Surrender Iraq now -why wait?

[smeagol]

Come on Senate and House Dems - just cut the funding now!

What is the difference between a surrender deadline now and one in March 2008 (Senate) or Sep 2008 (House)?

Why wait - let's just surrender now and get on with it.

I mean, what's the point with dragging it out?

Hold up your fucking white flags Mr Reid and Mrs Pelosi RIGHT NOW!

But this is the bottom line and I ask you a simple question in reference to the Dem plan:

Describe the difference between leaving now-today, April 2007 and leaving in March 2008 or Sep 2008.

[mendyweiss]

Come on Wall Street, don't move slow,
G
Why man, this is war au-go-go.
D
There's plenty good money to be made
G
Supplying the Army with the tools of the trade,
E7 A
Just hope and pray that if they drop the bomb,
D G
They drop it on the Shiite cong.

[Midkiff]

Date makes no difference since we never should have been there in the first place. But it's not surrendering, because your hero said the mission was accomplished, right? Take your hayseed rhetoric to the Limbaugh boards.

http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m48/jdmidkiff/flashingbushpm0.gif

[foodcourtdruide]

Come on Senate and House Dems - just cut the funding now!

What is the difference between a surrender deadline now and one in March 2008 (Senate) or Sep 2008 (House)?

Why wait - let's just surrender now and get on with it.

I mean, what's the point with dragging it out?

Hold up your fucking white flags Mr Reid and Mrs Pelosi RIGHT NOW!

But this is the bottom line and I ask you a simple question in reference to the Dem plan:

Describe the difference between leaving now-today, April 2007 and leaving in March 2008 or Sep 2008.


It's kinda funny, I agree with you, but for all different reasons. In my perfect world the U.S. would leave Iraq tomorrow and staying there for an extra year/18 months makes very litle sense.

However, the democrats know that this would be unpopular and I believe that they think setting far-off deadlines will allow the nation to come to grips with the fact that we're leaving, and perhaps minimalize the backlash.

Also, any drastic act of the leglislature will surely be vetoed by the executive.

Doesn't that make sense? Don't just scream about Pelosi or Reid being cowards and wanting to surrender. Think about the situation first.

[smeagol]

Date makes no difference since we never should have been there in the first place. But it's not surrendering, because your hero said the mission was accomplished, right? Take your hayseed rhetoric to the Limbaugh boards.

http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m48/jdmidkiff/flashingbushpm0.gif

Great argument Einstein. You talk about what can't be changed (i.e., get over it - we're there) vs. what should or shouldn't be done and the consequences.

If date makes no difference then why should the Senate and House stay one more day and "waste" one more life if they're so fucking noble?

Save your sarcasm ("It's not surrendering because ...") - that's means nothing.

And little ole hayseed me does support the Commander in Chief (whether he is Bush or Clinton or even Carter) and his judgment.

Let me ask you - Do you see any way to not lose - from this day forward? Just answer that simple question.

[epo]

Great argument Einstein. You talk about what can't be changed (i.e., get over it - we're there) vs. what should or shouldn't be done and the consequences.

If date makes no difference then why should the Senate and House stay one more day and "waste" one more life if they're so fucking noble?

Save your sarcasm ("It's not surrendering because ...") - that's means nothing.

And little ole hayseed me does support the Commander in Chief (whether he is Bush or Clinton or even Carter) and his judgment.

Let me ask you - Do you see any way to not lose - from this day forward? Just answer that simple question.

Point A off the Republican Party's talking points: There's no reason to talk about the past errors as we can't change those. Thanks for repeating it for us.

I've never heard Bush deliver a real plan. Or a real rationale. Or a realistic outcome.

We are so fucked for the next 50 years because of this asshole.

[smeagol]

It's kinda funny, I agree with you, but for all different reasons. In my perfect world the U.S. would leave Iraq tomorrow and staying there for an extra year/18 months makes very litle sense.

However, the democrats know that this would be unpopular and I believe that they think setting far-off deadlines will allow the nation to come to grips with the fact that we're leaving, and perhaps minimalize the backlash.

Also, any drastic act of the leglislature will surely be vetoed by the executive.

Doesn't that make sense? Don't just scream about Pelosi or Reid being cowards and wanting to surrender. Think about the situation first.

Do they know that it would be unpopular? According to polls most of the country considers the war a mistake. As for veto it appears that the current Sen/House plan will be vetoed, say nothing for anything more drastic. I don't look for leaders to do the popular thing - that to me is not leadership.

I'm not screaming it I am stating it as a fact - it is a surrender whether we leave now or set arbitrary deadlines in the future for leaving.

