I never claimed to have answers about what we should do in Iraq. I'm merely addressing the logistics issues of evacuating Iraq.


I'm surprised no one has brought up Thos. Jefferson's wolf in this "discussion."

3/21/2008 4:06:20 PM

^ That didn't start with Jefferson, but the shoe fits.

Quote :

"JCASHFAN: Sorry, I used bad wording here. When I said "parts harder to secure" I meant, "vehicle parts would be harder to acquire." Not "geographic locations within Iraq will be harder to control." The point is still relevant when you discuss the logistical problems of removing US forces from Iraq."

Why would they be hard to acquire?

Are the companies that manufacture them not interested in a huge windfall in this economy for some reason?

Crash costs considered, it'd be stupid for a company with the capacity to make these parts not to make them available to the Pentagon at the drop of a hat.

Quote :

"JCASHFAN: Correct. As our forces diminish in size, the insurgency will become emboldened without an effective check by the Iraqi Army."

So we let the last remaining forces in Iraq be the ones guarding the interstates.

This isn't even difficult chess.

Quote :

"JCASHFAN: Money here is utterly irrelevant. You can't tape a dollar to a highway and say "don't bomb here, this belongs to the US" it takes boots. As the number of boots diminishes, so will control. This is not an advanced level concept here."

Neither would be funding the Iraqi government if it decided--on its own--to raise a sizeable army to replace our forces and rebuild its own infrastructure according to its own tastes.

Quote :

"JCASHFAN: Ok, now this is slightly more advanced. When you move something from point A to point B, especially something like a truck that won't float in water, you'll need to put it in something that a) does float, or b) can cross bodies of water using lift generated by adequate forward acceleration through the atmosphere. Since we don't live in super-happy-fun land, most of these devices have load limits. When you're extracting trucks that have upwards of 2,000lbs of add-on armor, this becomes an issue."

Thank Taxpayers, er God we've got all those cargo planes and naval vessels in our skies and seas. It's almost like they exist to do such things.

Simple question:

Can this be done in 18 months?

No half measures. I'm talking about with total commitment. POTUS wakes up tomorrow, God tells him we need to be out of Iraq today.

Quote :

"JCASHFAN: Feel free to call me an idiot."

I will. But I don't think you are one. Otherwise I wouldn't engage you or theDuke866 so specifically in the discussion.

I'll also feel free to tell you I think you're surely joking instead of being seriously stupid. Perhaps I'm just too undereducated and overemotional to notice that I've qualified such remarks...

Quote :

"Gamecat: But I think you're just kidding here."

?

Quote :

"JCASHFAN: I wouldn't know anything about Iraq. None of my responses were based on professional articles I've read. None of it would be based on the fact that I've been there twice or the fact that I've literally traveled the length of the main North-South route from Dihook to the Kuwaiti border, or that I've driven the East-West route from the Jordanian border to just south-west of Baghdad."

Now that the inevitable "I've been there man, I have the thousand yard stare, I know what shit goes down in Idaho goddam" out of the way, perhaps we can apply that knowledge base to the substantial part of the debate?

---

Quote :

