Breaking News:Operation Swarmer

[biological warrior]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11857580/
Elemens of the 101st ABN DIV have launched Operaton Swarmer. The largest Air Assault since the war began.

God Bless those boys.

[Daimyo]

Mission Accomplished!

[Raiders Army]

The article makes it seem like an airborne mission as opposed to an air assault mission.

[Anthony]

too bad they aren't dropping nukes. :(

[Honolulu_Blue]

too bad they aren't dropping nukes. :(

Yes. That is a shame, isn't it, HellAtlanticInMiddleGA?

[BYU 14]

Yes. That is a shame, isn't it, HellAtlanticInMiddleGA?

Hmmm, suspect another assault will soon follow ;)

[Qwikshot]

You know what I wish for...I wish for the ultimate urban assault vehicle...I want it to be massive...like aircraft carrier massive...you can't airlift it, you just drive it into the ocean...could you image that sucker coming out of the depths, hitting landfall...rpgs and ieds be damned, they'd be like bee stings...and on the back was a grader, and you just drive over acres of insurgent imbedded areas (warning a few days in advance what you are about to do) and then you just drive over everything, the grader taking out houses, bunkers and the smuggling tunnels and then afterward with the earth level, you could start an urban renewal project easy...

[JeeberD]

Get to inventing, Qwik!

[chinaski]

I understand air bombing has a place in war, but when youre fighting insurgents in suburban areas full of civilians, it should not be allowed. Just another, "lets bomb the fuck out of it and then walk thru too see if anything is still alive" mission. I have no idea what the answer is, but i do know fighting terror with terror is not the answer.

[JPhillips]

This seems like a perfect mission for the Recreational Assault Vehicle.

[Qwikshot]

This seems like a perfect mission for the Recreational Assault Vehicle.


I want it to come out of the ocean like Godzilla...

[JPhillips]

Gentlemen, the EM-50!


http://usera.imagecave.com/marsusw/Stripes_664a.jpg

[Maple Leafs]

... (warning a few days in advance what you are about to do) ...
... which gives the bad guys enough time to go hide behind the women and children in pre-schools and mosques....

[tategter]

I understand air bombing has a place in war, but when youre fighting insurgents in suburban areas full of civilians, it should not be allowed. Just another, "lets bomb the fuck out of it and then walk thru too see if anything is still alive" mission. I have no idea what the answer is, but i do know fighting terror with terror is not the answer.

Since we are not fighting an enemy that is stupid enough to take the field against us we have to destroy them where they can be found. The problem is that we are fighting an idea, not an enemy of paid soldiers.

This operation will do nothing but temporarily disperse and disrupt the enemy. Until we can win the hearts and minds war this thing will never be over.

[Qwikshot]

... which gives the bad guys enough time to go hide behind the women and children in pre-schools and mosques....

Sorry, advanced warning...everything gets moved down...there is a reason Japanese fanaticism was met with atomic weapons, I firmly believe that in order to break the insurgents you have to be more ruthless and frightening than the insurgents. P.C. in war is stupid.

[Qwikshot]

Since we are not fighting an enemy that is stupid enough to take the field against us we have to destroy them where they can be found. The problem is that we are fighting an idea, not an enemy of paid soldiers.

This operation will do nothing but temporarily disperse and disrupt the enemy. Until we can win the hearts and minds war this thing will never be over.

Hearts and minds didn't win Vietnam and it won't win Iraq.

[JPhillips]

Hearts and minds didn't lose in Vietnam either.

[st.cronin]

Since we are not fighting an enemy that is stupid enough to take the field against us we have to destroy them where they can be found. The problem is that we are fighting an idea, not an enemy of paid soldiers.

This operation will do nothing but temporarily disperse and disrupt the enemy. Until we can win the hearts and minds war this thing will never be over.

What idea is that, exactly???

[Qwikshot]

Hearts and minds didn't lose in Vietnam either.

I would say it did.

[Qwikshot]

What idea is that, exactly???

The subjugation of all things not Islamic.

[biological warrior]

A naive thing one of the reporters asked was: ''Why didnt we (media) know about this in advance?''

