How much more should the US sacrifice to achieve the goal in Iraq?

[David S]

This question is dissapointing and ignores realit. Appealing to emotion is a terrible way to get anything constructive done, regardless of what you're trying to do.

Ideally we would sacrifice nothing, but at this point we're going to sacrifice something no matter what we do. That's reality, and this question ignores that simple fact. We'll sacrifice our credibility with the international community(what's left of it anyhow) if we draw out as is, with the possibility of a civil war in Iraq that will result in Islamist control and a new, permanent terrorist haven for a country. Dealing with that aftermath would end up costing us money and live. If we stay we'll continue sacrificing money and lives the way we've been doing it. (and, being honest here we haven't sacrificed many from a military perspective - look at the casualty rates for soldiers in our other wars vs. this one and this one is low)

Seeing as we're likely to lose something either way, I say we do what is necessary to quickly get the Iraqi forces up to code so they can do it without us and we can leave. We don't need to make everything perfect, just get them to the point where they have basic self-sufficiency in defense. With the things I know about the situation now, this should take no more than two years, less if we divert more resources to it now(would cost more now, but save in the long term).

The question is perfectly reasonable. You would not consider doing anything in life without considering the costs or the rewards vs risks. Would you buy a car without asking the price? or a house? It is absolutely reasonable to ask how many more lives  we are willing to sacrifice and how many more is it likely to take to achieve "the goal". That's not emotion that's just logical decision making. Not asking those questions is  plain foolish.

John your response reminds me so much of the Vietnam era. In that one it took 60,000 American lives before the public became so angry about it that the politicians were finally forced to give up their folly. And yet none of the dire predicitons about the consequences of withdrawing ever came true. Asia didn't fall to the commies and the Viet cong didn't paddle accross the Pacific to attack San Francisco.

We had no legitimate reason to attack Iraq in the first place but we did. Then the situation began to get bad.  Then we stayed longer and the situation got worse yet. Now the country is on the verge of total chaos and yet we are told that we have to stay longer to get things under control. History is telling us that the longer we stay the worse it gets.

Why don't you answer the question; how many lives are you willing to sacrifice? There will be a high price to be paid to win this war. Is the objective worth the cost?

[theman9235]

theman, how would we be better off if we had won the war in Vietnam? And how are we worse off because we didn't win it? Was any of it worth the 60,000 American lives lost there?

There are two sections to this. First is from a comtemporary persective. Vietnam is actually tripping itself to offer sweat shop service to US corporations who might otherwise open factories in China, their long time enemy. SInce, Intel has just announced its 300 mil chip factory along with pas pipelines and the promising destination of American investors, America has won the Vietnam war. BUt again, this can only be seen as inevitable.

But if we are talking then, we lost Viet Nam because we lost political will. The Tet Offensive was painted by the media as a failure, must like the battle of Mogadishu was painted as an abject failure as well. In Mogadishu the US lost some 10-15 elite soldiers, but US also killed over 100-150 opposing forces (that's a kill ratio for 1 US solider for 10 enemy fighters). But Clinton had to have his forces leave Mogadishu despite the fact our losses were minimal compared to the other side.

And again, it appears to happen in Iraq - despite the drastic lower causalities than say the Korean War or Viet Nam war. Viet Nam was winnable, but the US media and the American public had no stomach for it.

If we withdraw from Iraq quickly with no saving face in Iraq then Bin Laden is right to call us paper tigers. 3000 us soldiers and 600 000 Iraqi civilians killed (by comparison Saddam killed 200 000) in Iraq. In this sense, the US have won militarily.

But it does not mean that the US have won the war. TO win the war means if the US has succeeded in its objective(goal.) W have lost South Vietnam to the hands of the Vietnamese Communist Party. By notioning that it was pathetic American troops were lost.. are you implying that the after effects the South Vietnamese endured is justified. ITs like saying the US troops are somehow more qualified to live. I believe that for an ideology, we should do more than what is expected. There would have been the implementation of essential democratic liberties; the freedom of opinion, press, movement, trade, religion, whatever. Release those suppressed by illegal detention, torture facilities and arrests.
http://vietnam.vassar.edu/docnlf.html--
 I will debate the Utilitarian good. Its like saying we should not helped the allies during WWII against the Nazi. What if we, like in vietnam, lost the will to fight? then what....fighting for ideologies is worth the risk for the utilitarian good. Apart from the original thought of a domino effect, history is always about whatifs what ifs.

Again, we lost the war because Washington lost the will to fight. BTW david S, we lost about 58000 American lives just to be more accurate.

[David S]

theman, how would we be better off if we had won the war in Vietnam? And how are we worse off because we didn't win it? Was any of it worth the 60,000 American lives lost there?

There are two sections to this. First is from a comtemporary persective. Vietnam is actually tripping itself to offer sweat shop service to US corporations who might otherwise open factories in China, their long time enemy. SInce, Intel has just announced its 300 mil chip factory along with pas pipelines and the promising destination of American investors, America has won the Vietnam war. BUt again, this can only be seen as inevitable.