"Unconditional phased withdrawal/redeployment reaching 100% within 18 months. This is not surrender. Remember, we have replaced the dictatorial regime successfully with an elected democratic government. Hoorah. Now let us move on to more important matters. We should maintain a force of redeployed troops capable of rapid response in nearby international waters, the size of which fluctuates with conditions on the ground. This approach fails the OMF COST argument long term, as it remains a conscious incentive to deliberate on the necessity of our stay. After all, would we be paying all this money, making all these sacrifices and enemies if we didn't feel a debt to every dead soldier we hear about to "continue doing" well...whatever the hell it is we're doing? That's a question we ought ask ourselves every day, but not at the cost of another drop of American blood unless the enemy presents a clear and present danger to our security. In the past this was known as sound foreign policy. It's been on holiday since the gravitational constant changed on September 11th and all. Publicly respecting the rights of others to determine how to run their country tends to go a long way for the image--especially when damaged--of a nation. Let the spooks handle ground operations from there. Break every bit of Al Qaeda in Iraq and use military intervention ONLY when we have direct evidence our sovereignty is imminently threatened OR if and when said spooks may require it for their own protection. After all, the generals tell us we've broken Al Qaeda Iraq's back. Withdrawal would force the government to solve its internal security crisis or fail as incompetent governments--like incompetent banks that loan money to poor money managers--should. Their success or failure will show us whether the people of this nation really give a damn about the borders we've drawn for them, or if they really want to Balkanize. Sure, we'll use all the propaganda resources at our disposal to prevent the latter, but leaflets are cheap and don't require supply lines. Better a small contingent of military intelligence spooks and special forces than a behemoth 160,000-man supply chain. At this point, I think the Iraqis ought to be free to make up their own minds at this point, but it should be at the barrel of each other's guns--y'know...like it is here--rather than those of a foreign power. Meanwhile, we can fund Iraq's government and its efforts to reconstruct until we turn blue for all I care. We owe them restitution. The press at the Fed's certainly still warm enough to print up all the money the Iraqi government could possibly need. Recently stifled bank runs and all. ( ) Give them all the dough we can spare and let them succeed or fail on their own two feet with it. Few can say we don't care if they fail and we cease, just that the Iraqi government fails at managing resources. As for speculation over the future--the very crime that got us into this catastrophe--I'll do it, but frankly, my position doesn't require it: The data says the Mahdi Army is waiting us out. If they really want their civil war, they'll have it. But frankly, we had no right to claim perfect foresight on the way in Iraq, so I don't think we have the credulity or the standing to any such claims on the way out. Who the fuck knows what happens when our soldiers leave. Why don't we let the Iraqis worry about figuring that part out for themselves and support whatever decision they make? You know. As if we gave a fuck about them."

[Edited on March 21, 2008 at 4:14 PM. Reason : ...]

3/21/2008 4:13:00 PM

I'm only going to address this one, because I've pretty much written Gamecat off:

Quote :

"Now that the inevitable "I've been there man, I have the thousand yard stare, I know what shit goes down in Idaho goddam" out of the way, perhaps we can apply that knowledge base to the substantial part of the debate?"

I have never, nor will I ever claim to be some sort of bad-ass because I'm not. I don't have any purple hearts. I don't have any "V" devices on any awards I've received. I've never had to shoot another person, though I've gotten about as close as you can before the trigger breaks.

What I do have, is eyes on experience with the situation there based on my pursuit of ground level reality that might affect me. My last tour in Iraq was spent running escorts for logistics convoys pretty much everywhere in al Anbar, as well as down south and up as far as Mosul. I know the physical conditions of those roads pretty well. So, when I address the issues I addressed in this thread it is based on what I know, as much as possible, to be reality.

Political questions above and beyond my pay-grade aren't things I can effect directly so I don't spend my time worrying about them.

3/21/2008 4:31:21 PM

I asked you a logistics question:

Quote :

"Can this be done in 18 months?"

With unqualified commitment.

Yet your well of experience provided that (^). Thanks for defending my freedom to post and all that rot, but why hold the experience card when it'd be more useful to play? Oh right. You've written me off...



Grab the bullshit by the horns.

[Edited on March 21, 2008 at 4:38 PM. Reason : ...]

3/21/2008 4:36:34 PM

OK, so I backed off, calmed down, and re-read everything that was posted here. I initially misinterpreted Gamecat's question to expect that we withdraw in roughly the same time period it took us to deploy. We all agree that isn't feasible. I see now what he was asking me.


As to the question, "Can this be done in 18 months with unqualified commitment?" I don't know, maybe.

