BS: Out of Iraq in 6 Months

Subject: BS: Out of Iraq in 6 Months
From: SINSULL
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 06:51 PM

I cried the day it started. The people in the office where I worked laughed at me. "It will be over by Christmas"
4000 Americans later and countless Iraqui soldiers and private citizens:
http://pol.moveon.org/sixmonths/?id=12416-3683691-R36Kf2&t=2

Subject: RE: BS: Out of Iraq in 6 Months
From: Rapparee
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 06:56 PM

If anyone says about any fighting, "They'll be home by Christmas!", do me a favor and tell them that they don't know either history or their ass from a hole in the ground. See, nobody says which Christmas....

Subject: RE: BS: Out of Iraq in 6 Months
From: SINSULL
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 06:58 PM

I did...

Subject: RE: BS: Out of Iraq in 6 Months
From: Rapparee
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 07:04 PM

But it's okay, because right shortly the mission will have been accomplished for five years.

Subject: RE: BS: Out of Iraq in 6 Months
From: Peace
Date: 09 Apr 08 - 07:52 PM

Back about four years ago I was in verbal battle with some folks who kept saying the war would be over "within a year". I posted about two years ago that maybe they'd be kind enough to come back and explain. Never heard from them. Doesn't surprise me.

Subject: RE: BS: Out of Iraq in 6 Months
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 11:51 AM

"I was in verbal battle with some folks who kept saying the war would be over "within a year"."

The "war" if it was the one started by the invasion of Iraq on March 20th 2003, was over in under six weeks. Since then there has been an insurrection of varying intensity in Iraq that has failed in its attempts:

- First to intimidate the MNF into abandoning Iraq;
- Secondly to prevent the people in Iraq electing their first freely elected government and voting on a constitution;
- Thirdly to foment a civil war in Iraq.

I for one have never said that there was any "quick fix" or that involvement would be short term and have pointed that out repeatedly for the actions being taken in both Afghanistan and Iraq. My "gut" feeling for the former is at least 20 years and for the latter about another 10.

To all those who say that your current Administration's actions have increased the danger to the United States of America, I have this question. Since September 11th, 2001, how many times has the United States of America been attacked successfully?

Subject: RE: BS: Out of Iraq in 6 Months
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 12:18 PM

>>The "war" if it was the one started by the invasion of Iraq on March 20th 2003, was over in under six weeks. Since then there has been an insurrection of varying intensity in Iraq that has failed in its attempts:<<

It is good that you put "war" in quotes. Because it has all been the war. The insurrection was a direct result of the invasion and the lack of planning for dealing with the results. There were not two "wars". There was only one war.

Subject: RE: BS: Out of Iraq in 6 Months
From: Amos
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 12:26 PM

About 4,000, T.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Out of Iraq in 6 Months
From: Peace
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 12:59 PM

Just watching some news footage and after the speech delivered by Cheney, the troops were asked for whom they would vote. They responded either Obama or Clinton. Hot news flash for the pro-war folks: the troops WANT TO COME HOME.

Subject: RE: BS: Out of Iraq in 6 Months
From: GUEST,Chicken Charlie
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 01:03 PM

Well said, Amos.

After two straight days of being glued to the tube watching hearings, I have only this to say:

(1) Petraeus and Crocker deserve the Congressional Medal of Patience for answering the same questions something like 60 times each. Why do they call them "hearings" when nobody listens to anything that is said. Opinion aside, whether you agree with the answer or not, can you think of nothing more constructive than to ask the same question that 59 other Teflon-brained Honorable Members have already asked?

(2) Bulletin: It's not Oct 03 anymore. We can't re-decide whether to go into Iraq. We're there. I'm upset that we were lied to back then. I'm upset that false promises were made. I'm upset that we were deceived. But what to do about the arrogant asses in Washington is one question; what to do about the Iraq situation is a separate question.