[tategter]

I would say it did.

The hearts and minds war in the Vietnam era was not fought in Vietnam, it was fought in the US. In a way you could say we defeated ourselves.

[JPhillips]

I won't completely threadjack, but hearts and minds was not at all why we lost in Vietnam.

You can't look at Vietnam without looking at the rest of the world. We had recently fought a war with China that sprang from getting too close to their border and weknew that the Soviets were supplying the N. Vietnamese. We, quite reasonably, assumed that an invasion of the North would lead to some sort of Chinese and/or Soviet conflict. S. Vietnam was never going to be worth that much to us.

Therefore, we got ourselves involved in a war that we could only play defense. Our goal was to wear out the N. Vietnamese and we couldn't. The hearts and minds approach was just another tool in wearing down the N. Vietnamese will to fight. But in the end the N. Vietnamese were able to keep fighting even though they lost millions of men, had more bombs dropped on them than used in all of WWII, and were technologically inferior to their enemy.

We didn't understand the passion with which our enemy fought. They were willing to suffer for decades to achieve independence from colonial powers. The only possibility we had to defeat the N. Vietnamese would have been by capturing and killing the leadership and cutting off their military supplies. Because of the realities of global power in the 60s and early 70s we couldn't afford to do what was necessary to win.

It was those geopolitical realities that lost Vietnam.

[Franklinnoble]

You can't compare Iraq to Vietnam. It's ridiculous.

In Vietnam, the US military was hamstrung by Cold War foreign policy. We fought a strictly defensive war. We couldn't invade North Vietnam because it would have triggered WWIII.

In Iraq, we've been able to secure all the major military and civilian objectives, with incredibly low casualties. The centers of dense population are already turning around. Baghdad has nightclubs and fast-food restaurants. Women walk around in Gap jeans, not burkas. People are sick of the oppression, and they're enjoying the new freedom. You just don't see it on TV. But it's there.

Operations like this are necessary to continue to crush the spirit of the opposition. Sooner or later, most of the fanatics will either give up or end up dead. Because we have the liberty of dropping the 101st Airborne on problem areas here.

[st.cronin]

You can't compare Iraq to Vietnam. It's ridiculous.

It's ridiculous if you don't have an agenda.

[Anthony]

Sooner or later, most of the fanatics will either give up or end up dead.

see Daimyo's sig:

"Iraq is making progress. At some point the Iraqi's will get tired of getting killed."

excellent logic.

[Drake]

Gentlemen, the EM-50!


http://usera.imagecave.com/marsusw/Stripes_664a.jpg

I love Stripes.

[JPhillips]

Franklin: I think you're being way too optimistic. What I have read paints a much more mixed picture. Its true that some areas are doing better and that a general sense of "democracy" has taken hold. Its true that the Kurdish area in particular is booming.

But its also true that the Interior Ministry is full of Shiite death squads. Its true that electricity and water services are still below prewar levels. Its true that the Iraqi army has zero battalions that can fight on their own. Its true that sectarian violence is at the highest level we've seen.

I don't know how you can say we've secured all the military and civilian objectives. Do you have any evidence of this? And when you say we'll crush the spirit of the opposition I don't see any reason to believe that. The resistance in Afghanistan went on for years without surrender. The history of insurgent wars is that most of the time they don't stop fighting.

But even if you're right I think you're simplifying the problem. Right now there are a few different "oppositions" that we have to deal with. Are we going to destroy the spirit of the foriegn fighters or the native Sunnis or the native Shiites or the Iranian backed militias? Its not as simple as us defeating a single enemy.

In the end I don't see this as being much more than a publicity operation. I heard 1500 soldiers being reported as involved. That's just not enough to change things. They may temporarily clean out a small area, but as soon as we pull back it will go back to the insurgents. We simply don't have the manpower to clean up Iraq.

[rexallllsc]

It's ridiculous if you don't have an agenda.

I definitely have an agenda. That being an agenda based on the best interest of the US and US soldiers.

[rexallllsc]

In Iraq, we've been able to secure all the major military and civilian objectives, with incredibly low casualties.