-If something like this is already in the cards and doesn't have to be planned from scratch,
-If the political and public will existed for another surge, (this time with tours for 18 months instead of 15 or 12) with the intent of withdrawing,
-If we can dedicate the entire weight of non-Afghanistan earmarked air support to 24 hour combat patrols,
-If we could conduct a phased withdrawal, beginning in the Ninevah province and working its way South,
-If we abandoned all semi-fixed equipment, if our lack of physical presence in Iraq didn't encourage the re-entry / revival of insurgent groups who would exponentially increase indirect fire attacks on the increasing density of coalition Soldiers in a shrinking number of locations,
-If the Kuwaitis and / or the Saudis would permit us to stage our forces in their countries and use their ports for evacuation, (and don't assume that as a given, Camp Doha was closed for a reason, the Kuwaitis aren't wild about us being so strong so close to them)

we might be able to pull it off in 18 months.

Of course, if we could all piss gasoline we'd drink six gallons of water a day and never have gone to Iraq in the first place.

We can play the maybe game all day long. Without the political will to back it up it is kind of pointless.

[Edited on March 21, 2008 at 5:33 PM. Reason : and I found an egg bitches]

3/21/2008 5:30:53 PM

^ That's exactly what I was looking for.

Sincerely: Thanks.

The Soap Box needs that depth of understanding. I truly do wish the media would give that level of analysis to us on a regular basis rather than making us dig all over Internet hell for it.

I don't even have an immediate reply. You've given me plenty of stuff to look up and think about, which was purely my intention.

And as this war has proven--and this campaign--political will can always be manufactured.

[Edited on March 21, 2008 at 6:39 PM. Reason : Gamecat Guarantee: I won't return to this thread until I have a specific response to ^]

3/21/2008 6:34:43 PM

Quote :

"Simple question: Can this be done in 18 months? No half measures. I'm talking about with total commitment. POTUS wakes up tomorrow, God tells him we need to be out of Iraq today."

I am sure that if god decided to let us know what he was thinking, we could muster up the man power to get this done. But, other than the almighty telling us to get out ASAP and if you actually give a damn about what we leave behind in Iraq, there isn't a very good reason to do such a thing.

Which is why it wont happen.

I say again, I want us out of Iraq.

I want self sufficient competent Iraqi forces in place when our brigades pull out.

I want a practical withdrawal based on conditions on the ground.

3/22/2008 9:00:56 AM

One the most recent showing of Real Time with Bill Mahr there is an excellent appraisal of the situation in Iraq and the consequences of pulling out. Its near the beginning of the show and it from one of the more well known on the ground reporters. I cant think of his name but, in general his views were always more negative than any of the dispatches I have posted and read, but his view of why we cant pull out actually drew applause from Bill Mahr's crowd.

If anyone knows how to find video of it on the internets, please post a link. Again, a very good appraisal of the consequences.

[Edited on March 23, 2008 at 9:17 PM. Reason : dsd]

3/23/2008 9:16:51 PM

restore diplomatic ties with Iran?

3/23/2008 9:28:28 PM

JCASHFAN:

Quote :

"-If something like this is already in the cards and doesn't have to be planned from scratch,"

With the enormous amount of contingency planning the Pentagon engages in during peacetime (land war in Europe during Cold War, defense of Taiwan from China as common examples), is it your honest assessment that after 5 years of continuous warfare in Iraq we wouldn't have an "immediate and precipitous withdrawal" contingency on the shelf?

Quote :

"-If the political and public will existed for another surge, (this time with tours for 18 months instead of 15 or 12) with the intent of withdrawing,"

Here's the rub indeed. Codifying the withdrawal into law wouldn't even be a credible approach to convincing the public to support any further escalation. Real, continuous, and public steps to communicate the firmness of the withdrawal plan would be the only way I could see public support for something like this.

Quote :

"-If we can dedicate the entire weight of non-Afghanistan earmarked air support to 24 hour combat patrols, "

Really?

Why would this be necessary?

It's the degree of commitment I don't understand. I can understand a reasonably censored reply to my question.

Quote :

"-If we could conduct a phased withdrawal, beginning in the Ninevah province and working its way South,"

Would we necessarily have to start here?

Quote :

"-If we abandoned all semi-fixed equipment,"

Why?