This happened in spite of the fact that we did not win. How would it be better if we had won?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How about people got tired of seeing their kids get killed in an idiotic war on the other side of the world?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good grief were you even alive at the time? Yes I'm sure we could have nuked Vietnam and won the war, although that might have made it somewhat difficult to explain how we were saving the country.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well if the war was a contest to see if we could kill more Iraqi's than Saddam did then I suppose you're right. BTW "paper tigers" is the exact phrase that was used during the Vietnam conflict. "They'll call us paper tigers if we lose."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Need I remind you that Hitler's ally Japan attacked us first and that Hitler then declared war on us, or that Germany and Japan were rapidly conquering the world and that we were next? There is no doubt that we needed to fight World War II. But Iraq did not attack us nor did they have WMDs, nor did they have the means to attack us. We attacked them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Whoopie!

Listen theman I am not anti-military or anti-defense and if you showed me conclusive evidence  that Iraq was behind the 911 attacks then I would absolutely be in favor of going there and blasting the hell out of them. But even Bush has said that Iraq was not involved in 911. So why the hell are we there killing people who did no harm to us?

[theman9235]

theman, how would we be better off if we had won the war in Vietnam? And how are we worse off because we didn't win it? Was any of it worth the 60,000 American lives lost there?
[/quote]

There are two sections to this. First is from a comtemporary persective. Vietnam is actually tripping itself to offer sweat shop service to US corporations who might otherwise open factories in China, their long time enemy. SInce, Intel has just announced its 300 mil chip factory along with pas pipelines and the promising destination of American investors, America has won the Vietnam war. BUt again, this can only be seen as inevitable. [/quote]
This happened in spite of the fact that we did not win. How would it be better if we had won?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How about people got tired of seeing their kids get killed in an idiotic war on the other side of the world?

Its called a war...would it be just so terribly bad to fight a cause. That cause being stopping the proliferation of communism. This sort of thing is happening exactly today. Have you heard of the jersey girls. They are like 4 New jersey women calling for the complete withdrawal of american troops because their son died. They not only cut campaign cards for John Kerry during 2004 but have become filthy rich for their stance. They are worshiped by Vanity Fair and are expected to act like human shields for the democratic platform. And then when somebody talks back--they whine some more and cry as though they are immuned to criticism. If they have something to say then they should be able to accept criticism. Or else let a politician make their point. Demo have a problem with catering to the nation by bring forth emotional human shields to do their job of recruiting ppl. Im sure that if we did a poll of american families whose children died during the Iraq war, they would support Bush and the cause in the middle east. Somebody needs to seriously burn Cindy Sheehan,ham whatever.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good grief were you even alive at the time? Yes I'm sure we could have nuked Vietnam and won the war, although that might have made it somewhat difficult to explain how we were saving the country.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well if the war was a contest to see if we could kill more Iraqi's than Saddam did then I suppose you're right. BTW "paper tigers" is the exact phrase that was used during the Vietnam conflict. "They'll call us paper tigers if we lose."

whats your point?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Need I remind you that Hitler's ally Japan attacked us first and that Hitler then declared war on us, or that Germany and Japan were rapidly conquering the world and that we were next? There is no doubt that we needed to fight World War II. But Iraq did not attack us nor did they have WMDs, nor did they have the means to attack us. We attacked them.

Just because they attacked us first during WWII, it wouldnt have meant a definate cause for war. What im saying is, had we had comtemporary media intact during WWII, from ur or the mainstream media stance we would not have engaged to fight the nazis. IM  never saying that IRAQ attacked us. The ppl that attacked are islamis jihadist whose terror cells were shattered all over iraq and certain regions of the middle east. Didnt you hear of the 500 mustard and the serrin gas that was found a while ago. It was post 1994 BTW. Even this should vindicate Bush.
In World War II, destroying Nazi divisions and taking islands from the Japanese provided hard yardsticks to gauge military success. And its not like there werent any terror networks during WWII. Its because the allies bombed Germany to the stone age that it was harder for the terrorists to re-group. However, now its a different story. There needs to be premise surgical percisions on the exact location as to limit civilian casualities.

[/quote]
we lost about 58000 American lives just to be more accurate.
[/quote]
Whoopie!

Yes, get it right...

Listen theman I am not anti-military or anti-defense and if you showed me conclusive evidence  that Iraq was behind the 911 attacks then I would absolutely be in favor of going there and blasting the hell out of them. But even Bush has said that Iraq was not involved in 911. So why the hell are we there killing people who did no harm to us?
[/quote]

At least you have hope...we are trying to obliterate Jihadist who want to destroy the US, kill our ppl and so on...At least John Kerry is helping our troops abroad by calling them idiots. As far as the war is concerned, dont you think it would be demoralizing or even confusing to the troops who figure that America is completely partism on their efforts to bring security back home? Remember the whole world is watching the us. Our success or failure will be a test to the depth of our resolve or the strength of our leadership. More than anything we need Unity in times of war.

[Smash255]

If we pull out now, there are going to be a ton of people from the radical Islamist groups saying how they defeated the great superpower, how this is another Afghanistan, how they have a God-given mission, etc. etc. etc.