So why are we still there if all objectives are secured? Mission Accomplished, right?

The centers of dense population are already turning around. Baghdad has nightclubs and fast-food restaurants. Women walk around in Gap jeans, not burkas. People are sick of the oppression, and they're enjoying the new freedom. You just don't see it on TV. But it's there.

Fast food and Gap! Mission Accomplished!


PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN.

hxxp://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3726730.html

Operations like this are necessary to continue to crush the spirit of the opposition. Sooner or later, most of the fanatics will either give up or end up dead. Because we have the liberty of dropping the 101st Airborne on problem areas here.

Good thing we didn't send the 82nd!

[Qwikshot]

We should drop "Air Supply" on them...stop em dead in their tracks.

[Franklinnoble]

My brother's been to Iraq for a year. We're most definately winning the war there, and we're making a difference. Most Iraqis are happy to be out from under the boot of Hussein.

Yes, the infrastructure still needs work. And the native army is undersized and underarmed. And the insurgency will continue for a long time to come. And there will be fundamentalist arguments in the government. Nobody disputes this.

But to say that the effort is wasted, and we're better off just leaving now, is completely stupid.

[JPhillips]

Franklin: Nobody in this thread has said we should leave now.

[duckman]

Franklin: Nobody in this thread has said we should leave now.

Actually, rexallllsc has been advocating that for some time now. I don't remember him changing his stance.

[JPhillips]

But Franklin's initial post was before Rexallllsc showed up.

Its just too damn easy to say "We can't just leave!" I presented a number of questions and arguments, none of them advocating immediate withdrawal and Franklin gave me that response. This is why we can't actually have a discussion about Iraq, because we instantly transform into the same mindless arguments.

[rexallllsc]

My brother's been to Iraq for a year. We're most definately winning the war there, and we're making a difference. Most Iraqis are happy to be out from under the boot of Hussein.

Yes, the infrastructure still needs work. And the native army is undersized and underarmed. And the insurgency will continue for a long time to come. And there will be fundamentalist arguments in the government. Nobody disputes this.

But to say that the effort is wasted, and we're better off just leaving now, is completely stupid.

So we're "most definitely" winning the war, but "the insurgency" (those who we're fighting) are going to continue for a long time to come. Hm. Doesn't sound like we're definitely winning ANYTHING to me.

[wade moore]

So we're "most definitely" winning the war, but "the insurgency" (those who we're fighting) are going to continue for a long time to come. Hm. Doesn't sound like we're definitely winning ANYTHING to me.

I'm not sure where I stand on Iraq stuff... but I just HAD to call this logic out..

Umm.. these two are not MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.... is that hard to understand?

[rexallllsc]

Actually, rexallllsc has been advocating that for some time now. I don't remember him changing his stance.

I have been, but not directly in this thread really. If someone tells me that all objectives are met, I do question why we would still be there. Wouldn't you?

[Franklinnoble]

Ok... so, if you're not advocating withdrawal (which, forgive me, seems to be the prevalent opposing stance), then what are you advocating?

My impression is that we're doing a pretty good job over there.

[rexallllsc]

Ok... so, if you're not advocating withdrawal (which, forgive me, seems to be the prevalent opposing stance), then what are you advocating?

I'm advocating withdrawal from the entire region - not just Iraq.

[Klinglerware]

Women walk around in Gap jeans, not burkas. People are sick of the oppression, and they're enjoying the new freedom. You just don't see it on TV. But it's there.



But were they wearing burkas before? Iraq was pretty secular before the war--in fact, the running joke was that Johnny Walker Black was the official beverage of Baghdad in the Saddam era.

If anything, religion has more of a sway over the country now than during Saddam-era Iraq.

[ISiddiqui]

But were they wearing burkas before? Iraq was pretty secular before the war--in fact, the running joke was that Johnny Walker Black was the official beverage of Baghdad in the Saddam era.

If anything, religion has more of a sway over the country now than during Saddam-era Iraq.

Bingo. Women were wearing Gap Jeans under Saddam. So to say they are now and using it as an example of change is highly disengenious. If anything it is more religious now than at any time during the Hussein era.