Quote :

"if our lack of physical presence in Iraq didn't encourage the re-entry / revival of insurgent groups who would exponentially increase indirect fire attacks on the increasing density of coalition Soldiers in a shrinking number of locations, "

I'm assuming your answer about air support is related to this problem.

Would the Iraqi government also be able to increase the density of its own forces protecting our withdrawal and battle these groups alongside us?

Quote :

"-If the Kuwaitis and / or the Saudis would permit us to stage our forces in their countries and use their ports for evacuation, (and don't assume that as a given, Camp Doha was closed for a reason, the Kuwaitis aren't wild about us being so strong so close to them)"

What ports for transporting troops and equipment were used that wouldn't be available for transporting them out?

Quote :

"Of course, if we could all piss gasoline we'd drink six gallons of water a day and never have gone to Iraq in the first place."

I don't think biological farce is necessary. Requiring an established operational relationship between our attackers and Iraq beforehand would've been sufficient.

Quote :

"Without the political will to back it up it is kind of pointless."

You could've said the same thing about peace in 2001...

Quote :

"Ben Franklin: There never was a good war or a bad peace."

---

BEU:

Quote :

"I am sure that if god decided to let us know what he was thinking, we could muster up the man power to get this done."

Obviously.

Your commander claims God lets him know what he's thinking already. This little skirmish is just one of God's many pet projects, I guess.

Quote :

"But, other than the almighty telling us to get out ASAP"

Oh, no.

The VP made it rather clear recently it doesn't matter WHAT the almighty tells us, only Commander Bush.

Quote :

"and if you actually give a damn about what we leave behind in Iraq,"

I read this as: "If you would expect the ensuing conflict in Iraq after our departure to last forever..."

That's a cleverly-worded form of: "If you don't think the Iraqi people are competent enough to govern their way out of Civil War..."

Quote :

"there isn't a very good reason to do such a thing."

WARNING: Post may exclude American taxpayer dollars, American blood, and lost American political capital as reasons. Use caution when reading.

Quote :

"I want a practical withdrawal based on conditions on the ground."

And I want a practical withdrawal to incent the conditions on the ground to improve from the bottom up.

As I understand your position, we're not far apart on this. You just seem to despise me personally for reasons I care not to understand.

[Edited on March 23, 2008 at 11:11 PM. Reason : ...]

3/23/2008 11:08:54 PM

Training Leader Briefs on Iraqi 'Force Enablers' Progress

Quote :

"In addition, Iraqi units are receiving vehicles they need to accomplish their missions. Iraqi security forces now have more than 3,000 up-armored Humvees. They are receiving more than 100 BMPs, Russian-designed armored personnel carriers. The United States will transfer another 4,000 Humvees to the Iraqi military this year."

Quote :

"[U.S. Army Lt. Gen. James M.] Dubik said Iraqis have made great progress in the air. 'Aviation is very interesting,' he said. 'Iraqi aviators fly more than 300 missions a week now in support of their own army. Most (missions) are air mobility and surveillance and reconnaissance.' The Iraqis fly both fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters, and the 'aviation side is getting really complicated with airspace management and air-ground coordination, but that's a good problem to have,' he said."

Quote :

"The army has received 8,000 new sergeants in the last six months, Dubik said. This is a combination of reaching out to NCOs who served in the army of the former regime and taking honor graduates from enlisted courses and making them corporals. All of this is signifies that the Iraqi military is growing, not only in size, but quality, the general said. 'While maneuver has been our primary emphasis and we are growing like crazy on that, we are starting to grow a more balanced force, and the expectation is that the Ministry of Defense will have a balanced force between 2009 and 2011,' he told the analysts."

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=48829

All good signs. And ABC News reported yesterday that the remaining 4000 Humvees have been delivered to the Iraqis. In addition--since they're the backbone of the military--the growing number of NCOs is a very positive.

[Edited on March 24, 2008 at 6:31 AM. Reason : .]