On the other hand, that doesn't necessarily mean they win the ideological war. The Soviets didn't lose the Cold War in Afghanistan. And they certainly didn't win it in Vietnam.

your right however most people dont understand this and are so far caught up under this obsessive emotional shield that rational ideas arent comprehended, and further the enemy in Iraq is a combination of rejectionists, Saddamists and terrorists. The rejectionists are by far the largest group. These are ordinary Iraqis, mostly Sunni Arabs, who miss the privileged status they had under the regime of Saddam Hussein -- and they reject an Iraq in which they are no longer the dominant group.
Their objective is to drive the United States and coalition forces out of Iraq, and use the vacuum that would be created by an American retreat to gain control of that country. They would then use Iraq as a base from which to launch attacks against America, and overthrow moderate governments in the Middle East, and try to establish a totalitarian Islamic empire that reaches from Indonesia to Spain. That's their stated objective.
Im sure the bush administration believes that this war is difficult--explains for their different attitudes these months--but lets not be suprised that the enemy is actually FIGHTING BACK. Its not like the jihadists are going to sit back and be like "im bored sh**tless." Second, General Casey said a couple months ago that we have not lost a single military engagement and we need to give our soldiers credit for this. Third, we the United States were to walk away from thisit would give the terrorists that opportunity to turn iraq into a stronghold in which they would have access to the worlds second largest reserves of petroleum; they would use this natural resourse as a political weapon against the United States, Euro, Asia and could pit the industrialized supporters of terror, go after israel and perhaps the arabian peninsula.
and as i agree with the above quote the consequences of cut and run are extremely pernicious. It is the fight of the 21st century. Not only this they could also work in concert with Syria and iran which are active supporters of terror.
We need to avoid this being another Vietnam War, The constant carping about us losing the war and using the people as human shields while the media dumping on unconditional whinning and using emotions are going to force us to lose. Away from the general hubris, i think if it werent for obstinate, liberal college cowards and the media ie rather..i think US could have won the war. 

Nevertheless, since August of 2003, we have had continuous economic growth; we've had job growth in each of those months. And maybe if you start doing it by the measure that most people look at -- are you working, do you own a home, do you have good prospects -- more people are working than ever before. More people own homes. More people are making -- people are making, on average, more money than ever before. More people have college degrees, and home ownership and college degrees among minorities continuing to grow. And basically, the American Dream club is getting bigger. What im saying is the war is not affecting the average American--putting this on a standard scale-.

So my conclusion is send as much troops to start a revolution within the sectors.

Its not just Iraqi's resisting or just from the sunni's that we are dealing with or old Saddam loyalists.  It seems like you have your head stuck up some vaccum of GOP talking poiints you can't seem to flush it out.  Much of the violence in Iraq now is Sectarian.  Shi'ite vs Sunni.  It consists of more than just sunni's causing trouble.  Irs a bloodbath between Shia & Sunnis.  This is a Civil War between Iraqi factions that our troops are dyig over.  The only thing these two waring factions agree on is they want to kill the Americans in Iraq.  We can't keep just fighting, stay there, dump even more $$ in this mess, and lose more American lives just to see Suni's & Shia's blow the living hell out of each other.  This is something we can't do for them, they have to do for themselves.  Again i will ask, what happens if we can't complete the "mission" in Iraq, and the violence just doesn't stop & Americans continue to die?  then what??

On top of that your comments on the econoy were rather funny.  Most of the months of economic growth you speak of, are still lower than the amount you typically need to keep up with population growth according to the Labor dept.  To say more people are working than even before has got to be one of the dumbest quotes I have ever seen on this board.  THEIR ARE ALSO MORE PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY EVER BEFORE, SO IT WOULLD MAKE SENSE.....
The main reason why the Unemployment level has dropped has to do with once people are unemployed for longer than 6 months (once the benefits run out) they are no longer considered in the labor force and no longer counted in the unemployed statistics, even though they are still unemployed.  The income level comment is also a rather funny one.  Incomes have gone up ever so slightly (the smallest increases in incomes we have seen in years), real wages, income vs cost of living increases, is actually DOWN over the past few years

[theman9235]

[Its not just Iraqi's resisting or just from the sunni's that we are dealing with or old Saddam loyalists.  It seems like you have your head stuck up some vaccum of GOP talking poiints you can't seem to flush it out. ]

Why would you resort of personal attacks--its an argument, i think you have watched Oilberman on MSNBC way too much. If you have something to say, random tirades wont get you anywhere.

[Much of the violence in Iraq now is Sectarian.  Shi'ite vs Sunni.  It consists of more than just sunni's causing trouble.  Irs a bloodbath between Shia & Sunnis.  This is a Civil War between Iraqi factions that our troops are dyig over. ]

Thanks for stating the odvious.

[The only thing these two waring factions agree on is they want to kill the Americans in Iraq.  We can't keep just fighting, stay there, dump even more $$ in this mess, and lose more American lives just to see Suni's & Shia's blow the living hell out of each other.  This is something we can't do for them, they have to do for themselves.  Again i will ask, what happens if we can't complete the "mission" in Iraq, and the violence just doesn't stop & Americans continue to die?  then what??]

