.
2. The Arab terror mechanism is dealt a mortal blow.
3. There can be peace between Arabs and Israel based on a secure Israel and prosperous Arabs.
4. Americans get to guard what matters - oil.

No, the best parts of the report are the rebukes to the Bush administration,

These are only the best parts because you just want to see more bashing ont he administration. Well, and also because the rest of the report is so insufferably stupid that these ideas look good.

such as:

- Stop leaving funding for the war out of the budget and putting it in "emergency requests" - a slight of hand designed to skew deficit numbers. (This is from recommendation #72)

When has this fooled ANYONE, as it ends up in the final budget through the reconciliation process eventually anyway. Look at the history of the budget and the money's all accounted for.

- Stop under-reporting violence. The report uses as an example one day in July when the US reported 93 acts of violence, while the ISG was able to identify 1100!

A pointless numbers game. It's the difference between reporting actual casualties and reporting people who fired off their guns in the air or shouted threats or threw stones at buildings. IMO the smaller number which represents actual harm done is far more useful.

- Allow and encourage the military to offer independent advice to the Pentagon and the president. (Rumsfeld did the opposite, and Bush reinforced this by tolerating it.)

Seems like a good idea. Purely a matter of presidential administrative policy, of course. There's never been anything stopping the president fro getting direct advice from anyone he chooses.

dave

"Since you endorse sending "somebody" else to fight your battles for you, all your macho war-speak is empty rhetoric."
- MCH

"Bullshit."
- Clavos

--------------

I think you're being a little hypocritical here, Clavvy.

You'll denigrate John Kerry's combat service, with "Kerry enlisted in the Navy so he wouldn't have to serve in the infantry"; but you'll defend the chickenhawks who cheer the Iraqi invasion from the sidelines, while someone else pays the ultimate sacrifice.

- Stop leaving funding for the war out of the budget and putting it in "emergency requests" - a slight of hand designed to skew deficit numbers. (This is from recommendation #72)

When has this fooled ANYONE, as it ends up in the final budget through the reconciliation process eventually anyway. Look at the history of the budget and the money's all accounted for.

May not have 'fooled' anyone, but surely it reflects badly on the administration that they did it. Why should they get a pass on this? And I was also referring to the bogus future-year budget estimates that make the deficit look smaller because the war funding is not included.

- Stop under-reporting violence. The report uses as an example one day in July when the US reported 93 acts of violence, while the ISG was able to identify 1100!

DN: A pointless numbers game. It's the difference between reporting actual casualties and reporting people who fired off their guns in the air or shouted threats or threw stones at buildings. IMO the smaller number which represents actual harm done is far more useful.

Your paraphrase is disingenuous and pernicious. The passage in the report actually reads:

"A murder of an Iraqi is not necessarily counted as an attack. If we cannot determine the source of a sectarian attack, that assault does not make it into the database. A roadside bomb or a rocket or mortar attack that doesn't hurt U.S. personnel doesn't count."

You'll denigrate John Kerry's combat service, with "Kerry enlisted in the Navy so he wouldn't have to serve in the infantry"; but you'll defend the chickenhawks who cheer the Iraqi invasion from the sidelines, while someone else pays the ultimate sacrifice.

I don't see any dichotomy at all there, emmy. From my reading of many eyewitness accounts, Kerry's "combat" service is highly suspect in my book, and I've said so a number of times in a number of different ways, right here on BC. Additionally, Kerry's heinous 1971 presentation to Congress, hurling accusations, and making scurrilous attacks on all the rest of us completely wipes out what little honor he may have brought on himself while incountry for four months, as far as I'm concerned.

I defend ANY citizen's right to voice his/her opinion on ANYTHING to do with the nation -- that's what I fought for, and in my opinion, it is irrelevant what that person's service status is, was, or will be.

ALL citizens have a right to speak out; the First Amendment doesn't limit that right to military veterans.

