I agree 100% with the 93 Senators who voted to not mandate a troop

[Hosnon]

pullout by the end of the year.

Bush has gotten us into a horrible mess but pulling out won't fix it. However, the status quo is simply torture. We need to increase the amount of troops in Iraq so we can stabilize the country and get out. I'll be voting for the Congressional, Senatorial, and Presidential candidates who espouse this idea.

I read an article that recommended 1 troop per 100 citizens in order to stabilize a country. Iraq has about 26,000,000 citizens and we therefore need about 260,000 troops to get this job done.

I didn't support going in but I also don't support abandoning the country...that will make the situation worse for the U.S., the region, and the world.

Let the flames begin.

[derby378]

1. Why put off the inevitable?

Iraq is screwed either way - the only question is how much more of OUR tax dollars are going to be thrown into this funeral pyre before the smoke drives us away, coughing and gasping for air.

[Hosnon]

7. I'm not convinced that Iraq is inevitably screwed. I believe the country

can be stabilized but not with the troop presence we have there now.

[arcane1]

9. the troop presence is the CAUSE of destabilization!

:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

[derby378]

34. Not JUST the troops, mind you...

...but all the corporations like Halliburton and its subsidiaries that are seeking to bleed Iraq of its natural resources while giving nothing tangible back to the Iraqi people.

[arcane1]

40. exactly, thank-you! n/t

[Hosnon]

46. Do you think there is no number of troops that could stablize the country?

[arcane1]

48. the presence of troops is the cause of destabilization

it's that simple

if by "stabilze" you mean "destroy", then yes, there is such a number


a question for you: How will more troops make Iraqis less angry about the presence of troops there?

[Hosnon]

63. By "stablize" I don't mean "destroy." So I can assume that the answer is

zero?

More troops won't make Iraqis less angry...but it will make them more amenable to our purposes.

[arcane1]

65. "amenable to our purposes"

terrified, and easier to subject to colonial rule?

what are these "purposes" of which you speak?

[Hosnon]

71. Well I would assume the purposes that the neocons espouse considering

the war was their creation:

The spread of democracy throughout the ME starting with Iraq. I don't believe that theory works.

My purpose would be to simply leave Iraq in as good a situation or better than it was before we invaded.

[arcane1]

exactly, you believe the neocon lies about their plans and goals

do you really, honestly, believe that this was all about "spreading democracy"????????

[Hosnon]

74. Kindly reread the post. nt

[ldf]

187. you mean the condition the country was in under saddam?

maybe we should hand iraq back to saddam.

after all, it WAS in much better shape when he was in power, and he at least kept these civil factions from tearing the country to bits (all because WE went in and made it possible for civil war to occur, unless that was what we wanted all along....).

i'm just sayin'.

:shrug:

[Hosnon]

200. Yes...Saddam understood what he was dealing with and managed to

keep the fractionalized country together. If we end up having to pull out because we can't/won't do what is needed to stabilize Iraq, the country would have probably been better off with Saddam.

Notice I said country...not individual citizens.

[Greyhound]

259. The definition of insanity. Do you really not see that more of the same

won't work any better? These people have shown their resolve in ridding their country of its invaders at any cost, so you think increasing the number of invaders is going to change their minds? :eyes:

[Hosnon]

262. Well "that" definition of insanity is doing the same thing expecting

different results.

Saying that 250,000 troops is the same as 150,000 is like saying a glass of water is the same as a lake.

[Bjorn Against]

276. Where are you going to get 250,000 troops?

I sure hope you are planning on enlisting, because I know I am not going over there to fight.

[Hosnon]

279. See below for this discussion. nt

[Greyhound]

281. No, that's like saying that we can win the "war on drugs" if we just spend

more $$, suspend more of our rights, put more people in jail, and hire more enforcement. It has never worked and it will never work. As I stated before the Iraqi people have demonstrated their resolve, the longer we fight against it, the worse it will get. Face it, it is a disaster of epic proportions, made worse by ignorant insistence on bending reality to their fantasy (See Aristotle).