There not needs to a military solution to this problem but rather political efforts. However, for some breathing space, there needs to be a military recondition for this political solution. Which is why there needs to be additional 30,000 troops for a political surge.
I think 1) None of the neighbors surrounding Iraq is going to benefit from such arroused sectarian violence. Thus, the United States has to inform and organize support assemblies to inculcate national rapprochement.
2) US should further work with the Iraqi government so that they would be able to takeover as soon as possible. The problem with Maliki does not lie under its assumptions against the US but rather he has a stable constitutient. They are the ppl who processes, facilitates the support needed for security. Because of this, the US needs to send more combat troops, increase the quality of the Iraqi brigades for accelerated success.


On top of that your comments on the econoy were rather funny.  Most of the months of economic growth you speak of, are still lower than the amount you typically need to keep up with population growth according to the Labor dept.  To say more people are working than even before has got to be one of the dumbest quotes I have ever seen on this board.  THEIR ARE ALSO MORE PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY EVER BEFORE, SO IT WOULLD MAKE SENSE.....
The main reason why the Unemployment level has dropped has to do with once people are unemployed for longer than 6 months (once the benefits run out) they are no longer considered in the labor force and no longer counted in the unemployed statistics, even though they are still unemployed.  The income level comment is also a rather funny one.  Incomes have gone up ever so slightly (the smallest increases in incomes we have seen in years), real wages, income vs cost of living increases, is actually DOWN over the past few years
[/quote]

are u kidding?

I would endorse a complete obliteration of the middle east, but thats me personally. Its not like WWII when the US brought Germany back to the stone age. Now we are soo afraid of civilian casualities.
 And instead of whinning why dont you actually start providing solutions. It always seems like Reps are explaning why cats arent dogs to liberals.

[Smash255]

The main reason why the Unemployment level has dropped has to do with once people are unemployed for longer than 6 months (once the benefits run out) they are no longer considered in the labor force and no longer counted in the unemployed statistics, even though they are still unemployed. 

Smash, this is not true.  People are considered part of the labor force as long as they are looking for work.  It is not related to whether they are collecting unemployment benefits or not.

I think it would be inaccurate to suggest that we have this high rate of unemployment, but it's being masked by the fact that many aren't counted.  There are certain pockets of long-term unemployed that aren't counted as part of the labor force, but that has more to do with personal issues that they have than the performance of the economy.

What does concern me is the financial vulnerability that some people who are doing well on the surface seem to have.  My current concern revolves around people who are in ultimate danger of foreclosure on their homes, because they foolishly bought them with mortgages on which they could only afford the payments based upon teaser rates that are poised to adjust upward.  Many people did this in the last few years during the real estate boom, thinking they'd be rescued by higher income or something, I don't know what.  Now there are a good number of people who will have trouble keeping their houses, even without any job-related problems.

I stand corrected, would like to add however that those who haven't looked in the last four weeks are not counted, so their are quite a few who became frustrated they stopped looking for a while and not counted.  If you look at the job growth over the past few years the growth, we have averaged a hare over 159,000 jobs a month.  Generally in order to keep of with the increase in population we need approx 150,000 a month according to the Labor Dept.  Th unemployment rate has dropped a decent amount over that time, despite only averaging a slightly larger amount of jobs created than generally needed o keep up with population increases.  Long story short, while the job market is in better condition than it was, its not in the shape the unemployment rate drops would lead you to believe.  The jobs created over the last 3 years or so is only slightly higher than needed to keep up with population.

The forclosure problem with people who bought homes more than they could afford could no doubt be a major problem over the next few months and years. 

Also as I mentioned above real wages have gone down.  The economy has been strong for those at the top, but the majority of those (in the middle class) the economy has not been that strong.  Most have jobs, but either not the type of jobs they have had in the past or simply their wages are rising at a much slower rate than their cost of living

[Smash255]

[Its not just Iraqi's resisting or just from the sunni's that we are dealing with or old Saddam loyalists.  It seems like you have your head stuck up some vaccum of GOP talking poiints you can't seem to flush it out. ]

Why would you resort of personal attacks--its an argument, i think you have watched Oilberman on MSNBC way too much. If you have something to say, random tirades wont get you anywhere.

[Much of the violence in Iraq now is Sectarian.  Shi'ite vs Sunni.  It consists of more than just sunni's causing trouble.  Irs a bloodbath between Shia & Sunnis.  This is a Civil War between Iraqi factions that our troops are dyig over. ]

Thanks for stating the odvious.

[The only thing these two waring factions agree on is they want to kill the Americans in Iraq.  We can't keep just fighting, stay there, dump even more $$ in this mess, and lose more American lives just to see Suni's & Shia's blow the living hell out of each other.  This is something we can't do for them, they have to do for themselves.  Again i will ask, what happens if we can't complete the "mission" in Iraq, and the violence just doesn't stop & Americans continue to die?  then what??]

There not needs to a military solution to this problem but rather political efforts. However, for some breathing space, there needs to be a military recondition for this political solution. Which is why there needs to be additional 30,000 troops for a political surge.
I think 1) None of the neighbors surrounding Iraq is going to benefit from such arroused sectarian violence. Thus, the United States has to inform and organize support assemblies to inculcate national rapprochement.
2) US should further work with the Iraqi government so that they would be able to takeover as soon as possible. The problem with Maliki does not lie under its assumptions against the US but rather he has a stable constitutient. They are the ppl who processes, facilitates the support needed for security. Because of this, the US needs to send more combat troops, increase the quality of the Iraqi brigades for accelerated success.