(3) If we withdraw too soon, is there not a real danger that between the terrorists and the Iranians, the situation will simply deteriorate to the point where we have to go back in because the oil situation will be worse then than it is now? Yes, the "surge" was a sort of Alice-in-Dunderland deal where you send more troops so you will need fewer troops. Tweedle-Dum. But now the wet hankies want to use fewer troops so that in a while we will need to use more troops. Tweedle-Dee. Yes, 4000 deaths are tragic. I feel for the people who have lost family members & friends. Been there, done that, still waiting for the tee-shirt. But as bad as 4000 deaths are, 8000 would be worse. What am I missing? [Brilliant comment this morning: we should withdraw from Iraq so we can fight in Afghanistan. How would that change the argument? Amos would just keep punching the clicker on his lap counter.]

(4) It scares the crap out of me our country is run and our foreign policy decided by people with no sense of history. That's a bipartisan slam, BTW. It applies to a Republican prexy who thinks the Iraqis will welcome foreign infidels as liberators, and a Demo.
Senatoress from Califoggia (I live there! I can vote against her!) who equally can't understand why Americans have to wear body armor in Baghdad.

CC
(stands for Comewhat Ctunned)

Subject: RE: BS: Out of Iraq in 6 Months
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 01:46 PM

The number of troops is a red herring. The problem is that Bush doesn't want to do the hard part. He wants to keep a lid on things until the Democrats come in then let them deal with the mess.

The hard part is putting the Shiites in a position where they have to deal with the Kurds and Arabic speaking Sunnis.
The hard part is dealing with the Sadr army.
The hard part is getting the whole bunch to stop treating our treasury like their personal ATM machine.

Frankly, it is going to be a bitch. Its going to get worse before it gets better. But more US troops will not be the answer. That just give Al Qaeda more targets.

Amos' Post is right on the money. Al Qaeda is successfully attacking America every day. And the tens of thousands who live and come back maimed are possibly more successful terror attacks than the ones who go home in coffins which Bush will not allow to be photographed.

Subject: RE: BS: Out of Iraq in 6 Months
From: pdq
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 02:03 PM

Chicken Charlie,

May I take this opportunity to thank you for your service in Viet Nam. You took the hard road to travel and deserve no blame for executive decisions over which you had no control.

About California politics, both Boxer and Feinstein are only interested in protecting and augmenting their personal fortunes. Gray Davis was more corrupt than anyone is willing to believe, and the Brown boys, Willie and Jerry, were a total joke.

Let me know when you realize it's time to move. I have an extra property or two here in the sagebrush desert of northen Nevada.

Subject: RE: BS: Out of Iraq in 6 Months
From: Amos
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 02:59 PM

Boxer and Feinstein are only interested in protecting and augmenting their personal fortunes

PDQ:

Your judgement of persons is impaired, I fear.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Out of Iraq in 6 Months
From: GUEST,Chicken Charlie
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 03:11 PM

PDQ-- You're welcome, but I always wonder exactly what it is that we should be thanked for.

About that property--I'll seriously keep that in mind, as wife's retirement approaches. My problem is, I like the ocean, but beach front warmer than Alaska is getting more costly. Maybe Peru, Chile or Ecuador. How many bolivares do you get for a dollar these days, anyway?

CC

Subject: RE: BS: Out of Iraq in 6 Months
From: Jeri
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 04:54 PM

I don't know if anyone's seen the movie 'Stop Loss', but I'd be interested in hearing their opinions.

There was a 'down sized' active duty military and 12 month tours for active, National Guard and Reserves that turned into 'indefinite'. These guys can't function forever with no sign of success or reason to believe there ever will be.

When I was still in, hardly anyone went AWOL and I'd never heard of a desertion in modern times. Everyone had necessary equipment when deployed and when they came back, they were taken care of. Their families were as well. Support has been pushed far, far past the breaking point, and that the military folks haven't broken says volumes about their strength of will. Raising taxes to pay for all of this is a no-no for Republicans, so either the money will come out of somebody's butt or things will continue to fall apart.