This reasoning is the cause of most of the stupid, ineffective strategies we've seen attempted over and over again.

[Greyhound]

317. Eveb better, it is lie saying that a glass of water is like 1.7 glasses.nt

[texastoast]

41. You can stabilize the country when

you change the entire culture of the people to accept the western version of democracy. The baddest dude on the block wins. Just ask any soldier who has been there what the culture is like. As soon as we leave, another Saddam will appear.

Staying in Iraq is pouring good money after bad.

[Xenotime]

157. We have lost in Iraq. There is not point in staying

[Robbien]

2. We've been there three years with no good coming out of it

We have the same leaders leading the effort all claiming they will stay the course.

So while staying the course, how many more years do you believe we should keep doing no good in Iraq. Two? Ten? Fifty?

[Hosnon]

11. And we need to get those that want to "stay the course" out of there. This

course is not working.

I can't put a time limit on how long it should take...but I don't think it would take long with enough troops there. Of course, if it becomes obvious that it is impossible to stabilize, we need to get out.

[Robbien]

33. First, we cannot put more troops there because BushCo doesn't want

to do so. The longer we stay there, the more enemies we make and even more troops will be needed.

Every day we are staying the course we make more enemies which means even more troops are needed which won't be supplied. How does this not mean it is impossible to stablize the country and we need to get out?

[Hosnon]

47. Which is why I will vote for the candidates who commit to getting the job

done right and getting us out of there without leaving a bigger mess than Bush created.

[blm]

175. The Iraqi VP and parliament members WANT a timetable for withdrawal - take

into consideration THEIR grasp of their own culture and THEIR reasons for wanting the appearance of occupation taken OUT of the equation.

Maybe THEY know better than you what would make for a safer country.

[Hosnon]

201. Perhaps they do. But I have very little faith in the VP and PMs because I

believe they are intimately connected with the Bush administration and what it wants.

[blm]

205. When Kerry went to Iraq he spoke with the rank and file parliament members

and they gave him their input about what they feel is needed for them to succeed and a withdrawal timetable was a great part f it. It's the sense of OCCUPATION that needs to be altered, and altered as quickly as possible.

[Hosnon]

207. Their opinion definitely needs to be a part of the decision making

process. I just still am uneasy about trusting the first round of democratically elected leaders in that country.

[blm]

211. I understand that, but even they are going against Bush's preference.

There is a thread about Bush's lie that they were not asked for a timetable - the VP did ask for a timetable. Bush lied - again. THAT timetable Iraq wants SHOULD be our focus instead of siding with Bush against one.

[karynnj]

264. Who do you trust then? BUSH who lied on almost everything

in the run up to the war?

How many "rounds" of democratically elected leaders do you need? What do you want done??

[Hosnon]

265. Well, as time progress and more elections are held, the elected officials

will be more removed from the Bush Administration, or so it seems to me. Not sure how many rounds would be needed for that. Perhaps just one after Bush is gone.

[karynnj]

I really don't agree with your logic

We can't leave the Iraqi leaders in charge - because they are too closely connected to Bush. So, we have to stay there with Bush making the decisions. ???????

[Hosnon]

302. I think that we need to have an appropriate military presence there while

the Iraqis hold a few elections. I don't have any evidence to support my claim but it is my intuition that they will be less and less beholden to the administration as time increases.

[karynnj]

314. They've already voted a few times

As long as we are there in huge controlling presence, will they ever be sufficiently independent?

[Critters2]

245. Who do they think they are?!

WE're running this empire!

[Hosnon]

263. Seriously! Thanks for the levity...this thread is a little intense. nt

[arcane1]

3. no flames, but more troops = more dead troops, more dead Iraqi's

when you say "get the job done" are you aware of what the job is? To OWN that country?

the chaos is caused by our presence there.

[villager]

4. so therefore you're voting *against* candidates with different ideas?

n/t

[Hosnon]

Yes. nt

[villager]

189. meaning, Republicans over Democrats, say.