On top of that your comments on the econoy were rather funny.  Most of the months of economic growth you speak of, are still lower than the amount you typically need to keep up with population growth according to the Labor dept.  To say more people are working than even before has got to be one of the dumbest quotes I have ever seen on this board.  THEIR ARE ALSO MORE PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY EVER BEFORE, SO IT WOULLD MAKE SENSE.....
The main reason why the Unemployment level has dropped has to do with once people are unemployed for longer than 6 months (once the benefits run out) they are no longer considered in the labor force and no longer counted in the unemployed statistics, even though they are still unemployed.  The income level comment is also a rather funny one.  Incomes have gone up ever so slightly (the smallest increases in incomes we have seen in years), real wages, income vs cost of living increases, is actually DOWN over the past few years

are u kidding?

I would endorse a complete obliteration of the middle east, but thats me personally. Its not like WWII when the US brought Germany back to the stone age. Now we are soo afraid of civilian casualities.
 And instead of whinning why dont you actually start providing solutions. It always seems like Reps are explaning why cats arent dogs to liberals.
[/quote]


YOUR the one who started with the personal attacks.  YOUR the one who was using the talking points straight from GOP headquarters or Fox instead of using your own brain.  YOUR the one who stated it was mostly the Sunni's causing the problems.

Bottom line, we have reached a point where this is something the Iraqi's need to take care of themselves.  We can't stand there and be trapped in the middle of a Civil war between warring factions.  20,000 troops, 30,000 troops, hell even 100,000 more troops isn;'t going to accomplish anything, but more American deaths & more violence.  Their are times we just have to accept the fact that this was a failure andd bite the bullet.  The situation in iraq isn't bad because their are those in this country who are whining about things aren't going well.  To even make a suggestion as such is an absoloute abomination.  We are in this mess because the President and his infinite wisdom chose to take his fight away from Islamic Funsamentalism and brought Fundamentalism to a place that it did not exist before, horrific planning by the administration, refusing to listen to anyone who dared questioned the way they are handeling the situation.  We have to change course and let Iraqi's settle this for themselves, we won't be able to do it for them.

Wouldd like to add more to this, but I gotta run.

[theman9235]

[Its not just Iraqi's resisting or just from the sunni's that we are dealing with or old Saddam loyalists.  It seems like you have your head stuck up some vaccum of GOP talking poiints you can't seem to flush it out. ]

Why would you resort of personal attacks--its an argument, i think you have watched Oilberman on MSNBC way too much. If you have something to say, random tirades wont get you anywhere.

[Much of the violence in Iraq now is Sectarian.  Shi'ite vs Sunni.  It consists of more than just sunni's causing trouble.  Irs a bloodbath between Shia & Sunnis.  This is a Civil War between Iraqi factions that our troops are dyig over. ]

Thanks for stating the odvious.

[The only thing these two waring factions agree on is they want to kill the Americans in Iraq.  We can't keep just fighting, stay there, dump even more $$ in this mess, and lose more American lives just to see Suni's & Shia's blow the living hell out of each other.  This is something we can't do for them, they have to do for themselves.  Again i will ask, what happens if we can't complete the "mission" in Iraq, and the violence just doesn't stop & Americans continue to die?  then what??]

There not needs to a military solution to this problem but rather political efforts. However, for some breathing space, there needs to be a military recondition for this political solution. Which is why there needs to be additional 30,000 troops for a political surge.
I think 1) None of the neighbors surrounding Iraq is going to benefit from such arroused sectarian violence. Thus, the United States has to inform and organize support assemblies to inculcate national rapprochement.
2) US should further work with the Iraqi government so that they would be able to takeover as soon as possible. The problem with Maliki does not lie under its assumptions against the US but rather he has a stable constitutient. They are the ppl who processes, facilitates the support needed for security. Because of this, the US needs to send more combat troops, increase the quality of the Iraqi brigades for accelerated success.


On top of that your comments on the econoy were rather funny.  Most of the months of economic growth you speak of, are still lower than the amount you typically need to keep up with population growth according to the Labor dept.  To say more people are working than even before has got to be one of the dumbest quotes I have ever seen on this board.  THEIR ARE ALSO MORE PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY EVER BEFORE, SO IT WOULLD MAKE SENSE.....
The main reason why the Unemployment level has dropped has to do with once people are unemployed for longer than 6 months (once the benefits run out) they are no longer considered in the labor force and no longer counted in the unemployed statistics, even though they are still unemployed.  The income level comment is also a rather funny one.  Incomes have gone up ever so slightly (the smallest increases in incomes we have seen in years), real wages, income vs cost of living increases, is actually DOWN over the past few years

are u kidding?

I would endorse a complete obliteration of the middle east, but thats me personally. Its not like WWII when the US brought Germany back to the stone age. Now we are soo afraid of civilian casualities.
 And instead of whinning why dont you actually start providing solutions. It always seems like Reps are explaning why cats arent dogs to liberals.

YOUR the one who started with the personal attacks.  YOUR the one who was using the talking points straight from GOP headquarters or Fox instead of using your own brain.  YOUR the one who stated it was mostly the Sunni's causing the problems.

