Iraq Decision: Politics Aside

[Reaganfan]

Simple question.

[TomC]

If I put politics aside, neither one is really an honest answer. To imply that the question is so simple puts a premium on partisan politics and puts pragmatism aside.

[Silent Hunter]

If it was a choice between those two, I'd say stay in. But there are multiple options.

[MasterJedi]

Stay in and try and build the coalition government. If that doesn't work create three seperate states for each ethnic group.

[opebo]

Wow, at this point it is even!  Bizarre.

[nlm]

If I put politics aside, neither one is really an honest answer. To imply that the question is so simple puts a premium on partisan politics and puts pragmatism aside.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The options given are such that this all about politics. Politcs aside my butt.

[J. J.]

Simple question.

No, it isn't.  Simply pulling out, immediately, would be a disaster.  So would staying for the next twenty years.  The policy had to be balanced and based on goals (some of which might have been met is Basra and Mosul).

[Virginian87]

Graduated pull-out over the next 4-6 years, maybe even longer.  An immediate pullout would be disastrous.

[The Dowager Mod]

Depends on whether i remember to take my pill.

[minionofmidas]

When you have lost the argument, simplify to the point of imbecility.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

When you have lost the argument, simplify to the point of imbecility.

Pretty much spot on there Lewis.

Both options put in this silly poll are stupid. If things stay as they are then the US is going to head to a slow and painful but sure defeat. A pull out would be even worse.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Simple question.

No, it isn't.  Simply pulling out, immediately, would be a disaster.  So would staying for the next twenty years.  The policy had to be balanced and based on goals (some of which might have been met is Basra and Mosul).

I am amazed at how childish so many are about the situation in Iraq.

We are currently involved in a low intensity/protracted conflict.

The terrorists realize they cannot achieve a military victory but hope with the help of their allies in the media (like Michael Ware of CNN) to persuade the American public to cut and run.

Has no one bothered to read How We Won the War, by General Vo Nguyen Giap?

In his book, Giap clearly indicated that NVA troops were without sufficient supplies, and had been continually defeated time and again.

By 1968, NVA morale was at it's lowest point ever. The plans for "Tet" '68 was their last desperate attempt to achieve a success, in an effort to boost the NVA morale. When it was over, General Giap and the NVA viewed the Tet '68 offensive as a failure, they were on their knees and had prepared to negotiate a surrender.

At that time, there were fewer than 10,000 U.S. casualties, the Vietnam War was about to end, as the NVA was prepared to accept their defeat. Then, they heard Walter Cronkite (former CBS News anchor and correspondent) on TV proclaiming the success of the Tet '68 offensive by the communist NVA. They were completely and totally amazed at hearing that the US Embassy had been overrun. Further reports indicated the riots and protesting on the streets of America.

According to Giap, these distorted reports were inspirational to the NVA. They changed their plans from a negotiated surrender and decided instead, they only needed to persevere for one more hour, day, week, month, eventually the protesters in American would help them to achieve a victory they knew they could not win on the battlefield. Remember, this decision was made at a time when the U.S. casualties were fewer than 10,000, at the end of 1967, beginning of 1968.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Simple question.

No, it isn't.  Simply pulling out, immediately, would be a disaster.  So would staying for the next twenty years.  The policy had to be balanced and based on goals (some of which might have been met is Basra and Mosul).

I am amazed at how childish so many are about the situation in Iraq.

We are currently involved in a low intensity/protracted conflict.

The terrorists realize they cannot achieve a military victory but hope with the help of their allies in the media (like Michael Ware of CNN) to persuade the American public to cut and run.

Has no one bothered to read How We Won the War, by General Vo Nguyen Giap?

In his book, Giap clearly indicated that NVA troops were without sufficient supplies, and had been continually defeated time and again.

By 1968, NVA morale was at it's lowest point ever. The plans for "Tet" '68 was their last desperate attempt to achieve a success, in an effort to boost the NVA morale. When it was over, General Giap and the NVA viewed the Tet '68 offensive as a failure, they were on their knees and had prepared to negotiate a surrender.

At that time, there were fewer than 10,000 U.S. casualties, the Vietnam War was about to end, as the NVA was prepared to accept their defeat. Then, they heard Walter Cronkite (former CBS News anchor and correspondent) on TV proclaiming the success of the Tet '68 offensive by the communist NVA. They were completely and totally amazed at hearing that the US Embassy had been overrun. Further reports indicated the riots and protesting on the streets of America.

According to Giap, these distorted reports were inspirational to the NVA. They changed their plans from a negotiated surrender and decided instead, they only needed to persevere for one more hour, day, week, month, eventually the protesters in American would help them to achieve a victory they knew they could not win on the battlefield. Remember, this decision was made at a time when the U.S. casualties were fewer than 10,000, at the end of 1967, beginning of 1968.

Damn Student communists and media liberals, not wishing sacrifice their lives for the good of whatever the nation planned in Vietnam and whyever the hell the nation decided to for reason which seem completely unfathomable. Plus the Insurgency in Iraq isn't exactly one whole group.

[minionofmidas]

Simple question.

No, it isn't.  Simply pulling out, immediately, would be a disaster.  So would staying for the next twenty years.  The policy had to be balanced and based on goals (some of which might have been met is Basra and Mosul).

I am amazed at how childish so many are about the situation in Iraq.

We are currently involved in a low intensity/protracted conflict.

"A" as in "one"? Lmao.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Simple question.

No, it isn't.  Simply pulling out, immediately, would be a disaster.  So would staying for the next twenty years.  The policy had to be balanced and based on goals (some of which might have been met is Basra and Mosul).

I am amazed at how childish so many are about the situation in Iraq.

We are currently involved in a low intensity/protracted conflict.

"A" as in "one"? Lmao.

So, are you asserting that we are not engaged in a low intensity/protracted conflict?

[they don't love you like i love you]

When you have lost the argument, simplify to the point of imbecility.

You nailed it.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

I think pulling out really ruins it overall, if she's on the pill and you also use protection you can stay in.

[Dr. Cynic]

A gradual pullout over the course of about a year, however, we should leave a specific group of individuals who have the skills to train a new millitary, etc...

This idea is kind of what the French employed in our American Revolution. Except in reverse.

[minionofmidas]

I think pulling out really ruins it overall, if she's on the pill and you also use protection you can stay in.

A gradual pullout over the course of about a year

A year. wow. Ain't she gonna get saddle soreness?

[opebo]

I think pulling out really ruins it overall, if she's on the pill and you also use protection you can stay in.

Screw that - if she's on the pill you'd be a dope to use 'protection' too!