3/24/2008 6:26:11 AM

Gamecat

Quote :

"And I want a practical withdrawal to incent the conditions on the ground to improve from the bottom up. "

I believe this is already happening.

http://www.michaeltotten.com/

I am thinking we want the same thing, the only difference is the time it takes to get us out of Iraq. I am being more cautious in wanting a smoother transition between relying on US security to Iraqi security. Correct me if I am wrong, but you want us to get us out of there ASAP to reduce the cost of the war on the US in all forms.

I would recommend everyone read the dispatches from the sites in my thread, or any dispatches you can find on the situation on the ground to realize the enormity of the change in the ground truth.

These dispatches are generally dealing with the positive events taking place because thats all there really is outside of Mosul. They may not be the best cut and dry analysis of whats happening, but its better than any normal media source. With the losses we have sustained to get to this point it would be highly illogical and a waste of resources to pull out ASAP.

Does anyone know how to get a video clip of the most recent Bill Mahr episode or a transcript of the dialogue? There is one quote that finishes this thread point blank.

[Edited on March 24, 2008 at 10:15 AM. Reason : y]

3/24/2008 10:09:36 AM

^ That's excellent news.

And no, my position is not for an immediate withdrawal. That's what JCASHFAN thought, too. My position is restated at the bottom of my 2nd post on this page.

Quote :

"With the losses we have sustained to get to this point it would be highly illogical and a waste of resources to pull out ASAP."

Agreed to an extent, but that's why I'm not advocating an ASAP approach. That'd be the "Message from God" approach I discussed earlier, but isn't my position.

In business school they teach that the costs you're referring to are "sunk," and shouldn't factor into future decision-making. I'm curious if they teach it differently in war college?

3/24/2008 10:46:30 AM

Now, to set up this conversation, this reporter is the reporter NBC went to when things were going bad and they wanted a summary of how bad it was. I think he stays in the green zone way to much and doesnt actually go out with the troops to much.

With that said, and his bias being for the more negative news, he still says the following.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLw5BjvUtvw&feature=related

basically /thread

Thats Bill Maher's crowd clapping as well

[Edited on March 24, 2008 at 2:46 PM. Reason : sa]

3/24/2008 2:45:48 PM

^ Ha-ha! That was enjoyable--a bit of a departure from Maher's typical bash-Bush shitfest.

3/24/2008 4:15:29 PM

Even the liberal crazies are starting to realize where the Iraq situation is headed.

3/24/2008 6:31:53 PM

Guilt's a powerful motivator.

Ask Catholics.

3/24/2008 11:03:38 PM

^ So you're saying liberals are feeling guilty for being wrong about Iraq?

3/24/2008 11:53:37 PM

Nothing of the sort.

I'm saying people feel guilty about being duped into supporting the wrecking someone else's country for what have consistently proven to be false reasons.

3/24/2008 11:58:45 PM

^ Uh-oh--here we go. Anyway, we broke it, now we have to fix it--it's really not much more complicated than that.

3/25/2008 12:27:21 AM

No one said we can't pay for it.

3/25/2008 12:32:38 AM

^ Um. . .we are.

3/25/2008 12:35:10 AM

Obviously.

So why not cut Iraq's government a check for the same amount it's costing us to defend them and let them use it to defend themselves?

3/25/2008 12:37:10 AM

clinton/obama 08 or obama 12?

3/25/2008 12:40:27 AM

^^ Didn't you read my previous post? Things are headed in that direction (defending themselves).

Quote :

"Training Leader Briefs on Iraqi 'Force Enablers' Progress In addition, Iraqi units are receiving vehicles they need to accomplish their missions. Iraqi security forces now have more than 3,000 up-armored Humvees. They are receiving more than 100 BMPs, Russian-designed armored personnel carriers. The United States will transfer another 4,000 Humvees to the Iraqi military this year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [U.S. Army Lt. Gen. James M.] Dubik said Iraqis have made great progress in the air. 'Aviation is very interesting,' he said. 'Iraqi aviators fly more than 300 missions a week now in support of their own army. Most (missions) are air mobility and surveillance and reconnaissance.' The Iraqis fly both fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters, and the 'aviation side is getting really complicated with airspace management and air-ground coordination, but that's a good problem to have,' he said. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The army has received 8,000 new sergeants in the last six months, Dubik said. This is a combination of reaching out to NCOs who served in the army of the former regime and taking honor graduates from enlisted courses and making them corporals. All of this is signifies that the Iraqi military is growing, not only in size, but quality, the general said. 'While maneuver has been our primary emphasis and we are growing like crazy on that, we are starting to grow a more balanced force, and the expectation is that the Ministry of Defense will have a balanced force between 2009 and 2011,' he told the analysts. http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=48829 All good signs. And ABC News reported yesterday that the remaining 4000 Humvees have been delivered to the Iraqis. In addition--since they're the backbone of the military--the growing number of NCOs is a very positive."