Bottom line, we have reached a point where this is something the Iraqi's need to take care of themselves.  We can't stand there and be trapped in the middle of a Civil war between warring factions.  20,000 troops, 30,000 troops, hell even 100,000 more troops isn;'t going to accomplish anything, but more American deaths & more violence.  Their are times we just have to accept the fact that this was a failure andd bite the bullet.  The situation in iraq isn't bad because their are those in this country who are whining about things aren't going well.  To even make a suggestion as such is an absoloute abomination.  We are in this mess because the President and his infinite wisdom chose to take his fight away from Islamic Funsamentalism and brought Fundamentalism to a place that it did not exist before, horrific planning by the administration, refusing to listen to anyone who dared questioned the way they are handeling the situation.  We have to change course and let Iraqi's settle this for themselves, we won't be able to do it for them.

Wouldd like to add more to this, but I gotta run.
[/quote]

Have you read any of the ideas presented...why dont you start refuting some of the arguments instead resorting to random shibboleth. Do you not realize what would happen if we just threw our hands up and ran. Any reasonable person does not endorse this unrealistic agenda. Do you not understand how the world would turn out if Islamic Fundamentalist got out of hand? Do you have any idea what would happen if we had another attack on our soil on our citizens? OK here is the deal...why not present a plan that is somehow realistic, actually attempts to solve the quagmire and will not give the potential threat of harming US citizens. Actually, polls suggest that even the average Americans know better than to pull out now...ITs always a small segement of ppl complaining about soldiers dying..yes its a war and its a cause to fight for.

and why do arguments suddenly become talking points? I think you are watching too much FOX.

[John Dibble]

The question is perfectly reasonable. You would not consider doing anything in life without considering the costs or the rewards vs risks.

The question does not assume anything about rewards, only risks. Therefore I stand by what I said before. Little reasonable discussion on the issue can come of this question. If you want a serious cost/reward analysis then you should ask a question about that, but as things stand you are not. The options you give assume that we lose nothing if we leave, which is quite frankly blind. You have fallen into one of the problems that plagues our planet - people making complex issues out to be overly simple.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You seem to forget that I didn't support going in in the first place - I still wouldn't even if we could do things over, so trying to lecture me on that point is rather pointless. Furthermore, the current state of affairs is the result of the Bush administration's poor planning for the aftermath. Had we not dismantled their military, or at least not the units that surrendered to us, we could probably have been out of there by now. Blame the idiot running things, not me.

Also do keep in mind that the image you're getting is a bit one sided - the media is rather sensationalist. Positive developments do happen in Iraq, and not all regions are in chaos, so do keep that in mind. Getting an objective picture is difficult.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The least possible would be ideal. Of course we don't live in an ideal world, now do we? And as I said we have no gaurantees that leaving will not get bad results for us. And given that I am not an omniscient being, and neither are you for that matter, I can't say what the actual cost would be. As I said, I believe that we could get out in two years or less if we hurry the hell up with getting the Iraqi forces up to code, with minimal loss of life if we do things right. Of course I suppose my objective is probably different from the administration's objective, but that's another story entirely.

[Smash255]

[Its not just Iraqi's resisting or just from the sunni's that we are dealing with or old Saddam loyalists.  It seems like you have your head stuck up some vaccum of GOP talking poiints you can't seem to flush it out. ]

Why would you resort of personal attacks--its an argument, i think you have watched Oilberman on MSNBC way too much. If you have something to say, random tirades wont get you anywhere.

[Much of the violence in Iraq now is Sectarian.  Shi'ite vs Sunni.  It consists of more than just sunni's causing trouble.  Irs a bloodbath between Shia & Sunnis.  This is a Civil War between Iraqi factions that our troops are dyig over. ]

Thanks for stating the odvious.

[The only thing these two waring factions agree on is they want to kill the Americans in Iraq.  We can't keep just fighting, stay there, dump even more $$ in this mess, and lose more American lives just to see Suni's & Shia's blow the living hell out of each other.  This is something we can't do for them, they have to do for themselves.  Again i will ask, what happens if we can't complete the "mission" in Iraq, and the violence just doesn't stop & Americans continue to die?  then what??]

There not needs to a military solution to this problem but rather political efforts. However, for some breathing space, there needs to be a military recondition for this political solution. Which is why there needs to be additional 30,000 troops for a political surge.
I think 1) None of the neighbors surrounding Iraq is going to benefit from such arroused sectarian violence. Thus, the United States has to inform and organize support assemblies to inculcate national rapprochement.
2) US should further work with the Iraqi government so that they would be able to takeover as soon as possible. The problem with Maliki does not lie under its assumptions against the US but rather he has a stable constitutient. They are the ppl who processes, facilitates the support needed for security. Because of this, the US needs to send more combat troops, increase the quality of the Iraqi brigades for accelerated success.