[Klinglerware]

Bingo. Women were wearing Gap Jeans under Saddam. So to say they are now and using it as an example of change is highly disengenious. If anything it is more religious now than at any time during the Hussein era.

And the quality of Gap jeans has declined since Bush took office, so where's the progress? :)

[rexallllsc]

Bingo. Women were wearing Gap Jeans under Saddam. So to say they are now and using it as an example of change is highly disengenious. If anything it is more religious now than at any time during the Hussein era.

But now they can eat Fast Food and vote for their favorite US-appointed/supported candidate!

[wade moore]

But now they can eat Fast Food and vote for their favorite US-appointed/supported candidate!

Thanks for ignoring my post, I see that you don't like fighting logic.

[Bee]

I'm advocating withdrawal from the entire region - not just Iraq.

I think a couple others here would agree with you if you added dropping a nuke on them after the withdrawal. :D

[rexallllsc]

Thanks for ignoring my post, I see that you don't like fighting logic.

Hmmm...didn't even see it until just now.

[Franklinnoble]

Right... so, basically, you're saying life was dandy under Saddam... and we never should have done anything in the first place.

[JPhillips]

I'd like for us to start a timed withdrawal rebasing for a while in Kuwait. I was hoping we would start this after the elections, but maybe we can start after the government forms(if?). I think we need to find something that we can call victory ASAP. My biggest worry is leaving without anything to call victory.

Its clear that we can't sustain our current deployment levels much past 2006. That being the case, we need to figure out how to deal with the inevitable in the way that's best for us. I don't think it hurts us as much to call it victory and start to phase out as it will if we start to drawn down without any signs of improvement. Any way you look at it its almost impossible to believe we can sustain our current force level for much longer.

I think we have to really put the burden on the Iraqis. I have come to the opinion that we can't fix their problems. Add to that the fact that the leaders of the different sects have said its okay for natives to kill Coalition forces. I don't see it feasible to stay sort of fighting, sort of not for much longer.

In a lot of ways I think we've gotten to a point of picking the least bad option. So many decisions have been made that have fucked this up that it's difficult to see how to fix it. I think this is the time to find the best possible exit strategy and commit to it. It won't be pretty, but I don't think staying the course will work any better.

[rexallllsc]

I'm not sure where I stand on Iraq stuff... but I just HAD to call this logic out..

Umm.. these two are not MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.... is that hard to understand?

I think they're tied in. If you're definitely winning a war, I find it hard to believe that the insurgency would last for a long time.

So basically what was said is:

-We are definitely winning the war v. the insurgency
-The insurgency will be around for a long time

Sorry, I don't see that as winning. Sounds like what happened in Afghanistan w/ the Soviets.

[st.cronin]

I'm not sure where I stand on Iraq stuff... but I just HAD to call this logic out..

Umm.. these two are not MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.... is that hard to understand?

It is not hard to understand if you don't have an agenda.

[tategter]

I think a couple others here would agree with you if you added dropping a nuke on them after the withdrawal. :D

If it were only that simple.

[wade moore]

I think they're tied in. If you're definitely winning a war, I find it hard to believe that the insurgency would last for a long time.

So basically what was said is:

-We are definitely winning the war v. the insurgency
-The insurgency will be around for a long time

Sorry, I don't see that as winning. Sounds like what happened in Afghanistan w/ the Soviets.

I would disagree on the general principle. I do not necessarily think that we are definately winning this war, but I think to be clearly winning a war yet have to deal with insurgents for many years is not an illogical concept. It does not take very many to make an insurgency, yet it does not mean that they are havinga signficant impact on the result of the war.

[rexallllsc]

Right... so, basically, you're saying life was dandy under Saddam... and we never should have done anything in the first place.

If the job of the US Armed Forces is to remove dictators around the world, I guess we're going to be hitting North Korea, a number of African Nations, and a few others in the near future, eh?

I thought we went there for WMD's?

[rexallllsc]

It is not hard to understand if you don't have an agenda.

So you don't have an agenda? I would hope everyone's agenda is the best interest of the United States.