If "need be?"

[Hosnon]

206. Of course. The labels, "Democrat" and "Republican" will not act as

blinders for how I vote. I will vote party when it is absolutely necessary - which mainly pertains to congressional elections. But as far as the presidency goes...I tend to look mostly at the individual.

[Bjorn Against]

277. So tell us which Republican Presidential candidate would you vote for?

[Hosnon]

280. Not really sure. I haven't given them much look. I've always thought that

McCain was a decent Republican but his recent activities have made me rethink that.

[guidod]

289. I KNEW IT!!! You're either a repuke or

a lover of the DLC!! I KNEW IT!!!!

[Hosnon]

300. Haha ok...I can tell you that I'm neither. nt

[guidod]

301. Then why McCain?

What makes him so great, or did, in your mind.? You also haven't answeed my question about this war and Vietnam. Waiting. :evilgrin:

[Hosnon]

303. McCain has come across, to me, as a good moderate politician. He opposes

the administration's use of torture and I believe wouldn't seek to expand Executive Authority beyond what it should be based on the Constitution. But again, I'm not real sure. I haven't done any intensive studying to make a final decision.

However, his little trip to Liberty was a bad move in my opinion.

As to your question about this war and Vietnam...where is it? I must have missed it or replied without addressing. I'm making my way down the thread and I'll look for it. Let me know what post number it is if you can.

[karynnj]

315. Are you sure about those things?

Did he speak out when Bush used a signing statement that seems to say no torture unless he wants to torture?

How did McCain vote on Alito? The problem with Alito was NOT that he was pro-life, but his extreme views on things like the Unitary executive - Alito approves of the those signing statements and an extreme shift of power from the legislative to the executive branch. (Read Kerry's speech from the day they voted on cloture.) In fact, it is stunning that any libertarian leaning Republican voted for him.

I think his trip to New School University was even worse:
- It was commencement, not an optional forum for political views
- The school is as LW and anti-war as any in the nation
- He knew weeks in advance that the students and the faculty resented Kerrey asking him to speak
- He made NO effort to reach out to the students, speak about the world they were entering or commend the students for their accomplishment.

The students were unwitting pawns to a McCain political stunt, showing how brave he was entering a place where people were against him. (But where decorum says they had to be polite or be criticized.)

[BigYawn]

5. I agree 100% with you!!! No flaming necessary...

Yes increasing troop strength TEMPORARILY to stabilize Iraq and
then getting the hell out of there is the best solution. Every
other method is a loser.

[frylock]

10. just like they stablized fallujah..

3 or 4 times.

[arcane1]

16. exactly! See, with more troops, we could depopulate Fallujah

and the "job" would be "done"

Fallujah would be "stabilized"

:sarcasm:

[Redstone]

69. Oh, yes. Well said.

Redstone

[BigYawn]

88. We are STILL stabilizing Korea after 60 years, we still have troops in

Germany after 70 years, we still have troops in Kosovo, Philippines,
on and on and on. That is a necessary and good thing that we keep troops
in all the trouble spots. It is our duty as the supreme power to keep
stability in all the trouble spots.

[diamondsndust]

134. "It is our duty as the supreme power to keep stability in all the

trouble spots"...... and just when did we become the world's police force??? That just doesn't fly with me at all. We invaded a sovereign nation to impose gee DUHbya's will on them. We cannot play peacemaker while we are being the aggressor... we just can't. We really need to quit worrying about other nations' problems and focus on our own problems here at home. Why can't we take care of our own homeless. Why can't we ensure that no child here goes to bed hungry at night?

[BigYawn]

180. It is a good thing you are not running the country because

you would be building a wall around the country and hiding
in your shell. The reality is that we do Trillions of dollars
(1 Trillion = 1000 Billion = 1000,000 Million) worth of
international trade. Millions of Americans are employed because
of it. Millions of American consumers can afford reasonably priced
goods made in other countries which are cheaper and sometimes far
superior to home made products. If there was no stability in the
world, we would have chaos. Therefore it is imperative that as the
world's most powerful country, we help keep law and order in the
entire world. You may not like it and that is your right.

