The way to win in Iraq

Post Reply New Topic

If Sir-Idiot Master of Shrubbery instituted a media black-out it would end his presidency and possibly force a stretched nation over the line. He would be impeached and if that didn't happen people like me would get their guns and start guerrilla warfare against the government for violating the first amendment. It would create more problems then solve. It possibly even collapse the country since we are already near the breaking point and I personally like having a 50 state nation. Don't you?

And I'm certainly NOT a soft leftie. I don't think diversity in jobs is important if the quality of the work is affected. I fact I think that the rights of the white male are getting trampled on so we can "diversity" but I'm no Nazi. If a black woman can do the job better then a white man then let her do it but if the person doing the job got it to promote "diversity" and will do a worse job then another person then I have a problem. I support the second amendment because government cannot control a populace that can rebel. (remember Vietnam?) and rebellion in face of oppression is quite acceptable. I believe ALL forms of censorship are wrong and you have the right to say whatever you darn well please in public. I believe government must be small all forms no social or economic controls.

I too would love to have a 50 state nation (well more like 49...California is not REALLY a part of the US now is it? )

A media blackout will not solve anything. The media is not out there killing our troops. The media is only showing us the facts. The people watching the media make up their own minds about the subject with the facts avaliable. Now if a lot of people are against the war and our involvement in it, that is a good indication that the people don't like this.

To solve this problem, we need to crack down on those deviant thinkers. We must send them off to the mental hospitals. They must have a problem with their minds because this is the perfect place on Earth. We are trying to make Iraq into the perfect place on Earth too. So people who disagree are insane. We must also give more support to our president. All hail comrade Bush!

But really, I am sick of people blaming the unpopularity of the war on the media.

For anyone who says the media isn't liberal and biased against America, explain why when the IDF hits Lebanon or Gaza, "civilians including XX women and XX children" are killed by "Israeli Forces". But when terrorists hit Israel, "Israelis" are killed by "rockets".

The media is liberal. With the exception of Fox News.

The media should be forced to report exclusively on US successes. Never report on a terrorist atrocity unless it can be followed up by saying "But we killed alla dems!".

You think you decided for yourself that the war was bad, but who's telling you everything you know about it? Could it be... THE MEDIA?

The media may be 100% against the war but how is that effecting the war?
To beat an insurgency you need a 10 to 1 troop advantage. Thats mean height
of Vietnam War levels of troops would be needed. The only way to get that man power
without weakening the US in other areas would be a draft. I read a day ago I think how
the war has now lasted as long as WWII. The war is a total failure. A much smarter
man (his dad) knew not to get bogged down in that place. The US tried to use
a small force in the hopes the people over there would throw flowers at out troops and kiss them. That did not happen. Regardless if we win , no way the price in lives and
dollars will be worth freeing those people. The same money spent in Africa in mostly
muslims coutries could have greatly reduce the tensions in the islamic world about US intentions.

Last edited by TheMachine1 on 27 Nov 2006, 7:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

To 'win' this war, we need to know what our objectives actually are.

take away any WMDs that saddam had:
1. "there are no WMDs here. Oh, well, better safe than sorry."
2. leave

get oil:

1. set up restricted areas around oil sights
2. shoot any iraqi's that go over thin red line
3. take oil
4. after oil is taken, leave.

to set up a government:
1. don't; they're ungrateful and keep exploding all over us.
2. leave.

There are many grateful for us overthrowing Saddam, namely the Kurds. I think the best solution is to split the region up into separate governments. Though we have the trouble of rebuilding the new governments' infrastructures, dealing with how much oil each nation gets, and having to deal with Turkey's pressure to not give the Kurds an nation.

Does anyone think it would be possible to relocate the Kurds to the southeast end of Iraq, further away from Turkey?

And Bush doesn't have to institute a media blackout. He just has to ban journalists from Anbar province, which he's completely within his legal rights to do per the declaration of war.

[quote="McJeff"]Does anyone think it would be possible to relocate the Kurds to the southeast end of Iraq, further away from Turkey?

/quote]

Hmm what about the people living in southern Iraq now. The pro-Iranian Shites will
love your idea. I rather take my chances with Turkey if I was a kurd because Turkey
has to be more reasonable if their going to be added to the European trading zone.

But neutron bombs would leave what's left of the infrastructure intact.