[Edited on March 25, 2008 at 12:48 AM. Reason : .]

3/25/2008 12:43:34 AM

i heard 25 percent of independents have switched to mccain after the wright thing

3/25/2008 12:50:16 AM

^^ Are you saying they haven't been headed that direction at any point during Commander Bush's adventure?

3/25/2008 12:56:07 AM

Specifically, who was supposed to figure out what to do after primary ground operations stopped after the invasion?

How much of it is directly from the admin vs generals?

3/25/2008 8:07:03 AM

3/25/2008 9:07:40 AM

Sorry for posting 3 times in a row but I found this biased, but interesting.

3/25/2008 3:12:12 PM

I wouldnt concentrate on the spin this is giving against the dems, but what Petraeus is saying.

4/8/2008 9:47:00 AM

Check this out!

The Huffington Post just totally made up some shit about the Iraq Study group's rebuttal to General Petraeus' portrayal of Iraq's "progress:"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/06/iraq-study-group-advisers_n_95336.html

Quote :

"A new assessment of U.S. policy in Iraq by the same experts who advised the original Iraq Study Group concludes that political progress is "so slow, halting and superficial" and political fragmentation "so pronounced" that the United States is no closer to being able to leave Iraq than it was a year ago. The experts were reassembled by the U.S. Institute of Peace, which convened the congressionally mandated Iraq Study Group, a high-level panel that assessed U.S. policy in Iraq and offered recommendations in 2006. The new report predicts that lasting political development could take five to 10 years of "full, unconditional commitment" to Iraq, but also cautions that future progress may not be worth the "massive" human and financial costs to the United States."

Basically, the open question remains:

How much more war do you want to pay for?

4/8/2008 10:05:26 AM

five to ten years sounds fine with me.

Let me make this clear. The cost of this war for 5 to 10 more years is nothing compared to what we would have to spend with a failed Iraq(with or without us having to go back in). This is not 5 to 10 years of current levels of commitment. This is 5 to 10 years of troop draw downs and slow transitional period with each year costing less than the previous.

Now you might argue that we should just get out asap and cross our fingers to see what happens.

How about we not go for a knee jerk reaction.

[Edited on April 8, 2008 at 10:23 AM. Reason : fsd]

4/8/2008 10:23:19 AM

LOL

Try again...

Quote :

"five to 10 years of "full, unconditional commitment" to Iraq"

Also, I forgot it was your turn to hold the crystal ball. I'll stop. Really.

[Edited on April 8, 2008 at 10:26 AM. Reason : ...]

4/8/2008 10:25:29 AM

Quote :

"According to the U.S. Institute for Peace: "It may be that Feb. 13, 2008, will be remembered as the day when Iraq's political climate began to catch up with its improved security situation -- or, more to the point, when Iraqi leaders discovered the key to political compromise and reconciliation." Overall, according to Frederick W. Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute, the government of Iraq "has now met 12 out of the original 18 benchmarks set for it, including four out of the six key legislative benchmarks. It has made substantial progress on five more, and only one remains truly stalled." The one benchmark that remains stalled is the hydrocarbon law, but its purpose (the equitable sharing of oil revenues) is being accomplished de facto through the budget. "

Do you really think the rate progress we have seen in 6 months will just stop and we will maintain current levels for 10 years.