[tategter]

If the job of the US Armed Forces is to remove dictators around the world, I guess we're going to be hitting North Korea, a number of African Nations, and a few others in the near future, eh?

I thought we went there for WMD's?

Did this comment come right out of the liberal playbook or what?

[rexallllsc]

Did this comment come right out of the liberal playbook or what?

Uh - I'm not a "liberal" per se. Funny you would use it in a derogatory way, though* - would you like to respond to my comment? Is it the job of the US to remove every leader that we do not feel is kind enough to his/her people? Do you believe that we should remove Mugabe from power? How about Kim in NK? If so, what are your feelings about our lack of action in that regard?

*How twisted are we when people who don't like to see the US sticking it's nose in around the world are called "liberals", and those who support and push for it are purported "conservatives"? Hell, IMO it's the other way around.

[st.cronin]

So you don't have an agenda? I would hope everyone's agenda is the best interest of the United States.

The difference between you and me is that what you want to be true affects your thinking. This is why you are labeled a troll and made fun of.

[rexallllsc]

The difference between you and me is that what you want to be true affects your thinking. This is why you are labeled a troll and made fun of.

Oh no! I'm not one of the "cool kids" on the FOFC message board!

Maybe some day you'll respond to the content instead of engaging in personal attacks.

[st.cronin]

Oh no! I'm not one of the "cool kids" on the FOFC message board!

Maybe some day you'll respond to the content instead of engaging in personal attacks.

Of the folks who are not obviously 'liberal' on this board, who actually engages your ridiculous posts MORE than me? And here I try to get to the root of why your thinking is derided by the mainstream, and you toss it off as a 'personal' attack. That's what I call defensive.

[rexallllsc]

Of the folks who are not obviously 'liberal' on this board, who actually engages your ridiculous posts MORE than me? And here I try to get to the root of why your thinking is derided by the mainstream, and you toss it off as a 'personal' attack. That's what I call defensive.

What is ridiculous about my posts? The fact that they're not of the some mind as yours?

I don't care that my thinking is derided by the mainstream. Hell, it makes me happy to hear you think that. The current mainstream makes me nauseous.

[King of New York]

In before the lock.

[duckman]

Roy Williams.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Roy Williams.

Which one?

[Raiders Army]

Just so you guys know, there is an agenda and objectives. Too bad you don't know about it.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_national_strategy_20051130.pdf

[Bee]

The difference between you and me is that what you want to be true affects your thinking. This is why you are labeled a troll and made fun of.


Wait...I thought we made fun of him because of the l's in his name. :confused:

[flere-imsaho]

My brother's been to Iraq for a year. We're most definately winning the war there, and we're making a difference. Most Iraqis are happy to be out from under the boot of Hussein.

65% of Iraqis support attacks on coalition troops. Less than 1% think coalition military involvement is helping to improve security in their country. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/10/23/ixworld.html)

More than 2/3rds of Iraqis oppose the continuing presence of coalition troops in Iraq. 44% of Iraqis think the country is better off now than it was under Hussein. (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1397064)

Iraq's basic services are rated worse now than before war began: (http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/09/news/rebuild.php)

Virtually every measure of the performance of Iraq's oil, electricity, water and sewerage sectors has fallen below pre-invasion values, even though $16 billion of U.S. taxpayer money has already been disbursed in the Iraq reconstruction program, several government witnesses have told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Of seven different measures of infrastructure performance presented Wednesday at the committee hearing by the inspector general's office, only one was above pre-invasion values.

Those that had slumped below those values were electrical generation capacity, hours of power available in a day in Baghdad, oil and heating oil production and the numbers of Iraqis with drinkable water and sewage service.

In addition, two of the witnesses said they believed that an earlier estimate by the World Bank that $56 billion would be needed for rebuilding over the next several years was too low.

At the same time, as Iraq's oil exports are plummeting and the country remains saddled with tens of billions of dollars of debt, it is unclear where that money will come from, said one of the witnesses, Joseph Christoff, director of international affairs and trade at the Government Accountability Office.

And those may not be the most serious problems facing the physical infrastructure, said Stuart Bowen Jr., the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, an independent office.

