So much for "Security in Iraq is improving."

[Pardalis]

Answering a question with a question is a good way of covering up your lack of a position to back. Doubled when the question is a fairly stupid one.

As you said, I wasn't having a conversation with you, so it didn't seem important to answer your equally stupid question about how much lives in a war are worth.

Is there some new Village Idiots' Manual doing the rounds at the moment? Is naming WWII the "War on Fascism" some kind of attempt to legitimise the "War on Terror"?

There is a war on terror, believe it or not, and WW2 was a war against fascist states (as you mentioned Germany and Italy).

Your question is ignorant beyond belief, and I'm quite sure you know that. At the time of the invasion of Iraq, Iraq was not at war with anyone, far less close and treatied allies as was the case in Poland, when WWII started.

Edit: As I specified earlier, the pretext for the invasion of Iraq is irrelevant now. We are in Iraq, and we are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq right now, regardless of if the invasion was legitimate to begin with.

Al Qaeda are also fascists, but I was mearly giving you WW2 as a referrence point that we cannot know the true value of the losses in a war unless we know the outcome.

We have hindsight with WW2 because we know what Hitler was doing and planning on doing, so we could say that all the lives that were lost were well worth it, even thought they were terrible.

We do not know what will happen if Al Qaeda or other Islamic fascists take control of Iraq, and I certainly don't plan on waiting to see what happens when they do. Hence, I support the efforts of the troops in Iraq to make it a working democratic country.

Feel free to ignore the comment about the cost though, but at least give us the strategy you'd choose to use, given that at the moment your personal strategy appears to be conducting inferior attacks on people who are suggesting that the time to stop this murderous farce is already behind us.

I don't know exactly what we should do, but I do know that leaving now will mean give Iraq to Al Qaeda and the Islamic fundamentalists, which will give them free reign to create unimaginable horrors. If Iraq falls into their hands, the entire region will suffer, I am sure of that.

In my layperson opinion (I am not a military strategist in any shape or form) I think the Coalition should stay until the Iraqi military and police are strong enough to sustain themselves, and control their borders. I personally would like more international armed forces to help the Americans, because what happens in Iraq will affect all of us.

If I may return the question over to you, what is your suggestion?

 

[The Atheist]

In my layperson opinion (I am not a military strategist in any shape or form) I think the Coalition should stay until the Iraqi military and police are strong enough to sustain themselves, and control their borders. I personally would like more international armed forces to help the Americans, because what happens in Iraq will affect all of us.

In other words, you propose to do more of the same.

I don't believe it will be possible to leave a "safe" Iraq, so that option is likely to bring a very long and dirty war of attrition.

If I may return the question over to you, what is your suggestion?

Leave immediately.

The Coalition of the Billing will leave Iraq and when they leave, there will be a dirty war between the factions. Therefore, the sooner the foreign troops leave, the lower the overall bloodshed will be.

But hey, keep pushing the "stay until the job's done" barrow. Four years on, things have improved lots, so no doubt in four more years they will have improved some more.

 

[SezMe]

Apparently, regardless of the initial motives for the war, the soldiers over there are right now doing their best to help the Iraqis regain control of their country and to avoid a generalized civil war, and to keep Iraq out of the hands of the terrorists from Al Qaeda.

Which is rougly equivalent to saying that water is wet.

Do you have anything constructive to suggest we should do in Iraq, or are you going to keep whining yourself silly?

Are you going to ask constructive questions or are you going to ad hom yourself silly?

My constructive suggestion is to announce a withdrawal date by the end of this year. At the same time, announce a regional summit like the Baker Commission suggested. State at the outset of the summit that we are absolutely serious about leaving and say to the other attendees that they can have a regional sectarian/civil war in the own backyard or they can get serious about negotiating a truce.

Ain't perfect but it's a strategy. Your turn.

 

[Pardalis]

Leave immediately.

The Coalition of the Billing will leave Iraq and when they leave, there will be a dirty war between the factions. Therefore, the sooner the foreign troops leave, the lower the overall bloodshed will be.