Having been witness to what happened after the first Gulf War and known one of the first investigators of what is commonly referred to as 'Gulf War Syndrome', I'm going to make a prediction: you ain't seen nuthin' yet. The syndrome, whatever it's named this time, that arises out of these wars of occupations is going to be of a magnitude never seen before, and the Hell will only begin when the all the guys are home. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I hope I am, but I'm afraid I'm not going to be.

Subject: RE: BS: Out of Iraq in 6 Months
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 05:05 PM

"It is good that you put "war" in quotes. Because it has all been the war." - So says Jack The Sailor.

What was that dit about Barry Goldwater when asked about how he would deal with the Vietnam problem? His repsponse:

"Vietnam Problem?? Hell five minutes after I get into office there won't be no Vietnam problem because there won't be no Vietnam!!"

"War" Jack The Sailor? If the USA was actually at war with any other nation on this planet it would be over in less than 48 hours.

For some who believe such as is currently being peddled by an extremely biased MSM, the US Armed Forces are overstretched and near breaking point - you have less than 17% of your armed forces deployed - You are at War in two countries??? - You are "occupying" two countries??? - I somehow do not think so.

"The hard part is putting the Shiites in a position where they have to deal with the Kurds and Arabic speaking Sunnis." - JTS

Care to explain which particular Iraqi Shiites you are talking about JTS the Iraqi Arab Shiites or the Iraqi Kurdish Shiites?

Sadr and his Mehdi Army are no problem as he wants to be involved in the forthcoming political process and he has been told what he must do to make that happen. Al-Sistani will tell him what he has to do and Sadr will obey - just like he did before, because he knows that if he goes against the old man he'll lose everything, and there's not an Iranian standing that could save him.

Subject: RE: BS: Out of Iraq in 6 Months
From: Barry Finn
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 11:19 PM

HeHeHe
"If the USA was actually at war with any other nation on this planet it would be over in less than 48 hours."

What have we been doing these past 4,000 live playing in tjhe sand pile.
It took 48 yrs before we felt the final hit in the pocket from WWII. In the Gulf War 45% of the troops claimed some sort of disability, 39% were granted it. How long was that war? This time around, call it what you want, we'll be hit pocket for the next 1/2 century, in mecical bills, SS, compensation, rehab. Latest 3 1/2 trillion.

Jeri, we haven't even mumbled the future costs in "shock & awe" disabled/disfunctioned yet. We won't even see the side effects coming to light till the troops are home for at least the first few yrs when troubling symptoms will start to surface.

Call it what ever makes you feel comfortable, war, police action, insurgency, civil war, the price we'll pay will wreck havoc on US for generations to come. This was predicted before the 1st shot was fired but there are always those more than willing to jump the gun, as there still are, so we see.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Out of Iraq in 6 Months
From: Barry Finn
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 11:22 PM

As for getting out. We'd best get out now or we'll be there decades trying to get them to protect our best interests.
To the tune of how many more lives & how many more billions????

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Out of Iraq in 6 Months
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 11:50 PM

Teribus, what in the hell are you talking about? You have your own personal definition of a simple word like war? That's nonsense. If you don't want to communicate with other people just say so.

Jibberty jabberty jibberty jo!

Subject: RE: BS: Out of Iraq in 6 Months
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Apr 08 - 01:05 AM

"Teribus, what in the hell are you talking about?" - Asks Jack The Sailor.

Pointing out to you Jack that the USA is nowhere remotely close to being on a "War Footing", her armed forces are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, but even in those theatres they are not fighting on a "War Footing", apart from the troops operating independent of NATO in Afghanistan they are operating at the request of the UN in support of the sovereign governments of those two countries.

I'll stand by what I said - "If the USA was actually at war with any other nation on this planet it would be over in less than 48 hours."