In one sense, focusing on the plummeting performance numbers "misses the point," Bowen said. The real question, he said, is whether the Iraqi security forces will ever be able to protect the infrastructure from insurgent attack.

"What's happened is that an incessant, an insidious insurgency has repeatedly attacked the key infrastructure targets, reducing outputs," Bowen said. He added that some of the performance numbers had fluctuated above prewar values in the past, only to fall again under the pressure of insurgent attacks and other factors.

The chairman of the foreign relations committee, Senator Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican, began by billing the session as a way of deciphering how much of America's original ambitions in the rebuilding program were likely to be fulfilled with the amount of money that Iraq, the U.S. Congress and international donors were still prepared to spend.


FACTBOX-Developments in Iraq, March 12 (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L12731514.htm)
12 Mar 2006 16:13:04 GMT

Source: Reuters

March 12 (Reuters) - Following are security incidents and political developments in Iraq as of 1610 GMT on Sunday.

U.S. and Iraqi forces have been battling a Sunni Arab insurgency against the Shi'ite- and Kurdish-led government since U.S. troops toppled Saddam Hussein in 2003.

A wave of sectarian violence since the bombing of a Shi'ite shrine on Feb. 22 has killed hundreds.

* Asterisk denotes new or updated item.

SECURITY INCIDENTS

* BAGHDAD - At least 40 people were killed and 95 wounded in three car bombs that exploded almost simultaneously in two markets in the Shi'ite Sadr district of Baghdad on Sunday. Police dismantled a fourth bomb in the same area, they said.

* LATIFIYA - Gunmen ambushed and killed a local football player (Mohammad Najah) in Latifiya 40 km (25 miles) south of Baghdad, local police said.

* BAGHDAD - Two civilians were killed and four wounded when a mortar round landed on a paint shop in central Baghdad, police said.

BAGHDAD - Eight bodies were found with their hands tied and gun shot wounds to the head in Rustamiya, a suburb in eastern Baghdad, police said.

BAGHDAD - Six people were killed and 14 wounded, including policemen, when a roadside bomb exploded as a U.S convoy passed by in southern Baghdad, police said.

BAGHDAD - Gunmen killed two police officers in separate incidents in Baghdad, police said.

BAGHDAD - Two soldiers were killed and four wounded when a roadside bomb went off near their patrol in central Baghdad, police said.

BAGHDAD - Five soldiers were wounded when a roadside bomb went off near an Iraqi army patrol in eastern Baghdad, police said.

BAGHDAD - Yarmouk hospital in Baghdad received at least twenty bodies overnight, some with gun shot wounds, a source in the hospital said.

DHULUIYA - Gunmen killed two army officers who work in the Joint Coordination Centre in Dhuluiya, 40 km (25 miles) north of Baghdad, the Joint Coordination Centre of Dhuluiya said.

[wade moore]

flere: I haven't even clicked on the links, but I find any "poll" of "public opinion" out of Iraq to be questionable at best... Just like anything the administration touts out saying that the people are happy...

With the infrastructure the way it is, etc. I don't see how anyone with sense can believe we can get accurate polling data.

[duckman]

Which one?

The good one.

[Raiders Army]

Oh no! I'm not one of the "cool kids" on the FOFC message board!
You broke your arm once before, remember? You fell out of our tree house. Kenneth picked you up and we carried you 12 blocks to the hospital.

Yeah, you cried all the way.

We were all friends then, remember?

And now you want to end his life...because he's talking to Patty on your side of the cafeteria. Oh, man, that's stupid. I know, 'cause that's where I wanted to be. On your side, with your crowd. But I messed up. See, I tried to buy my way in. But Kenneth...he's not trying to buy anybody. He's Just trying to make friends. Being himself. Cools, nerds, your side, my side. Man, it's all bullshit. It's just tough enough to be yourself.

[flere-imsaho]

flere: I haven't even clicked on the links, but I find any "poll" of "public opinion" out of Iraq to be questionable at best... Just like anything the administration touts out saying that the people are happy...

Well, the first link is a private and (formerly) secret study done by Britian's Ministry of Defense....