[smeagol]

Point A off the Republican Party's talking points: There's no reason to talk about the past errors as we can't change those. Thanks for repeating it for us.

I've never heard Bush deliver a real plan. Or a real rationale. Or a realistic outcome.

We are so fucked for the next 50 years because of this asshole.

It appears that you just simply hate Reps and Bush. Don't like it? What would you do from THIS POINT ON? You bring nothing new, no solutions at all.

[epo]

It appears that you just simply hate Reps and Bush. Don't like it? What would you do from THIS POINT ON? You bring nothing new, no solutions at all.

Play 2 from Republican playbook: Blame the dissenters for your failures.

[Snacks]

It appears that you just simply hate Reps and Bush. Don't like it? What would you do from THIS POINT ON? You bring nothing new, no solutions at all.

Bush hasnt brought anything new either and this is his war. Call it a surrender or calling using your brain either way we have lost. No one wanted to loss but we did. They want us out, they want to fight themselves then lets leave now. No more Americans need to die for oil. Instead of waisting billions of $$$ on a so called war against terrorism lets use that money to protect our country at home, use the money to creat new fuel so we dont need their oil and help our poor.

(by the way, we really arent at war, no declaration of war has ever been made)

[BLZBUBBA]

What's all this talk of surrender? We won the damn war. WMDs? They didn't have any. Regime change? That's done. We won. Bring 'em home. That's their war now. Not ours.

[Yerdaddy]

It appears that you just simply hate Reps and Bush. Don't like it? What would you do from THIS POINT ON? You bring nothing new, no solutions at all.


You started the thread to accuse democrats of "surrendering". I think before you can expect anyone else to provide their solutions you need to put yours on the table. So, what would you do from this point on?

And don't say shit like "take the gloves off our soldiers" and meaningless shit like that. The democratic proposals are largely based on the reccommendations of the Iraq Study Group - threaten to withdraw U.S. support for the Iraqi government in order to force it to make the hard political decisions it has to make and not use US support as a crutch to not prepare for our eventual exit. It's carrots and sticks - the withdrawal is a stick - not surrender.

So you tell me: what is your plan, or Bush's plan for that matter, to win in Iraq? Why is the democratic plan so objectionable while the actions of the Commander in Chief that got us to this point are not?

And how is any of this going to get Imus his job back?

[A.J.]

I don't think the Democrats want to be labeled as the party that called for surrender. They need to develop their own "peace with honor" withdrawal plan. Hell, it worked for Nixon.

[Midkiff]

You talk about what can't be changed (i.e., get over it - we're there) vs. what should or shouldn't be done and the consequences.


I am so sick of this Republican tactic - "it can't be changed, get over it and offer solutions." Let's say, for the sake of hypothetical comparison, pretend that your mother is rich, but will not give you any money. I come over one day, and rape and murder your mother. Then, you discover that your mother's will left all her money to some charity, and you get nothing. You come to me and say, now what am I going to do? How am I going to get mom's money? "It happened, get over it and offer solutions!" It's the same god damn thing. "Oh, I can fuck up all day long and doom everybody, and my excuse can always just be 'it happened, get over it and offer new solutions!'"

Here's a solution for you and your hero Bush - actually think things through BEFORE you do them, and actually listen to people who have opposing viewpoints! Then, we would be far less likely to find ourselves in idiot debacles like this one.

To answer your question, it's now a fucking civil war, even though W cannot admit it. We should leave NOW and it would not be a loss. It would be a Vietnam-esque embarrassment either way. Democrats are NOT pro-surrender. They are pro-preservation of THIS country.

IRAQ - ARABIC FOR 'VIETNAM'

[Jujubees2]

Come on Senate and House Dems - just cut the funding now!

What is the difference between a surrender deadline now and one in March 2008 (Senate) or Sep 2008 (House)?

Why wait - let's just surrender now and get on with it.

I mean, what's the point with dragging it out?

Hold up your fucking white flags Mr Reid and Mrs Pelosi RIGHT NOW!

But this is the bottom line and I ask you a simple question in reference to the Dem plan:

Describe the difference between leaving now-today, April 2007 and leaving in March 2008 or Sep 2008.



Because by giving them a year, maybe the Iraqi amry will get their shit together so that they can defend themselves. Without a pullout date, there's no incentive for the Iraqi army to get serious.

[Furtherman]

And little ole hayseed me does support the Commander in Chief (whether he is Bush or Clinton or even Carter) and his judgment.

Blind allegiance is dangerous. When the powers that be realize they have that, corruption can start.