Although I agree with TM1 that Saddam was needed to hold the place together. I think his defence against his charges ought to have been that his tactics were necessary and without him civil war is the result.

Either bring him back, or split the coutry up. Give regions to Iran, Saudi, Jordan, Syria and Turkey and get out (IMO).

"Getting out" cannot be an option. Unfortunately it is, and I fear that my children will pay for it.

Free trade depends on US military might. And if we abandon Iraq, we prove that the US doesn't have the guts to stick it out, and embolden terrorists, insurgents and anti-government forces world over.

The world has moved on. That tactic would cause more harm then good, it would unroll the red carpet for the democrats to get the president impeached and get the rest of his buddies gone and rip the republicans to pieces. Don't even think about martial law, you can kiss this country good-bye if that happens.

Thats true to some point. But:

1) Those people are not worth saving.

2) The oils going to flow one way or another in the future there.(the only part
of trade we need, their oil to reduce world oil prices)

3) Yes its proven we can not defeat insurgents that have popular support. Thats
the lesson of Vietnam.

4) A top general was ask what would happen if the US had to goto war today with
another country. He said we would have no problem but it would be faught in a diiferent fashion. He did not say it this way but he ment the McJeff way.

I do not want the US military freeing people. I want the US military killing people when
its needed. We are trying to save people all militaries suck at that.

Hehehe, true that. That and, like I mentioned in another thread, not only would the world find another reason to hate us but you'd have everyone who did help us getting put to death by those forces. If we ever had to invade a country again, even under much firmer context - good luck getting intelligence from civilians. Even if they want to help they'll realize that we only have them safe until the left gets us pulled back out.

Wah, wah, wah.

Seems like all you hawks ever do is whine and cry. That and condemn people for doing exactly the same behavior you do.

"Getting out" is the ONLY logical option. The time for reigning in the chaos there is LONG past. Leave or not, we are going to paying for this war for long long long time. Mostly to China (3rd on our list of largest debtors). As far as the whole "fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here" rigamarole once again, they trotted out that ugly pony during Vietnam too. Oddly enough, after years and years, what is finally winning that war against communism? Free trade.

I don't think it ever was fear of USA retribution via military might that has kept "evil" at bay. Most of the world kind of looks at us like this giant that doesn't know it's own shoe size, we can crush small villages without even really noticing, and you kind of don't want to make us mad, 'cause it will be a while before we get our senses about us.

Which brings us back to Iraq, we're not leaving in defeat, defeat/victory was a false argument, nothing but a straw man, to begin with - it should have always been about objectives. We're going to be leaving Iraq because we've come to our senses. It no longer matters which side you were on, whether you were for the war, or against it - there are some realities that are not going to change....

The first is, Iraq is on a downward spiral - nothing can stop this trajectory. Whether one wants to call it a civil war or not, it doesn't really matter to the Iraqis who are living in fear of their neighbors. The second is, short of a draft , we do not have adequate troops - and a draft will not happen, and nor may an increase of even 100,000 more soldiers come with a guarantee of a fix - a safe Vegas bet would be, not likely. The third is, financially, we can no longer afford this war, nor can our grandchilren, something I'm shocked more fiscal conservatives haven't voiced more vehemently.

Our choice now is simple. Do we want to leave in an emergency airlift, or not?

The only way for America to "win" this war is to make sure our soldiers are well taken of when they return home. We cannot, under any circumstances, let them deal with what Vietnam Vets had to go through upon returning from Vietnam. I don't want to see a single Iraq War vet standing at the corner, because we had other financial priorities, other than honoring our promises to these young men & women who put themselves in harm's way.

Mmmm, no. I don't think thats us. Also, the trouble with calling conservatives hawks as well is that it shows a complete misunderstanding of intent. We, like liberals, want a safe peace and war-free world where all the causes of bloodshed were worked out so long ago that people have to go through years of sociology classes in school just to prevent history from repeating itself. What we do see thats different is a whole other layer to human and social dynamics that all too many liberals either completely ignore or don't really have the gravity of in perspective. When it comes to problems with human nature, conflict, unrest, injustice - you can't just skim the surface and solve the problem, you need to pull it out straight from the root and do a heck of a good deep cleaning, if you can't do a perfect job of that you at least do the best you can with the options available. No offense and I don't care if I have people flaming me for talking like this, then again I don't think freedom of speech should stop at the left and not extend to the right as well so I'll be more than happy to exercise my right to say what's on my mind.