"From my reading of many eyewitness accounts, Kerry's "combat" service is highly suspect in my book, and I've said so a number of times in a number of different ways, right here on BC."
- Clavvy

John Kerry: 3 Purple Hearts, 1 Silver Star, 1 Bronze Star

-----------------------

"Additionally, Kerry's heinous 1971 presentation to Congress, hurling accusations, and making scurrilous attacks on all the rest of us completely wipes out what little honor he may have brought on himself while incountry for four months, as far as I'm concerned."
- Clavvy

So is he worse than William Calley?

-----------------------

"ALL citizens have a right to speak out; the First Amendment doesn't limit that right to military veterans."
- Clavvy

Am not limiting anyone's rights, Clavvy; just highlighting the hypocrisy of the chickenhawks.

-----------------------

BTW Clavvy, don't forget to bring up your "enlisted in the Navy to avoid the infantry" explanation to Andy Marsh next chance you get, OK?

#89 -- MCH

Am not limiting anyone's rights, Clavvy; just highlighting the hypocrisy of the chickenhawks.

And your exaple of specific hypocritic statements are?

MCH,

Never mind I found what I asked you about in your post #74.

Reply to follow.

Franco

[Edited]

Shark regularly overstates, overcompensates and generally overdoes it. And yet...and yet: No one on this site writes more imaginatively, creatively and hilariously. I would think the editors of Blogcritics would salute such interesting writing rather than take potshots at it. (Has he stopped writing articles on the site, or like me, does he use his real name on his articles and his pseud on comments?)

I realize that a large percentage of his poetic and wonderfully bizarre pieces are gratuitously personal, and often aimed at Dave. As the target of some of Mr. Nalle's own occasional hyperbolic viciousness, I can relate if this makes Dave mad or hurt or whatever. But I'm glad they're both on here. I do wish they'd confine themselves to the issues, and to some semblance of facts in the real world, when commenting directly on others' comments. (And while I'm whining: don't take one sentence out of context and base a zinger attack on it; this gets us nowhere.)

There is precious little wit or imagination in the political comments here. Let's savor Shark's good stuff, and hope he learns to turn down the volume on the unnecessary roughness. Clavos and Franco and Arch write crudely enough sometimes that they seem to be asking for it; but hey, show you're bigger than they.

[Handy: Alas the remark you quoted at the beginning of your comment was deleted as a gratuitous personal attack so I had to edit yours too. Apologies for the modest butchery. Comments Editor]

John Kerry: 3 Purple Hearts, 1 Silver Star, 1 Bronze Star

At least two of the Purple Hearts are questionable, and since having the three got him home after only four months incountry, the two stars become suspicious to me.

John Kerry is a lying, elitist, opportunistic creep, and the American people see that, which is why he wasn't elected President and never will be.

Clavos: regurgitated slander. You're capable of better. But not on this thread, apparently.

Kerry did come within 3% of the popular vote and 34 electoral votes of ousting someone who successfully avoided any service at all. [And who if he had to run today, couldn't be elected dogcatcher.]

I'm not JK's biggest fan, but when people recycle stupid bilge like this, it makes me wanna stand up for him.

"RJ, just shut up. Okay?"

Not likely.

"I'm perfectly willing to slaughter and obliterate an enemy that we MUST fight, and I think most Americans are. Just don't try to lie about how small the damn war is going to be!"

Amen.

Reinstate the Draft. Kill Muthafucka al-Sadr. Put his head on a pike for all Iraqis to see. Slaughter anyone who protests. Nuke Iran. Nuke North Korea.

If this really is WWIII, then how's about we FIGHT TO WIN THE FUCKING THING!?!?!?

Oh, and I never spent any time in Hawaii playing volleyball in the early '70s, so just go ahead and discount anything I've ever written. Thanks.