On top of that your comments on the econoy were rather funny.  Most of the months of economic growth you speak of, are still lower than the amount you typically need to keep up with population growth according to the Labor dept.  To say more people are working than even before has got to be one of the dumbest quotes I have ever seen on this board.  THEIR ARE ALSO MORE PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY EVER BEFORE, SO IT WOULLD MAKE SENSE.....
The main reason why the Unemployment level has dropped has to do with once people are unemployed for longer than 6 months (once the benefits run out) they are no longer considered in the labor force and no longer counted in the unemployed statistics, even though they are still unemployed.  The income level comment is also a rather funny one.  Incomes have gone up ever so slightly (the smallest increases in incomes we have seen in years), real wages, income vs cost of living increases, is actually DOWN over the past few years

are u kidding?

I would endorse a complete obliteration of the middle east, but thats me personally. Its not like WWII when the US brought Germany back to the stone age. Now we are soo afraid of civilian casualities.
 And instead of whinning why dont you actually start providing solutions. It always seems like Reps are explaning why cats arent dogs to liberals.

YOUR the one who started with the personal attacks.  YOUR the one who was using the talking points straight from GOP headquarters or Fox instead of using your own brain.  YOUR the one who stated it was mostly the Sunni's causing the problems.

Bottom line, we have reached a point where this is something the Iraqi's need to take care of themselves.  We can't stand there and be trapped in the middle of a Civil war between warring factions.  20,000 troops, 30,000 troops, hell even 100,000 more troops isn;'t going to accomplish anything, but more American deaths & more violence.  Their are times we just have to accept the fact that this was a failure andd bite the bullet.  The situation in iraq isn't bad because their are those in this country who are whining about things aren't going well.  To even make a suggestion as such is an absoloute abomination.  We are in this mess because the President and his infinite wisdom chose to take his fight away from Islamic Funsamentalism and brought Fundamentalism to a place that it did not exist before, horrific planning by the administration, refusing to listen to anyone who dared questioned the way they are handeling the situation.  We have to change course and let Iraqi's settle this for themselves, we won't be able to do it for them.

Wouldd like to add more to this, but I gotta run.

Have you read any of the ideas presented...why dont you start refuting some of the arguments instead resorting to random shibboleth. Do you not realize what would happen if we just threw our hands up and ran. Any reasonable person does not endorse this unrealistic agenda. Do you not understand how the world would turn out if Islamic Fundamentalist got out of hand? Do you have any idea what would happen if we had another attack on our soil on our citizens? OK here is the deal...why not present a plan that is somehow realistic, actually attempts to solve the quagmire and will not give the potential threat of harming US citizens. Actually, polls suggest that even the average Americans know better than to pull out now...ITs always a small segement of ppl complaining about soldiers dying..yes its a war and its a cause to fight for.

and why do arguments suddenly become talking points? I think you are watching too much FOX.
[/quote]


I never said we should pull out everyone now.  I have suggested we should start a phased withdrawel, which is something that the majority of Americans support.

when it comes down to it, we have created a situation in Iraq that is beyond what we are able to fix.  Would it be chaotic in Iraq if we leave now?  Yes,  However, it will be chaotic if we left two years from now, it would be chaotic if we left 10 years from now or 20 years from now.  It would be chaotic no matter when we left, and hell its chaotic now..  Thats not going to change.  We can't simply stay there forever and wait for the Iraqis to sort this out while our troops just stand in the line of fire during a Civil War.  Again you have failed to answer the question what do we do if the Iraqis simply can't get along and the sectarian violence just continues and continues, and keeps escalating??  Then what??

[David S]

The question is perfectly reasonable. You would not consider doing anything in life without considering the costs or the rewards vs risks.

The question does not assume anything about rewards, only risks. Therefore I stand by what I said before. Little reasonable discussion on the issue can come of this question. If you want a serious cost/reward analysis then you should ask a question about that, but as things stand you are not.

John the question first asks what you think the goal is. Achieving the goal would be the reward. I leave it to the poll respondent to decide what the goal is. Then tell us how much it is worth to get it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You seem to forget that I didn't support going in in the first place - I still wouldn't even if we could do things over, so trying to lecture me on that point is rather pointless. Furthermore, the current state of affairs is the result of the Bush administration's poor planning for the aftermath. Had we not dismantled their military, or at least not the units that surrendered to us, we could probably have been out of there by now. Blame the idiot running things, not me.[/quote]
John I don't blame you and I do remember that you were not a fan of the initial invasion. But the same "idiot" who brought about the current situation is still in charge and apparently has no intention of changing anything. So expect more of the same.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The least possible would be ideal. Of course we don't live in an ideal world, now do we? And as I said we have no gaurantees that leaving will not get bad results for us. And given that I am not an omniscient being, and neither are you for that matter, I can't say what the actual cost would be. As I said, I believe that we could get out in two years or less if we hurry the hell up with getting the Iraqi forces up to code, with minimal loss of life if we do things right. Of course I suppose my objective is probably different from the administration's objective, but that's another story entirely.
[/quote]

During the Vietnam conflict there was a cartoon in the paper which showed Nixon saying; "What I want is to get out without actually leaving." I think Bush feels the same way today. But obviously one cannot have it both ways. If you want to get out you have to start leaving. Bush shows no sign of doing that though. In fact if anything he may send even more troops. That's not the way to leave.

During the last presidential election the candidate that you and I both supported said if he was elected he would withdraw the troops as quickly as was  safely possible. He predicted that would take about 6 months. I think that was a sound strategy then and it still is today.