[Furtherman]

Because by giving them a year, maybe the Iraqi amry will get their shit together so that they can defend themselves. Without a pullout date, there's no incentive for the Iraqi army to get serious.

Won't happen. When we leave the army will disban when soldiers go to their shitte or sunni factions and fight against each other. When one group wipes out the other, then, maybe the country will stabilize. Until then, we're just in the way.

[Jujubees2]

Won't happen. When we leave the army will disban when soldiers go to their shitte or sunni factions and fight against each other. When one group wipes out the other, then, maybe the country will stabilize. Until then, we're just in the way.

Oh, I agree it will never happen. But at least when can say that we gave them opportunity to get their act together.

[Snacks]

Because by giving them a year, maybe the Iraqi amry will get their shit together so that they can defend themselves. Without a pullout date, there's no incentive for the Iraqi army to get serious.

How much more time are we going to train their Army? We have been training them for close to 3 years and they still cant defend anything. It takes 8-12 weeks to train our kids to go to war and fight/defend. Why is it taking so long to for them to learn?

It will never happen. Leave now, the longer we stay the more this looks like Vietnam.

[A.J.]

How much more time are we going to train their Army? We have been training them for close to 3 years and they still cant defend anything. It takes 8-12 weeks to train our kids to go to war and fight/defend. Why is it taking so long to for them to learn?

Probably because the Iraqi soldiers and police we train get blowed up pretty quickly. They constantly need to be replaced with new recruits...who then need to be trained.

[Furtherman]

Many of them go join the "insurgency" after their training. Where they are actually going is back to their ethnic neighborhood to fight for whatever side their on.

[Snacks]

Many of them go join the "insurgency" after their training. Where they are actually going is back to their ethnic neighborhood to fight for whatever side their on.

That should be reason alone to leave and stop training these people. We are training them to fight for their country not their individual tribes/people. If they are taking the lessons taught and using them against us, well thats another reason to leave.

What Happened To The Edit Button/Option? I wanted to edit a post and there is no button.

[A.J.]

http://www.ronfez.net/forums/images/skins/rf_blue/buttons/edit.gif

Bottom right corner of the post you want to edit.

[ChimneyFish]

Personally, I can't wait for the Syrian campaign.

Good times, good times.

[Snacks]

http://www.ronfez.net/forums/images/skins/rf_blue/buttons/edit.gif

Bottom right corner of the post you want to edit.

I know that is what it looks like but for some reason its not showing up anywhere on here.

EDIT: lol I do now have the deit button on this post but not my other posts in this thread. I repeat my other posts in this topic do not have an edit button but this one just did.

[Yerdaddy]

Honestly Addressing the Present State of Iraqi Security Forces (http://www.csis.org/component/option,com_csis_pubs/task,view/id,3804/type,1)

The effort to create effective Iraqi military, national security and police forces has been marginally more successful than Iraq political and economic efforts, but scarcely the level of success the US planned even at the beginning of 2006. It is also far less successful than the Department of Defense has claimed, and has been presented in recent testimony to Congress. It is never clear whether the problem is “spin,” the search for political advantage, the desire to avoid seeing the US accept defeat, or self-deception. The reality is, however, that virtually nothing the US officially says about Iraqi force development can now be taken at face value, and the lack of integrity in virtually every aspect of MNF-I reporting on ISF force development has become a tragic disgrace.

The US has reported Iraqi manning levels based on the number of men it has trained and equipped that bear no resemblance to the actual manning levels of men that are still in service. It has claimed that Iraqi units are in the lead that in fact have little or no real operational capability or activity, mixing units that reflect very real mission capability with ones that are failed force elements that should actually be assigned the lowest levels of readiness. It has mixed real transfers of responsibility to effective Iraqi forces with cosmetic, politically motivated transfers to Iraqi commands and units that cannot perform such missions and often are dependent on US armor, artillery, airpower, logistics and service support, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (IS&R).

While over 320,000 men have been trained and equipped since the fall of Saddam Hussein, a large percentage has since left and deserted, substantial numbers have been killed and wounded, and some 10-20% of those who remain are absent at any given time because they leave to take care of their families and transfer their pay in a country where there is no meaningful banking system. The Iraqi regular forces and National Police may only be about 20-25% short of the totals reported for trained and equipped manpower, but the percentages could be much higher. There certainly are many battalion elements with manning levels well under 50%, and many units with critical shortages of officers and NCOs.