So in other words you don't mind Iraqi blood to be shed, you just don't want to see westerners blood.

Do you think it will be good to have a generalized civil war in Iraq, what will it do to the region? Will Iran and Syria gently sit by and do nothing? And what about al Qaeda? Surely they won't try to get their hands on the country's resources?

But hey, keep pushing the "stay until the job's done" barrow. Four years on, things have improved lots, so no doubt in four more years they will have improved some more.

I prefer any kind of progress over complete chaos, but that's just me.

 

[Pardalis]

My constructive suggestion is to announce a withdrawal date by the end of this year. At the same time, announce a regional summit like the Baker Commission suggested. State at the outset of the summit that we are absolutely serious about leaving and say to the other attendees that they can have a regional sectarian/civil war in the own backyard or they can get serious about negotiating a truce.

That's a good idea, I can go with that.

 

[Azure]

That's a good idea, I can go with that.

But don't announce if on CNN, and DO NOT try to gain political brownie points from it.

 

[Mephisto]

Answering a question with a question is a good way of covering up your lack of a position to back. Doubled when the question is a fairly stupid one.

Is there some new Village Idiots' Manual doing the rounds at the moment? Is naming WWII the "War on Fascism" some kind of attempt to legitimise the "War on Terror"?

Hint: while the Axis of the time of WWII were indeed Fascist, the war wasn't a war on fascism, it was a war on Germany, Italy, and their European allies and ultimately, Japan as well. If you wish to display wilful ignorance, please do it where people might be entertained by it.

Your question is ignorant beyond belief, and I'm quite sure you know that. At the time of the invasion of Iraq, Iraq was not at war with anyone, far less close and treatied allies as was the case in Poland, when WWII started.

Feel free to ignore the comment about the cost though, but at least give us the strategy you'd choose to use, given that at the moment your personal strategy appears to be conducting inferior attacks on people who are suggesting that the time to stop this murderous farce is already behind us.

Thanks, Atheist, it's a common tactic here in the U.S. The neo-cons have no idea what to do and they're anxious to blame it on others who don't know how to fix their mess.

I agree with Schneibster that walking away now would leave us responsible for an even greater blood bath (if that can even be imagined at this point), but at some point the Iraqis are going to have to take responsibility for their own country.

I'm afraid that this ridiculous "war on terror" is going to backfire and the fundie-factions are going to end up in charge of the entire country. It would suit Iran just fine as it would undoubtedly ally them with another oil rich country.

I was against this war (in Iraq - I supported the war in Afghanistan) from the beginning and saw it as an unnecessary tangent to our real enemies. Now, with the war such an obvious cluster-fuuk the hawkish apologists are anxious to pin the blame on someone else. Even Colin Powell told our Moron in Chief, "you break it, you bought it," but was ignored. They're NOT throwing this in the lap of people who warned them this would be costly in the first place, and I'm NOT exibiting a defeatist attitude by pointing out how miserably (and costly to our troops and their families) this war is going.

 

[SezMe]

But don't announce if on CNN, and DO NOT try to gain political brownie points from it.

I don't get it. Please explain.

 

[Mephisto]

So in other words you don't mind Iraqi blood to be shed, you just don't want to see westerners blood.

Iraqi blood was being shed by the dictator who kept some semblance of peace better than we're doing now, AND the blood that was spilled wasn't on our hands.

Do you think it will be good to have a generalized civil war in Iraq, what will it do to the region? Will Iran and Syria gently sit by and do nothing? And what about al Qaeda? Surely they won't try to get their hands on the country's resources?

All things the little monkey in the White House should have thought of BEFORE he set his heart on invading.

I prefer any kind of progress over complete chaos, but that's just me.

I've shown you the daily chaos, let's see your "progress."

 

[Mephisto]

In my layperson opinion (I am not a military strategist in any shape or form) I think the Coalition should stay until the Iraqi military and police are strong enough to sustain themselves, and control their borders. I personally would like more international armed forces to help the Americans, because what happens in Iraq will affect all of us.