[wade moore]

Well, the first link is a private and (formerly) secret study done by Britian's Ministry of Defense....

So? I still have NO faith whatsoever in it's accuracy, knowing what I know about polling/surveys there is just no way that they could get an accurate representation in the state of things in Iraq right now.

[Honolulu_Blue]

The good one.

The one who plays for the Lions? He's pretty good.

[flere-imsaho]

So? I still have NO faith whatsoever in it's accuracy, knowing what I know about polling/surveys there is just no way that they could get an accurate representation in the state of things in Iraq right now.

Fine, don't believe the polls. Over half the post was actual facts. For once around here I'd like someone to actually argue on the facts instead of nitpicking arguments to death....

*sigh*

Edit: What I find annoying is that time and time again someone makes a post on this topic that is nothing more than personal opinion and subjective judgment and barely gets called on it, while I go ahead and make a post with links to facts that back up my statements and get people nitpicking about the sources I chose for my facts, or the "true" meaning of X%, etc....

I mean honestly, it's obviously just a lot better to be a demagogue around here.

[rexallllsc]

So? I still have NO faith whatsoever in it's accuracy, knowing what I know about polling/surveys there is just no way that they could get an accurate representation in the state of things in Iraq right now.

What about this? hxxp://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3726730.html

[wade moore]

Fine, don't believe the polls. Over half the post was actual facts. For once around here I'd like someone to actually argue on the facts instead of nitpicking arguments to death....

*sigh*

time-out.

I'm not necessarily "against" you on the overall opinion of the war.

I just don't like anyone making the argument about the feelings of the iraqi people from "polls"...

As for your arguments that the infrastructure is in dire straights, I won't disagree with you at all.

I shouldn't have jumped in this thread at all as I try not to let out my political opinions here, but I've jumped out at rex's absurd assurtion that those two statements are mutually exclusive (a pet peeve of mine) and the "polling" of iraqis (another pet peeve of mine)...

anyway, carry-on, yes the infrastructure is a disaster.

[Franklinnoble]

Hey, I'm just passing along what I heard from someone who was there, and who served in the armed forces.

I'm not blowing smoke here... there are plenty of people over there that hate America. My brother flew an average of 2-3 helicopter missions per day while he was there (he's a CH-47 pilot), and he was shot at EVERY time. There's always somebody on the ground with an AK-47 taking shots at him. Sometimes, it's a grenade launcher. Sometimes, it's worse - a real anti-aircraft gun or missile. So, he has no delusions about what people feel like over there.

But he's seen the difference they're making. He knows it's worthwhile. And he insists it's not as bad as the media makes it seem over here.

[st.cronin]

Fine, don't believe the polls. Over half the post was actual facts. For once around here I'd like someone to actually argue on the facts instead of nitpicking arguments to death....

*sigh*

I don't know that anybody is describing Iraq as an idyllic place; American soldiers are, in fact, being killed and maimed, there is ethno-religious tension,
there is all sorts of other bad news. These facts are not really in dispute; what is perhaps in dispute is, is it worth it? If one does a little bit of research on the importance of oil to our economy, and how far from an alternate source of energy we are (except possibly for nuclear, which of course is opposed by the same left that wants us out of Iraq), you have to conclude that that region IS important to us; we can't just pull out and hope another Islamic empire doesn't emerge. Short of that argument (put forth here and otherwhere by rex), I think most people are more or less open-minded, and not given to picking at nits.

[rexallllsc]

These facts are not really in dispute; what is perhaps in dispute is, is it worth it? If one does a little bit of research on the importance of oil to our economy, and how far from an alternate source of energy we are (except possibly for nuclear, which of course is opposed by the same left that wants us out of Iraq), you have to conclude that that region IS important to us; we can't just pull out and hope another Islamic empire doesn't emerge. Short of that argument (put forth here and otherwhere by rex), I think most people are more or less open-minded, and not given to picking at nits.

There was no threat of an Islamic empire emerging in Iraq before we barged in. I guess I could laugh about it if it wasn't so sad.