[guidod]

183. It's a crying shame that someone like you

IS running this country. :mad: We are the ones that started this shit, shall we police ourselves?

[diamondsndust]

185. You just won the "lamest reply ever" award...

If I was running this Country, we wouldn't be in a war of aggression that we started, there wouldn't be homeless people and there wouldn't be hunger. Charity begins at home. Then, and only then, can you worry about other countries. As for building walls... that's laughable, as is the thought of me living in a shell. I have KNOWN homelessness, and I have KNOWN hunger so don't even venture there pal.

Now I will kindly sit back and watch you as you do a double backflip and disappear back up into your own ass, from whence you came.

[BigYawn]

194. Actually I am with the democrats who voted today

in the house of representatives to "stay the course" in Iraq.
I have roots in south Asia, so I am somewhat familiar with the
geopolitics of theat region.

We were not in Iraq on September 11, 2001. We did nothing to make
Saddam Hussein invade, pillage and rape Kuwait. We did nothing to
make Zarqawi the single biggest Al qaeda active field general. And
amongst the documents found at Zarqawi's safe house they found his
letter to higher ups in Al qaeda saying that his operation is getting
harder and harder, he is having tough time finding places to set up
bomb factories, he is having tough time attracting new recruits, the
Iraqi public has turned against his operation, and the Iraqi defense
forces are making him constantly on the run.

I realize I am in the minority in the democratic party supporting the
Iraq war on terror. But I don't mind being in the minority to pursue
my own thinking.

[karynnj]

268. Are you sure you are in the Democratic party

Do you remember the name April Gillespie? We didn't "make" Saddam invade Kuwait, but we likely signalled it would be ok. We protected Zarqawi inadvertently because he was in the No Fly zone which we controlled not Saddam. When Iraq went into chaos he became a far bigger menace than before.

Most of the violence had nothing to do with Zargawi, though it is wonderful news that he is no longer out there.

[Bjorn Against]

278. I am in serious doubt...

Here is what he said on another thread:

"Government should spend the tax dollars only on the following items:

1. Defense

2. Taking care of the REAL needy who can not take care of themselves.

3. Protect environment.

Rest of the spending should be left to the taxpayers themselves. I worked for
the US Dept of Energy and worked on several alternate energy projects. NONE OF
THEM HAVE PRACTICAL VALUE. But the govt. funds provided great jobs for us.

Alternate energy except solar and wind power is a waste of time & money until
oil runs out. No one in their sane mind will invest in building alternate
energy infra-structure since there is still too much oil left in the ground.
The oil producers can run all the competition bankrupt in a hurry by dropping
oil prices.

The government is the most IN-efficient spender of money. The 3 items I listed
above can not be done by any one else so it falls on the federal govt to do it.
The rest should be left to the market place."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2669032&mesg_id=2672071

Do you know of any other Democrat who says we should stop funding such things as healthcare, education, and transportation? Do you know of any other Democrat who says we should stop working on alternative energy until all the oil runs out?

I am suspicious.

[Hosnon]

204. I believe that is a short-sighted view of how to run the country. Very few

things are "first." Most issues need to be addressed contemporaneously. We need to worry about other countries continuously...that is the nature of international politics. The founders understood that and any leader of this country needs to understand that.

[Hosnon]

202. I agree with you for the most part. The stability that the world enjoys in

this era is due to our large military presence. What goes on in the world directly effects us and we need to be aware of that and address it.

[Critters2]

246. World's most powerful country

building all that "power" on our debt to China.

We need to get over ourselves.

[BigYawn]

267. The debt to China represents less than 1% of our gross national

wealth and less than 4% of GDP. China is not stupid to be
buying all the US Treasury bonds they can. They are smart
enough to realize it is a solid and good investment.