Until the military and police force are strong enough to sustain themselves, huh? It didn't work in Vietnam and it won't work in Iraq. I don't think Americans are willing to give up almost 60,000 or their sons to Dubya's war.

As for "more international armed forces" helping the Americans, it's not going to happen because this administration went against the will of the U.N. and made fun of all our former allies for being smart enough to stay out of the war (remember, Freedom Fries?). Why would anyone want to step in to finish a fight we started?

 

[The Atheist]

So in other words you don't mind Iraqi blood to be shed, you just don't want to see westerners blood.

No, if you read what I actually wrote, I don't believe the number of Iraqis who die will be significantly different no matter how long the Coalition stays.

Accordingly, I think all the Coalition troops are doing is dying in vain.

Having just seen SezMe's idea, that seems to be spot on. I'll go with that - another six months is fine.

 

[Pardalis]

Iraqi blood was being shed by the dictator who kept some semblance of peace better than we're doing now, AND the blood that was spilled wasn't on our hands.

He kept "some semblance of peace" with a cruel regime that oppressed the ethnic minorities and the Chia majority, was that better? At least now they have somewhat of a democratic government, which is much more worth fighting for.

All things the little monkey in the White House should have thought of BEFORE he set his heart on invading.

OK, but what about now? Set aside your very well earned hatred of Bush and try to think more positively. All I'm getting from you is bitterness over what is happening, which is very understandable especially for you as an American. But what could be done to improve the situation?

My beef here is that the incessant polical bickering is going nowhere, from one end of the spectrum to the other. It's just counter-productive to point fingers (even if you are right, and you are).

The only beneficiaries of this internal feud that is going on in the US is Al Qaeda. This is what bugs me, really bugs me.

 

[Pardalis]

No, if you read what I actually wrote, I don't believe the number of Iraqis who die will be significantly different no matter how long the Coalition stays.

Ok, sorry if I put words in your mouth.

But what makes you say that the death toll will not increase if the US leaves? This doesn't make sense to me. The US are what's barely keeping this country relatively working, what makes you say that the blood feud is not going to get worse, especially with Al Qaeda and Iran in the picture?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

...and to keep Iraq out of the hands of the terrorists from Al Qaeda.

Do you seriously think Iraq will be taken over by Al Queda? Seriously?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

There is a war on terror, believe it or not, and WW2 was a war against fascist states (as you mentioned Germany and Italy).

No. WWII was a war on one nation that attacked us (who we put on the back burner with our Europe First policy) and two nations who declared war on us.

Which, if either of these applied to Iraq?

 

[Pardalis]

Do you seriously think Iraq will be taken over by Al Queda? Seriously?

I didn't mean they would take over the government (but stranger things have happened), but they would certainly take advantage of a collapsed Iraq and gain alot more strenght by making it their ultimate training ground, if there is no one to oppose them.

No. WWII was a war on one nation that attacked us (who we put on the back burner with our Europe First policy) and two nations who declared war on us.

Which, if either of these applied to Iraq?

WW2 has nothing to do with Iraq, they don't compare. I only mentioned it to answer The Atheist question about the cost of war: In WW2, the cost definately was worth it, even though when we were 'in it' we couldn't tell. It's like the hindsight fallacy in reverse, if such a thing exists. The same thing goes for this conflict, we do not know what would be the outcome of defeat. I personally think it would be very grim.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

He kept "some semblance of peace" with a cruel regime that oppressed the ethnic minorities and the Chia majority, was that better? At least now they have somewhat of a democratic government, which is much more worth fighting for.

Well, it was better for those 200 people who died and nearly 1000 who were injured during bombings this week. Plus we don't know how many died just living in the wrong neighborhood or saying the wrong prayer. At least under Saddam if you kept your mouth shut you'd be alright. That's not even an option now, because if you have the wrong name on your ID you can get murdered.