"Reinstate the Draft. Kill Muthafucka al-Sadr. Put his head on a pike for all Iraqis to see. Slaughter anyone who protests. Nuke Iran. Nuke North Korea. If this really is WWIII, then how's about we FIGHT TO WIN THE FUCKING THING!?!?!?"
- RJ Elliott

And typing macho war-speak on the blogoshere is certainly much safer than actually ever taking action on your phoney rhetoric.

"From my reading of many eyewitness accounts, Kerry's "combat" service is highly suspect in my book. . . "

You couldn't have read very many, as very few of those present for any of the incidents for which Kerry received an award disputed them -- none at the Silver Star incident (out of 24), for example, and just 4 out of about 33 at the Bronze Star incident.

Doug

Your paraphrase is disingenuous and pernicious. The passage in the report actually reads:

"A murder of an Iraqi is not necessarily counted as an attack. If we cannot determine the source of a sectarian attack, that assault does not make it into the database. A roadside bomb or a rocket or mortar attack that doesn't hurt U.S. personnel doesn't count."

Your reading of this - or what I assume you got from it - is extremely inexact. Break the sentences down and consider what they actually mean.

A murder of an Iraqi is not necessarily counted as an attack.

Because some murders are just muders, not part of the insurgency or terror activity or whatever.

If we cannot determine the source of a sectarian attack, that assault does not make it into the database.

Because it's still under investigation, I imagine.

A roadside bomb or a rocket or mortar attack that doesn't hurt U.S. personnel doesn't count."

Well, that is what we care about, isn't it?

Dave

If you guys want to argue about Kerry et al, and how much bronze is actually in a bronze star, be my guest. But you ignore the two big issues here.

A. Your country is involved in a war it cannot control.
B. Some of your country's leaders are offering us up on the chopping block while they cut and run a la Vietnam.

Hey kids and fellow hyperbolic pscyhos!

Thanks for debating my worth as a writer. You know me: I'm just here to entertain -- well -- that-- and to keep DaveNalle from sleeping peacefully at night.

I might be vitriolic, hyperbolic, etc. etc. -- but I'm also funny -- and most important: I cut right to the chase with BREVITY, an online virtue that many of you lack.

I made three short posts that -- although hidden amongst my Sharkian tirades and in-jokes for intellectuals -- turn out to be more profound, spot-on, indisputable, and appropriate to this ridiculous discussion than anything else written hereabouts:

For those with ADD or Dyslexia, they were:

++++ one can't "rebuild -- institute democracy -- unite --stabilize" (etc etc etc) Iraq --
BECAUSE: THERE AIN'T NO IRAQ. There never was. It's a FANTASY of early 20th century western imperialists who redrew the maps for a buncha uneducated, macho, medieval, misogynistic, TRIBAL assholes.

++++ WE CAN'T WIN A MILITARY VICTORY in an URBAN environment against a civilian guerilla force in a nation of some 25,000,000 people who are divided BY an ancient HATRED based on religious/tribal identities.

++++ This whole line of bullshit is just a Cover-Yer-Ass/Safety Net for the people who supported the Iraq invasion in the first place. No matter what the USA does -- or what happens in Iraq in the next decade or so ...these Right-Wing Hawks can always say, "...We didn't lose militarily; we lost because the American people don't have the will and the balls..." etc. etc. etc.

Ironically -- see earlier comments here about Vietnam for THE EXACT STATEMENTS/bullshit revisionism we'll see in the future concerning Iraq.

==========

Prediction Note: the CYA/vietnam excuse redux will be the main campaign theme for that psycho windbag John McCain in 2008.

==========

CONTEXT NOTE: After the above three paragraphs, really, kids: THERE'S NOTHING LEFT TO SAY ABOUT IRAQ.

'kay?

Yall are all just masturbating -- although I'd say Franco and RJ are just short of working themselves into orgasms that include -- instead of semem -- the ejaculation of massive amounts of OTHER PEOPLES' BLOOD..