Subject: RE: BS: Out of Iraq in 6 Months
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Apr 08 - 01:10 AM

Well, that's good. I guess we can bring the troops home now.

Subject: RE: BS: Out of Iraq in 6 Months
From: GUEST,Chicken Charlie
Date: 11 Apr 08 - 02:19 AM

Don't forget, Jack, we're in relative land. What we mean by the word war depends on how we were raised, how the people who raised us were raised, what we ate within the last 24 hours, what the people who raised us ate while they were raising us, and a whole lot of other factors, that, well, gosh ... just make it relatively impossible for anybody to really know anything for certain. I mean, what does it all mean? This is how arguing in Mudcativityville is like trying to nail jelly to the wall, cause just when you think you've got it, somebdody says, "That's not what I understand by jelly," and somebody else says, "That's not what I understand by 'a wall.'" It's also how I end up needing dramamine halfway through a lot of threads. As a sailor, you'll know all about that.

I guess nobody died in the Korean Conflict (not a war, you see). Damnedest thing you ever saw--all that shooting going on. You'd think somebody would have hit something just out of pure luck. Started with Adams, I think, having wars and not declaring them. Saves on medals, funeral expenses, medical care, insurance payments, lots of stuff. "I'm sorry your son is dead, madame, but as he was stupid and got himself relatively killed in something that, well, just isn't a war, then we can hardly expect to make good on his G.I. insurance."

See how much relatively better it is to look at things that way?


(That's OK; me neither.)
CC

Subject: RE: BS: Out of Iraq in 6 Months
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 11 Apr 08 - 02:47 AM

When you cannot walk the streets without armour in daylight for fear of being shot at,
When you are attacked, sniped at, booby-trapped, bombed,
When you cannot enter the area where your adversary hides,
When you can't dislodge your adversary
When you lose lives in your efforts towards the above
When you cannot pull your troops out of a country for fear of the mess you'll leave behind

Then it's not an "insurgency", a "peacekeeping", a difference of agreement or a spat.

"It's the war, stupid"

Subject: RE: BS: Out of Iraq in 6 Months
From: Barry Finn
Date: 11 Apr 08 - 06:41 AM

Even the "Village Idiot" agrees that it's a war.
He deosn't know who he's at war with but he knows he's at war!

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Out of Iraq in 6 Months
From: SINSULL
Date: 11 Apr 08 - 08:32 AM

Teribus makes a good point. If it is a war, why are we not fighting to win?

Subject: RE: BS: Out of Iraq in 6 Months
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 11 Apr 08 - 10:13 AM

Who says we are not fighting to win - of course we are. Just can't quite hack it, those "in surgeons" insist on fighting unconventionally you see. If they'd only line up nicely... And every time we clear them from an area, the locals don't seem all to want to help us keep it clean, because some of them will let the "inns urgents" back in, or they simply cannot hold their ground or whatever.

A fine mess - shouldn't be there, can't leave and it hurts to stay. And not likely to get any thanks for it either.

Subject: RE: BS: Out of Iraq in 6 Months
From: Peace
Date: 11 Apr 08 - 10:17 AM

Hello darkness my old friend . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Out of Iraq in 6 Months
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 11 Apr 08 - 10:21 AM

I don't really want to say it, but I am being reminded of the "V" word

Subject: RE: BS: Out of Iraq in 6 Months
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Apr 08 - 11:12 AM

It's not a war in Iraq. It's a "WAR ON TERROR"

That's what we are being told every day by the Bush administration, and all of the current candidates. Perhaps Teribus can explain to us why the US is unable to win this war in 48 hours.

A guy who served as was Colin Powell's Chief of Staff at the Pentagon has said that in his opinion, Iraq is not a theater in the "War on Terrorism". Hmmmm...

All of which simply proves that those of us who have been saying that our presence in Iraq is an illegal occupation, rather than a war, have been right all along.