Oh, and since people always talk about how repressive and crappy Saddam's Iraq was... well, North Korea is even worse, Iran is about as bad, several African countries are just as bad, China is very repressive and even Russia has started becoming repressive again (you get decent news, you should now this): So why did the hawks have such a hardon to attack Iraq for the freedom of the Iraqi people from their dictator, but weren't willing to expend American blood and capital to free the people of North Korea, Iran, Somolia, Mozambique, Liberia, or China?

Why were only the Iraqis, of all the people in the world living with a [rule8]y dictator in the world, worthy of our precious gift of democracy?

The only beneficiaries of this internal feud that is going on in the US is Al Qaeda. This is what bugs me, really bugs me.

You know what bugs me? A trillion f***ing dollars and at least 3500 dead and 23,000 severely wounded over a bogus war that should never have happened in the first place. And that if it was inevitable, it should have been managed with more competancy than a goddamned Boy Scout Jamboree since it's only be 30 f***ing years since we were stuck in an almost identical boondoggle of a quagmire.

I don't know where you get this crazy idea that Al Queda is going to take over Iraq if the U.S. left now or six months from now, but I suggest you stop reading conservative blogs and read some data about the population of Iraq and some unbiased sources like the Christian Science Monitor before you try and tell me that a country dominatedy by Shia would willingly allow an outside Sunni organization to take over the country.

Jesus Christ! Stop with all the "I don't want my daughter to have to wear a burkha bulls***."

 

[Pardalis]

Why were only the Iraqis, of all the people in the world living with a [rule8]y dictator in the world, worthy of our precious gift of democracy?

Of course I don't think the invasion of Iraq was just about making it a democracy, I don' tbuy that either. There were alot of factors involved, including its geopolitical situation and oil resource. But the democratisation of Iraq could be one good thing to come out of this mess.

Jesus Christ! Stop with all the "I don't want my daughter to have to wear a burkha bulls***."

Now that's just a straw man. I don't think that way at all.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I didn't mean they would take over the government (but stranger things have happened), but they would certainly take advantage of a collapsed Iraq and gain alot more strenght by making it their ultimate training ground, if there is no one to oppose them.

I just don't see that happening for the reasons I mentioned in the above post. They're not making any friends in either the Shia population or with the Sunni tribal sheiks with their attacks on Iraqi civilians. If anything, the lack of a presence of foreigners might make the Iraqis more likely to turn on Al Queda.

WW2 has nothing to do with Iraq, they don't compare. I only mentioned it to answer The Atheist question about the cost of war: In WW2, the cost definately was worth it, even though when we were 'in it' we couldn't tell. It's like the hindsight fallacy in reverse, if such a thing exists. The same thing goes for this conflict, we do not know what would be the outcome of defeat. I personally think it would be very grim.

Ah gotcha now. And that sort of reasoning is why I think the analogies to VietNam are so disturbing. Not because they are "defeatist" but because they're so eerily similar. The current situation in Iraq is more analogous to Northern Ireland than anything else. Two religiously divergent native populations who hate each other and a foreign occupying military trying to enforce order which isn't making either side happy.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Of course I don't think the invasion of Iraq was just about making it a democracy, I don' tbuy that either. There were alot of factors involved, including its geopolitical situation and oil resource. But the democratisation of Iraq could be one good thing to come out of this mess.

In May 2003 that was possible, or in some alternate timeline where we actually get a coalition of the willing, put down some honest conditions for Saddam to comply with (I could tell from the President's rhetoric we were going in regardless by Nov. 2002) and then, if he failed, invaded with a much larger and more diverse force.

I think the only thing that would work out the way we both wish it could, would be the introduction of 100,000 more coalition troops and the removal of all Iraqi police and army trainees to the U.K. or U.S. so they can be properly trained before being redeployed.

Now that's just a straw man. I don't think that way at all.

Based on what you posted above it clearly is a straw man and I retract it from you, but I still see a lot of that same mentality amongst my fellow countrymen.