==========

PS: Clavos, "yall" is a word here in Texas; it means "youse guys".

xxoo
S

PS: Clavos, "yall" is a word here in Texas; it means "youse guys".

Havimg lived not only in Texas but several Southern states as well, I'm familiar with the expression; it's not a word, it's a colloquialism, and it's spelled y'all.

Also:

++++ WE CAN'T WIN A MILITARY VICTORY in an URBAN environment against a civilian guerilla force in a nation of some 25,000,000 people who are divided BY an ancient HATRED based on religious/tribal identities.

++++ This whole line of bullshit is just a Cover-Yer-Ass/Safety Net for the people who supported the Iraq invasion in the first place. No matter what the USA does -- or what happens in Iraq in the next decade or so ...these Right-Wing Hawks can always say, "...We didn't lose militarily; we lost because the American people don't have the will and the balls..." etc. etc. etc.

Opinion.

I don't agree.

End of discussion.

ISG Report: "A roadside bomb or a rocket or mortar attack that doesn't hurt U.S. personnel doesn't count."

Dave: "Well, that is what we care about, isn't it?"

But that is not ALL we care about, is it? The main goal of the U.S. military in Iraq is now purportedly to lend stability, which first and foremost entails reducing the pervasive violence by whatever means (via training or otherwise). The sheer number of casualties day to day would provide one of the primary measures of success (or failure) in this endeavor. If we exclude all casualties but for U.S. personnel in our figures, we are only measuring how well U.S. troops are protecting themselves -- not how well the overall mission is progressing.

And the report goes on to explain why its authors believe the discrepancies in counting acts of violence matter:

"The standard for recording attacks acts a filter to keep events out of reports and databases...Good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals."

The disputed assessment of violence is attributed by the ISG to intelligence personnel, specifically the Defense Intelligence Agency and others.

Lee Hamilton was quoted as saying this week:
"The quality of the intelligence has to be disappointing with regard to the insurgency...We are having a huge time, still, identifying the enemy."

This hasn't prevented several loud commenters on this Blogcritics article from asserting that they know exactly who the insurgents are and how to stop them. Perhaps they should go to work for the DIA.

Jonathan Landay of McClatchy Newspaper's Washington Bureau notes that the report's findings line up with:

...a Sept. 8 McClatchy Newspapers report that U.S. officials excluded scores of people killed in car bombings and mortar attacks from tabulations measuring the results of a drive to reduce violence in Baghdad.
By excluding that data, U.S. officials were able to boast that deaths from sectarian violence in the Iraqi capital had declined by more than 52 percent between July and August, McClatchy newspapers reported.

This fits in with a pattern of government disinformation about the war, whether through deliberate lies or incompetence or some combination. Pretending it is irrelevant and just a numbers game is, I'll use the words again, disingenuous and pernicious.

Clavos: "Havimg lived not only in Texas but several Southern states as well, I'm familiar with the expression; it's not a word, it's a colloquialism, and it's spelled y'all."

OPINION.

I don't agree.

End of discussion.

aawwww, sharky, did I hurt your feewings?

Just in case I didn't, here's another "opinion"

Y'all, a contraction of you all, is a second-person dual or plural pronoun in Southern American English, African-American Vernacular English, and Appalachian English. Most speakers who have y'all use it as the plural form of you, though a group of linguists in Texas has recently claimed that some Texans use y'all as a singular.[citation needed]

Usage

Y'all is typically used only in informal situations, and is frowned upon in (and even excluded from) formal speech and writing. It is sometimes used as a dual pronoun to refer to only two people, with a related form "all y'all" used for plural contexts. The possessive form of y'all is y'all's (e.g. "I really like y'all's house."), and the possessive form of all y'all is all y'all's. While y'all has begun to spread to general US English, all y'all and y'all's have not; y'all and your are used, respectively.

