Bush couldn't have said it better. I'll translate: "Let's stay in open-ended and write a blank check" in hundreds of billions of dollars, thousands of troop casualties and the destruction of our military. Another translation: Let's not count the cost ahead of time; just stay until I think it's time to go. A third translation: I want to keep 150,000+ troops there indefinitely but don't want to say so because people would be outraged. Whichever one applies to you NY, I'd pin the 3rd one on the donkey known as Bush. New Yorker, either you are blind to it or are in denial. We know A LOT more about Iraq than in 2003. The end game is staring everyone in the face. The Iraqi government is unsalvageable and there are no prospects of being able to replace it with a better one. If another vote happened in Iraq now, the new government would be even more polarized and dysfunctional. The house is going to collapse. Let's pull the firemen out and reduce the deaths. If the Bush-ites had decided to talk to Iran and Syria 2-3 years ago from a better negotiating position instead of waiting on every ounce of leverage to collapse, Iraq may have had a chance. You call that op/ed political meanderings? If that piece had been in support of Bush, it would have been the initial post in a brand new thread by one of our friendly neighborhood Bush-defending, everyone else-bashing posters here, which is exactly how THIS THREAD was started. Selective credibility, eh?
For the sake of argument, let's say you're right... the surge should continue. Where are you going to get the troops? They aren't enough to sustain this for months, let alone years... unless you want to go to the draft.
nice, using views i don't subscribe to as a club with which to beat up on another poster. you're wrong on both counts; maybe you should use that club to beat up some more strawmen.
According to two spokesmen for the world's largest ammunition manufacturer, which runs the military's ammunition manufacturing plant and separately, is a major supplier of law enforcement ammunition, it is a massive and unexpected increase in law enforcement ammunition demand that is causing delays in law enforcement ammunition delays, not the war. http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/237760.php next distortion?
The problem is as was noted earlier in this thread even Gen. Petraeus says that the surge is unsustainable. So whether or not a political timetable is set there is a military timetable already beyond which the surge cannot be sustained. That is while even accepting all of the reports progress the idea that the surge could lead to longterm success is highly doubtful. If the Iraqis can't maintain stability without the number of US troops in the surge then all it does is delay an inevitable breakdown.
And I think you should be skeptical but what I find odd is that you were ready to swallow the piece that started off this thread with little skepticism yet now are treating counter evidence highly skeptically. Shouldn't both be looked at skeptically?
The administration is nervous and scared that the Maliki government has become a failure and is now covertly seeking a way to commit a coup (will it be military or political?). And guess who they want to install as the new PM? That's right! Our good friend Ayad Allawi! Don't believe me? Check out this OpEd from Saturday in the WaPo. A Plan For Iraq By Ayad Allawi Now this...
ha - no offense to you. sucks to be like one of a few conservatives on D&D huh? There's you, Roxran, Donkey Magic, Stupid Moniker, and TJ.
Yes, but that point of view was far more balanced and was also highly critical of the political process as well. It was also written by folks with a little bit more experience and understanding of political and social affairs (they came from the Brookings Institute). Finally, their views were backed by democrats as well. This piece has none of that. It's just 7 GI's writing about politics - a topic they have no foundation to comment on more than the average joe.
What does sustainable mean? I think we have to give this general time, and let him say that the situation is not going to improve. There's a political crisis right now that needs to be resolved. I think we have to let this improvement trend run it's course and see how strong it actually is. Certainly we can not leave the country in chaos and we should try to capitalize on this positive trend and restructure the gov't in a realistic way. If we fail, then we'll need to partition the country and oversee the creation of 3 states before we can withdraw.
Exactly. Like anyone here. Do you think any of us should have the authority to write an op/ed piece and have it taken as proof that we need to withdraw??? Of course not. That's my exact point, thanks for making it.
uh...no... Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) does not believe President Bush's troop surge is working in Iraq, and her campaign said her comments to a veterans' group Monday were referring to a specific segment of the country, not the overall strategy. http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Clinton_camp_on_surge_quote_AP_0821.html As usual basso takes comments out of context to make a disingenuous point.
we punch above our (collective) weight. although i'd say i'm not really a conservative, just a believer in the war, which i guess makes be a BOF in the eyes of some...
You said that you were in the journalism profession. Yet somehow you can't understand why 7 GI's in Iraq serving with the 82nd airborne might not be better sources than some others? As far as the experts, they agree with the 7 GI's assessments except for the experts who have been war supporters all along like the two gentlemen who were hailed as war opponents. You have an incredibly elitist attitude toward the troops. This isn't the first time you've demonstrated that.
If you think that's being elitist, well, maybe you should seek these GI's advice on all issues. Why not have them write about tax reform and what to do with Palestine? Why not take their advice on nuclear proliferation too? What's their thoughts on abortion? Let's hear them and use them to support a debate.
Your point is correct. Opinion doesn't equal proof. The thing that is hard to understand is how easily you disregard GI's opinions about a war they are fighting in and you seem to go out of your way as to critique why and what their motivations are. You pointed out that the people who wrote the first article (op/ed) which started this thread were more believable because Well just in case people want to know how critical and balanced the authors of the article were in the lead up to the war and since: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/30/brookings/ Just one of their balanced and critical musings. Right as the war was about to begin, O'Hanlon was hardly objecting to the strategy. Quite the contrary, he was writing what could only be called adolescent war p*rnography. From The Financial Times, March 18, 2003: . . However, the Mogadishu debacle will not be repeated, even if elite Iraqi forces fight hard . . In all likelihood, the war will culminate in a battle for Baghdad starting anywhere from five days to two weeks after bombs begin to fall. The war could be over within a month . . . Brookings Institute fellows no less, like that is a shield against partisanship.