[theman9235]

The difference between you and me is that I want a more time goal which will benefit us in the future while yours is automatic relief whatever the future might bring...

[Beet]

If we pull out now, there are going to be a ton of people from the radical Islamist groups saying how they defeated the great superpower, how this is another Afghanistan, how they have a God-given mission, etc. etc. etc.

On the other hand, that doesn't necessarily mean they win the ideological war. The Soviets didn't lose the Cold War in Afghanistan. And they certainly didn't win it in Vietnam.

your right however most people dont understand this and are so far caught up under this obsessive emotional shield that rational ideas arent comprehended, and further the enemy in Iraq is a combination of rejectionists, Saddamists and terrorists. The rejectionists are by far the largest group. These are ordinary Iraqis, mostly Sunni Arabs, who miss the privileged status they had under the regime of Saddam Hussein -- and they reject an Iraq in which they are no longer the dominant group.
Their objective is to drive the United States and coalition forces out of Iraq, and use the vacuum that would be created by an American retreat to gain control of that country. They would then use Iraq as a base from which to launch attacks against America, and overthrow moderate governments in the Middle East, and try to establish a totalitarian Islamic empire that reaches from Indonesia to Spain. That's their stated objective.
Im sure the bush administration believes that this war is difficult--explains for their different attitudes these months--but lets not be suprised that the enemy is actually FIGHTING BACK. Its not like the jihadists are going to sit back and be like "im bored sh**tless." Second, General Casey said a couple months ago that we have not lost a single military engagement and we need to give our soldiers credit for this. Third, we the United States were to walk away from thisit would give the terrorists that opportunity to turn iraq into a stronghold in which they would have access to the worlds second largest reserves of petroleum; they would use this natural resourse as a political weapon against the United States, Euro, Asia and could pit the industrialized supporters of terror, go after israel and perhaps the arabian peninsula.
and as i agree with the above quote the consequences of cut and run are extremely pernicious. It is the fight of the 21st century. Not only this they could also work in concert with Syria and iran which are active supporters of terror.
We need to avoid this being another Vietnam War, The constant carping about us losing the war and using the people as human shields while the media dumping on unconditional whinning and using emotions are going to force us to lose. Away from the general hubris, i think if it werent for obstinate, liberal college cowards and the media ie rather..i think US could have won the war. 

Nevertheless, since August of 2003, we have had continuous economic growth; we've had job growth in each of those months. And maybe if you start doing it by the measure that most people look at -- are you working, do you own a home, do you have good prospects -- more people are working than ever before. More people own homes. More people are making -- people are making, on average, more money than ever before. More people have college degrees, and home ownership and college degrees among minorities continuing to grow. And basically, the American Dream club is getting bigger. What im saying is the war is not affecting the average American--putting this on a standard scale-.

So my conclusion is send as much troops to start a revolution within the sectors.

theman, I don't think you really get the point I was making-- things like this aren't decided by requiring the US to stay in Iraq and occupy Iraq. In the long run that would be counterproductive. Pulling out of Iraq is like a surgery to remove a tumor. Immediately, it might be more painful than continuing to bleed as we are, but the longer we stay in Iraq, the more this battle in the war on terror becomes the war itself, and we don't want that to happen.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Instead of trying to stop the shiite majority from killing the sunnis, bribe them with some surplus heavy weaponry to accept an independant kurdistan in north IRaq and airlift the nonmuslim minorities out.

[Smash255]

The difference between you and me is that I want a more time goal which will benefit us in the future while yours is automatic relief whatever the future might bring...

The problem is your time goal while it might be all nice, warm & fuzzy doesn't have a chance in hell of happening.

[theman9235]

The difference between you and me is that I want a more time goal which will benefit us in the future while yours is automatic relief whatever the future might bring...

The problem is your time goal while it might be all nice, warm & fuzzy doesn't have a chance in hell of happening.

alright then how are you supposed to control them?? just stay on guard

[Nym90]

Depends on what "the goal" is, but at this point I don't think anything positive can be accomplished that would be worth the expenditure of lives and dollars that would be required to make it so.

[Smash255]

The difference between you and me is that I want a more time goal which will benefit us in the future while yours is automatic relief whatever the future might bring...

The problem is your time goal while it might be all nice, warm & fuzzy doesn't have a chance in hell of happening.

alright then how are you supposed to control them?? just stay on guard

We aren't going to control them if we stay there either.  Having them try and work it out themselves may very well result in less violence than what we say now.

 Anyway

chaos No Control with no more American lives lost & no more money wasted > chaos no control with thousands more dead Americans and billions more $$ spent......

[freedomburns]

First tell us in your words what the "goal" is in Iraq and then tell us how much more we should sacrifice to achieve it.

The goal in Iraq, obviously, is to steal as much of the oil (which legally belongs to the Iraqis) as we can before they kick us out.

I love your poll, David! 

I might phrase my poll this way: "How may American lives is it worth to you for you to be able to sit around your house in a t-shirt with the thermostat cranked up to 75 degrees?"

or

"How many Iraqis are you willing to kill in order to bring the price of gas down by a nickel?"

Typical Texan's response: "Uhh, all of em?"


fb