Please

[Edited on April 8, 2008 at 10:28 AM. Reason : as]

4/8/2008 10:27:20 AM

I think we've dealt with tales about this 6 months of progress versus that 6 months of progress without discernible differences in results long enough to know that progress only means one thing: (1) Time has passed in Iraq.

[Edited on April 8, 2008 at 10:33 AM. Reason : ...]

4/8/2008 10:31:36 AM

I ask you to actually read the reports coming out of Iraq.

They help

4/8/2008 10:34:48 AM

Which ones?

General Odom's was quite interesting. He, like myself, would like to know why we're following Al Qaeda's strategy right into a war with Iran.

http://www.populistamerica.com/listen_to_the_general_on_iraq_no_not_petraeus

I ask you to stop presuming I don't read these reports.

[Edited on April 8, 2008 at 10:42 AM. Reason : .]

4/8/2008 10:37:03 AM

^a quote or link plz

Quote :

"Liberals have long charged that Bush and Republicans pushed a war on the country only to advance their own political fortunes. This charge is so jackass as to be beneath response, however, it does seem to me now that liberals are deliberately contriving to lose a war that could be won -- and thus severely damage US national security interests -- simply to "win" a five year old political argument. "

[Edited on April 8, 2008 at 10:40 AM. Reason : sdf]

4/8/2008 10:39:59 AM

You hear that Liberals?

BEU is fed up with your shit!

And he's not afraid to use strawmen to prove it!

[Edited on April 8, 2008 at 10:42 AM. Reason : ...]

4/8/2008 10:41:35 AM

After reading and mulling over that article, I find myself agreeing with him about certain conclusions. I will however, wait until I hear further testomony to make a contrete conclusion. And how he relates it to the Balkins seems possible, but how it will actually work out remains to be seen. I see no reason to go to invade Iran, and if this is an actual goal I dont see how they could ever convince anyone that it is justified.

The dispatch websites I find are just that, the only ones I know of that I find linked from the original 2 I was first told of. Thats why I keep asking people to post dispatches from other sites in my thread so that the picture is clearer.

I would like to think that the strongmen Odom refers to that would create the majority of the problems are limited in number and the central goverment can prove that following the political process is the best way to obtain power and not through force. And in doing this, they can avoid alot of the conflict. I am positive by nature and I cannot ignore the progress by local governments. I just hope it doesnt result in local leaders acting as the strongmen Odom refers to.

But yes, please post dispatches where you can find them.

4/8/2008 12:45:35 PM

Quote :

"following the political process is the best way to obtain power and not through force"

Take away an angry mob's ability to vote or peacefully participate and you leave them no option but force...

4/8/2008 4:34:12 PM

sounds like the palestinians

4/8/2008 4:42:37 PM

It's a law of human nature.

John F. Kennedy summed it up perfectly over forty years ago. We still pretend we don't understand the concept.

4/8/2008 4:44:36 PM

seems like if we leave it will go to shit and then we wont get anything back on our investment

4/8/2008 4:46:42 PM

What makes it seem that way?

Tarot cards?

A shaken 8-ball?

The TV news?

4/8/2008 4:50:27 PM

I thought JFK was one of the liberals who "gets it."

4/8/2008 5:01:06 PM

Either I am not used to Senators blathering on, or some of these people refuse to let Crocker or Petraeus the time to answer the damn question.

God damn politicians

Been watching the Petraeus interviews and I feel alot better about this than that Odom interview. That article failed to mention that he is a retired general.

[Edited on April 8, 2008 at 6:12 PM. Reason : sdf]

4/8/2008 6:10:45 PM

You mean the Commander doesn't sign his paycheck anymore?

What an obviously untrustworthy source!

He only ran the National Security Agency. What the fuck does he know?

[Edited on April 8, 2008 at 7:56 PM. Reason : ladies and gentlemen, here are those turf wars the 9/11 commission warned u about...]

4/8/2008 7:55:09 PM

uh, I would tend to put more weight on the testimony of someone "in the loop" rather than someone testifying about "what he heard."

4/8/2008 9:38:39 PM