The shortfalls in actual strength versus "trained and equipped" figures for the regular police and Facilities Protection Force are much larger, probably well in excess of 30% of the total of men reported as trained and equipped and possibly on the order of 50% -- although so many phantom men, absentees, and inert but manned units exist that any estimates are difficult to impossible.. Many units are clearly so badly manned that they are phantom or hollow forces, but the Department of Defense has reported that there is no accurate way to track the total, and anecdotal data are far less reliable than for the regular forces.

Furthermore, such manpower totals would be highly misleading even if they had some shred of credibility. Some units actually have excess manpower, while others have far more serious shortfalls than the average. Units may have adequate total manpower, but be critically short of officers and/or NCOs. Without a break out of manpower that also shows officers and NCOs on hand, total manning data provides little insight into force capability, the time needed to make Iraqi forces effective or for units to replace US and other MNF-I forces, and it is generally more misleading than useful.

The challenges Iraq faces are further complicated by the fact that all Iraqi forces, including the army, were recruited and equipped to serve locally in limited defensive roles, not act as mobile forces trained and equipped to act as active combat units deployable throughout the country to deal with insurgency and civil conflict. This means the recruiting base must now be changed, new pay and arrangements are needed to create a nationally deployable force, and new equipment and facilities will be need for the deployable units thrust into more serious combat.

From the beginning the problems of the Iraqi Security Forces has been one of failures of the administration to impliment the training programs necessary and their willingness to lie about their success rate to the point that the military has been forced to create reports on the progress of training that are so full of lies they have to wait for Cordesman's response to their own reports in order to have a report that is honest enough to even be useful. Congress, as well, relies more on Cordesman's regular testimonies than on what the military reports to them.

The U.S. training of the ISF has been a systematic failure at the same time that it has been the cornerstone of Bush's exit "strategy" from the second year of the occupation, ("American forces will stand down as Iraqi forces stand up.") Yet it was a year and a half into the occupation before there was even a meaningful, (only half-staffed), training operation underway. The training of Iraqis has been a microcosm of the administration's failures from day 1, and a symbol of the disgrace and failure delivered to this nation by the White House's willfull negligence, hubris and lies.

Iraqi soldiers are awful in many ways, and they cannot be trained, equipped and deployed against their will. Many of them are nothing but violent militiamen given uniforms by their leadership who came to power because both of Iraq's elections took place after we failed to provide security in the country for the first year of the occupation. But, from the beginning of the effort to rebuild the police and military that we disbanded with the stroke of a pen, many of these people are the guys who have been willing to stand in line to join even while being among the first targets of insurgent bombings. We all remember the regular reports of lines at army recruiting offices being blown up with dozens of Iraqis killed trying to enlist and the survivors would get back in the fucking line. Remember that when you all are blaming the Iraqis for not being capable to stand up so we can go home and pretend Iraq wasn't our fault. We never gave them a chance.

[smeagol]

I really wanted to know what thoughts were out there about setting a date to leave Iraq and what was the real difference between leaving now and in the future ( now starting Oct 2007 according to Congress).

Mostly people here are Bush haters - and it is so obvious and it is evident in almost all responses and...whatever...I respect yer opinions.

I don't see the timetable thing as a plan - I really think it is giving up.

The result, with no law and order whatsoever, will be the Islamic State of Iraq.

I feel that if we set a date and the Iraq gov't/army isn't "ready" by that date, and we leave then anyway, then what will likely happen is that many many MANY more people, Iraqi people will die as the country dissolves into a bloodbath.

I really do think we should support the good people in Iraq, and mostly they are good people - not "extremists", and fight it out with them against anarchy and, yes, "Al-Qaeda In Iraq".

That's really what I meant by "we're there, get over it" -- there are huge consequences to innocents from our prior actions and what we do next. But we cannot, CANNOT change the prior actions - AND the consequences remain no matter who you choose to blame!

What is my plan yerdaddy? - I don't have one actually but I never said I did. But fuck it from behind is a good start.

Not to mention the oil (ouch). We (i.e., "free world") can't give that up can we?

[Midkiff]

I honestly think that even if we stayed there ten more years, the iraqi troops would be no more ready. It's like they don't give a damn. This metaphor is not racist at all - but it's like they're a bunch of chimps, wearing suits to please us, and the minute we leave, the chimps will tear the suits off and have orgies and fling dung. They will keep pretending to try to be civilized just because we are there. It's just a horrible drain on our economy, and killing our young men and women for no real result for us. I don't think ten or even twenty years would make it any better. It's just time to cut our losses and go. If you want to call it defeat, so be it. It's just time to go.