As far as being really far away from an alternate source, you have to think that if we spent the hundreds of billions of dollars on research for alternative energy research that might've been a bit more efficient than this occupation.

[flere-imsaho]

I don't know that anybody is describing Iraq as an idyllic place

But people sure as hell are describing it as "getting better", "going to work out", "on the road to recovery" and similar. The fact of the matter is that it is not. Take any objective measure you want, and it's not getting better.

what is perhaps in dispute is, is it worth it?

I don't dispute that the Middle East is an important region for us. However, as I've argued time and again, our invasion of Iraq and our continued presence there has not, and will not, help advance our long-term interests. I won't rehash this point, because I've explained it at great length, and with many repetitions, in a good number of threads that should be easy to dig up.

What I will say, however, is that I see no difference in our long-term outcome between pulling out now and staying there now with our current troop level. I firmly believe, and I firmly believe the evidence supports this, that either course of action will result in a sectarian civil war that with further result in an independent Kurdistan and the rest of Iraq as a Shiite client state of Iran. This scenario is not good for long-term U.S. interests.

If we want any chance of creating a "democratic" Iraq (assuming such a thing is even a possibility) then we need to get serious about ensuring security. This would require at least several hundred thousand more U.S. troops.

[Raiders Army]

You broke your arm once before, remember? You fell out of our tree house. Kenneth picked you up and we carried you 12 blocks to the hospital.

Yeah, you cried all the way.

We were all friends then, remember?

And now you want to end his life...because he's talking to Patty on your side of the cafeteria. Oh, man, that's stupid. I know, 'cause that's where I wanted to be. On your side, with your crowd. But I messed up. See, I tried to buy my way in. But Kenneth...he's not trying to buy anybody. He's Just trying to make friends. Being himself. Cools, nerds, your side, my side. Man, it's all bullshit. It's just tough enough to be yourself.
Man, no one thought this was funny????

[Raiders Army]

Dola, or even know what movie this is from???

[Dutch]

The Breakfast Club.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Dola, or even know what movie this is from???
Can't Buy Me Love.

[Coder]

There was no threat of an Islamic empire emerging in Iraq before we barged in. I guess I could laugh about it if it wasn't so sad.

As far as being really far away from an alternate source, you have to think that if we spent the hundreds of billions of dollars on research for alternative energy research that might've been a bit more efficient than this occupation.

There are too many powerful people making their money out of oil to let this happen full scale (alternative fuels)..

[Raiders Army]

Can't Buy Me Love.
You win! I'm gonna shit on your house!!!

j/k

[Klinglerware]

Human feces?

[Dutch]

Can't Buy Me Love.

What? Damn, I can totally picture the Anthony Michael Hall (or whatever that kids name was) talking about that in detention. Oh well....it was a long time ago.

[Raiders Army]

What? Damn, I can totally picture the Anthony Michael Hall (or whatever that kids name was) talking about that in detention. Oh well....it was a long time ago.
That totally wasn't him. It was another red-headed kid.

[Dutch]

That totally wasn't him. It was another red-headed kid.

EDIT: It was a really, REALLY, long time ago. :)

[Raiders Army]

He was Courtney Gains from Children of the Corn. He was Malachai in that flick.

[chinaski]

He was Courtney Gains from Children of the Corn. He was Malachai in that flick.

that kid scared me shitless when I was 10.

[Honolulu_Blue]

What? Damn, I can totally picture the Anthony Michael Hall (or whatever that kids name was) talking about that in detention. Oh well....it was a long time ago.

Anthony Michael Hall did give a pretty rousing speech in detention, but I think his was more focused on the pressure he faced as a nerd and that despite outward appearances, his life was really hard too. I could be wrong though... it was a long time ago.

[Honolulu_Blue]

You win! I'm gonna shit on your house!!!

j/k

Can I pass along my first place prize to Dutch? My man was pretty close!

"Can't Buy Me Love" is an under-rated highschool flick. I put it in the same category as "My Secret Admirer", neither are up there in the John Hughes Pantheon, but both have some classic moments.

[Raiders Army]

Ah...I thought he was talking about Kenneth, not Patrick Dempsey's character, Ronald Miller.