Best regards,

Clavos

Thanks for debating my worth as a writer. You know me: I'm just here to entertain -- well -- that-- and to keep DaveNalle from sleeping peacefully at night.

I hate to tell you, Shark, but I sleep like a baby.

I might be vitriolic, hyperbolic, etc. etc. -- but I'm also funny -- and most important: I cut right to the chase with BREVITY, an online virtue that many of you lack.

The problem is that you so often miss the forest for the trees. You apply all that vitriol to relatively superficial symptoms without looking into subjects with any depth, thereby missing basic aspects of the question which often render the issues which outrage you so much irrelevant.

I made three short posts that -- although hidden amongst my Sharkian tirades and in-jokes for intellectuals -- turn out to be more profound, spot-on, indisputable, and appropriate to this ridiculous discussion than anything else written hereabouts:

I actually agree with your three short posts, more or less, but since you feel neglected, here's a specific critique of them.

For those with ADD or Dyslexia, they were:

++++ one can't "rebuild -- institute democracy -- unite --stabilize" (etc etc etc) Iraq --
BECAUSE: THERE AIN'T NO IRAQ. There never was. It's a FANTASY of early 20th century western imperialists who redrew the maps for a buncha uneducated, macho, medieval, misogynistic, TRIBAL assholes.

Could you state anything more obvious? The tripartate nature of the artificial country is a given, but I have to point out that tribalism can be a very appropriate foundation for democracy, since tribal government often has democratic elements.

++++ WE CAN'T WIN A MILITARY VICTORY in an URBAN environment against a civilian guerilla force in a nation of some 25,000,000 people who are divided BY an ancient HATRED based on religious/tribal identities.

A good point. But since this isn't a military conflict, largely irrelevant. This is a POLITICAL conflict and is likely to be won by means other than arms alone. And even the concept that there can BE a victory as such is flawed. It's a problem which demands a solution. Everyone wins or everyone loses.

++++ This whole line of bullshit is just a Cover-Yer-Ass/Safety Net for the people who supported the Iraq invasion in the first place. No matter what the USA does -- or what happens in Iraq in the next decade or so ...these Right-Wing Hawks can always say, "...We didn't lose militarily; we lost because the American people don't have the will and the balls..." etc. etc. etc.

On this you might be right from the perspective of those who don't understand what's going on in Iraq. But you kind of miss the real point. Because this conflict is political in nature, the ability to deal with it is much more powerfully impacted by things like popular opinion and political changes within the US and other involved countries, so the nation's willingness to be consistent and work together DOES make a difference.

Dave

A press release from the Federal Election Commission today:

"Through their public statements, solicitations for contributions, and various communications to the public, these organizations clearly established that they were political committees during the 2004 campaign. Their failure to register with the Commission, abide by contribution limits and prohibitions, and file disclosure reports resulted in the organizations agreeing to pay the following civil penalties:

* League of Conservation Voters 527 and 527II -- $180,000
* MoveOn.org Voter Fund -- $ 150,000
* Swiftboat Veterans and POWs for Truth -- $ 299,500"

Just to point out the scorecard in the Cassandra sweepstakes when it comes to Iraq.

Check the articles/comments, the overwhelming evidence suggests that SHARK is and has been MUCH more accurate about Iraq than Dave has.

For what it's worth.

"This is a POLITICAL conflict and is likely to be won by means other than arms alone."

True enough, Dave, but-
According to Maliki, the reason he wouldn't meet with Bush and the King of Jordan in Amman was that he didn't want to talk to Bush in front of a Sunni.
The political situation has gone from bad to worse for the last 10 months.
I think what Shark left unsaid is that these urban civilian guerillas have the luxury of striking socially charged targets whenever they feel they can get away with it. They can drive the wedge and subvert the process whenever they're able, and leave us to spend years trying to undo the damage.

"Up until recently I have maintained that comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam were really not appropriate for a wide variety of reasons"

Dave Nalle


Davey me boy, is this a flip or a flop?