[Snacks]

I really wanted to know what thoughts were out there about setting a date to leave Iraq and what was the real difference between leaving now and in the future ( now starting Oct 2007 according to Congress).

Mostly people here are Bush haters - and it is so obvious and it is evident in almost all responses and...whatever...I respect yer opinions.

I don't see the timetable thing as a plan - I really think it is giving up.

The result, with no law and order whatsoever, will be the Islamic State of Iraq.

I feel that if we set a date and the Iraq gov't/army isn't "ready" by that date, and we leave then anyway, then what will likely happen is that many many MANY more people, Iraqi people will die as the country dissolves into a bloodbath.

I really do think we should support the good people in Iraq, and mostly they are good people - not "extremists", and fight it out with them against anarchy and, yes, "Al-Qaeda In Iraq".

That's really what I meant by "we're there, get over it" -- there are huge consequences to innocents from our prior actions and what we do next. But we cannot, CANNOT change the prior actions - AND the consequences remain no matter who you choose to blame!

What is my plan yerdaddy? - I don't have one actually but I never said I did. But fuck it from behind is a good start.

Not to mention the oil (ouch). We (i.e., "free world") can't give that up can we?

This country will never be fixed. If we stay 10-20 years they will still be blowing each other up. There were civil wars in that country for centuries before Sadam. Then Sadam took over, yes he was a bad man but maybe his way of running the coutry was the only way to do so in Iraq. I dont know what else to do, but staying there will not help, that has been proven and continues to be proven. All that is happening is more Americans are being killed. Its costing us more and more money. We were supose to be getting help were not. Its over today or ten more years will not help. We need to get out now.

Bush has no plan, the dems have no plan. So why continue to stay when nothing has worked? We should never have gone into Iraq and now we need to leave asap.

[Yerdaddy]

I really wanted to know what thoughts were out there about setting a date to leave Iraq and what was the real difference between leaving now and in the future ( now starting Oct 2007 according to Congress).

Mostly people here are Bush haters - and it is so obvious and it is evident in almost all responses and...whatever...I respect yer opinions.

I don't see the timetable thing as a plan - I really think it is giving up.

The result, with no law and order whatsoever, will be the Islamic State of Iraq.

I feel that if we set a date and the Iraq gov't/army isn't "ready" by that date, and we leave then anyway, then what will likely happen is that many many MANY more people, Iraqi people will die as the country dissolves into a bloodbath.

I really do think we should support the good people in Iraq, and mostly they are good people - not "extremists", and fight it out with them against anarchy and, yes, "Al-Qaeda In Iraq".

That's really what I meant by "we're there, get over it" -- there are huge consequences to innocents from our prior actions and what we do next. But we cannot, CANNOT change the prior actions - AND the consequences remain no matter who you choose to blame!

What is my plan yerdaddy? - I don't have one actually but I never said I did. But fuck it from behind is a good start.
Not to mention the oil (ouch). We (i.e., "free world") can't give that up can we?

So this thread is just a pep talk for America? OK. Well, your first post sucked at it. Not very inspirational, very negative, and you lumped half of your own team in with the enemy.

Now this last post wasn't so bad. Hell, I agree with it 100%. We should be supporting the good people of Iraq against the bad people. In fact I support Bush's "surge" strategy. I even started a thread about it when it came out.

But I'm not going to pretend that the "surge" isn't a Hail Mary - a last-ditch attempt to salvage a lost effort that has about a 1% chance of saving the game. And if it doesn't work we've lost. There's no plan B.

Bush told the American people numerous time how important this war is to our security and peace and stability in the world, and our reputation in the world and for many other reasons. He's said "failure is not an option." Well he was right with the first part, but wrong with the second. Failure actually was an option, and it's the option he chose. We can't stay there forever making the same mistakes we've made for four years. Violence in Iraq is worse now than it's ever been. Iraq's infrastructure is providing less services in Iraq than before the war; oil production, (which was supposed to pay for the whole war according to World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz), is below pre-war levels; there are currently 4 million Iraqi refugees, (including 2 million internally displaced people), which is the fastest growing refugee crisis in history. Things are worse now in Iraq than ever. The pep talk is too late.

I like that you see the repurcussions for failure in Iraq transcend American blood and American treasure. I commend you for that. But the blame for that can't be put on those who decide that the guy who has done everything wrong with the war for four years should be allowed a free hand to keep fucking things up for two more years. The blame goes on the guy who did everything wrong for four years.

[A.J.]

The result, with no law and order whatsoever, will be the Islamic State of Iraq.

Yeah but WHAT Islam -- Sunni or Shia?