The point that most of you miss IMO is that these two conflicts/wars/whatever SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN STARTED in the first place. And the US should stay home.

Y'all chickenhawks are the problem.

CLAVOS I can't believe you posted the correct spelling that indicates your own mistake while still criticizing SHARK.
Silly huh?

The point that most of you miss IMO is that these two conflicts/wars/whatever SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN STARTED in the first place. And the US should stay home.

I completely agree.

Bring them home, honorably discharge all the NGs and let them go back to their families and jobs.

CLAVOS I can't believe you posted the correct spelling that indicates your own mistake while still criticizing SHARK.
Silly huh?

Not silly so much as stupid, Martin. Should have proofread, hmmm?

There's got to be more to that FEC story because I know for a fact that moveon.org has a registered PAC and I'm pretty sure the swift boat vets do too.

"MCH. We've been over this before. No branch of the military wants someone who can barely walk. I did work as a civilian contractor for the pentagon for several years, but that's as close as I'm likely to come to serving in the military despite my desire, at least until they start bringing in people for electronic warfare solely on the basis of their video game skills.

Since you're so concerned about everyone's military service I wonder why you didn't stay in the service after fulfilling the minimum requirement when you were drafted. Surely your experience would have been valuable."
- Lumpy

Wasn't drafted, Lumpy. Enlisted in the Navy in 1970, after drawing lottery number 264, well above the cutoff of 190.

But why would you cast aspersions on the service of a draftee, considering the majority of those who were KIA in Nam were drafted?

But why would you cast aspersions on the service of a draftee, considering the majority of those who were KIA in Nam were drafted?

Aspersions? Where? Not in what you posted in #115.

Actually, the majority of everybody incountry was drafted. Me included.

If you have to resort to correcting someone's spelling, odds are you're losing the argument.

Also, it's hard to look like the dictionary police when you can't get "Havimg" right.

Like I said, I'm stupid.

Clavvy,
I'm worried about you...you seem to be losing it...(?)

Dave sez:The Syrians and the Iranians are the equivalent of the Vietcong in this context and they have been proven to be just as inhumane, fanatical, and treacherous. They take to heart the advice in the Koran that agreements made with unbelievers are inherently not binding.

Please provide evidence of this. It seems that your entire premise is based on this assumption. I think its only fare that you provide the reader evidence what makes you draw this conclusion.

Also, you know that you do negotiate with your enemies. You just do.

Please provide evidence of this. It seems that your entire premise is based on this assumption. I think its only fare that you provide the reader evidence what makes you draw this conclusion.

Are you asking about one of my several specific assertions or about the general assumption that fantatical Jihadists are as bad as the Vietcong? If you need evidence for the latter then you really, really haven't been paying attention to world events.

Also, you know that you do negotiate with your enemies. You just do.

You do under normal conditions of war. You don't negotiate with terrorists. You just don't.

Dave

The point that most of you miss IMO is that these two conflicts/wars/whatever SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN STARTED in the first place. And the US should stay home.

Well Martin, having had the experience of screwing up one unnecessary war by pulling out precipitously we ought to have learned how to end another unnecessary war without making it into a similar debacle.

dave

Dave

Besides the fact that we have switched the blame of how this war started to blaming Iran and Syria, let's look at things less flag wavingly and just rationally for a change.

If a huge foreign body, with opposing values from us invaded Mexico, would the US not send troops? Well... that is pretty much what Iran has done. There is nothing evil or weird about it. It makes complete sense. We invaded a country next door. They will be relentless in insuring that we don't stick around in any form. We would too. Seems simple.

However the "West" is arrogant and assumes that a different set of rules applies to them (us). We think our being "the West" makes us right and good no matter what and are surprised that people have their own views and interests. 500k Iraqis are DEAD. They didn't die a cute special sort of Western miniature death. They are just dead. Blown up, shot, burned, beaten up, infected.