Also don't ever forget, it gives us a huge leverage over
China in case they misbehave. We have the option to forfeit
their bonds. That would be our prerrogative only in extreme
situations, I am not advocating it. The US has such stellar
credit rating because it has never defaulted on it obligations
and is unlikely to in future.

[Solon]

135. Bad examples...

OK, first, Korea, let's see, the war hasn't ended yet, after 60 years, I know, insane, but true. We keep troops there at the INVITE of the South Korean government, and they are somewhat ambivelent about it. Onto West Germany, OK, we occupied West Germany for many years after WW2, however, once they formed a stable government, we only provided defense. By this time, the Soviet Union was a REAL rival, and NATO was formed to counter the Eastern Bloc. West Germany was the main nation that would have been attacked in such a scenario, hence the reason we kept troops there for so long. Nowadays, we are beginning to pull out, because Unified Germany no longer NEEDS our help to defend them, they have no enemies bordering them now. For Japan its slightly different, we wrote thier Constitution, which forbade them from having a military, so we agreed to defend them in all circumstances. Kosovo was considered a NATO/UN action, that the United States took a lead in, and as far as I'm aware of, we do keep troops, but ONLY for peacekeeping purposes.

Now, Iraq is more like the Phillipines, and I'll explain. OK, back at the end of the 19th century, we fought a war against Spain, over a lie, talk about irony! Anyways, we whipped thier asses, and we actually started expanding our Empire, which actually had only one overseas possession before the Spanish-American War, and that was Hawaii. So we ended gaining some more colonies from Spain's old colonies, in this case, the major ones were Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Phillipines. OK, we were able to pacify Cuba and PR pretty quickly, no problem there, they were close to our shores, and we fought the war there to begin with. However, the Phillipines were a problem for the US, see, Spain wasn't exactly a good steward of the Phillipines, and the people there rebelled against ALL Imperial powers, they didn't want to be either Spanish nor American possessions. It took the U.S. some time, but we mustered enough troops to conquer the Phillipines, the fact that we slaughtered several hundred thousand men, women, and children is but a footnote on this atrocity.

So, we occupied the Phillipines, and Cuba, and Puerto Rico, for many years after the fact, NOT because they were "trouble spots" but because we wanted to keep them as possessions. Cuba we gave independence to first, by supporting a coup leader who became dictator to rule the Island with an Iron Fist. It then became a Mafia and Gambling paradise, till some rebels overthrew that dictator. The Phillipines didn't get independence till after the end of World War 2, and again, like in Japan and Germany, we kept troops there to "contain" communism, not because its a particular trouble spot, at least to the Phillipinos.

See, this is the problem, the U.S. is the SOURCE for all this instability, if we are playing Cop, we are the type of cop that would plant drugs on people just to increase our quotas for arrests. In other words, we are a horrendiously corrupt cop who CREATES problems, not solves them. You know, if we didn't prop up Saddam's regime, or overthrew Iranian democracy, or sold weapons to the highest bidder, we WOULDN'T have these problems with terrorists or other problems that we have TODAY. For crying out loud, learn some history, or we are simply condemned to repeat it, again and again.

[BigYawn]

181. And I am so happy this "U.S. Cop" is on my side LOL

and that is just fine with me. I love whipping asses of any and
all mis-behaving entities.

[Solon]

199. Why not just nuke them?

Hell, the US can do no wrong, apparently, according to you, so lets just nuke these places, if slaughtering innocents is fine by you, why would you care about that either. :puke:

[BigYawn]

203. We already did...remember Hiroshima? Nagasaki?

Kudos to pres Truman for spanking the imperialist Japanese
of that era. Without nuking them they would never have surrendered
causing deaths & maiming of millions of Americans and Japanese.

[Critters2]

247. But they're our friends now

It worked once :nuke: :sarcasm:

[BigYawn]

258. Its really the same thing as spanking misbehaving kids...when they grow up

they usually turn out to be very good and productive adults.
The misbehaving kids who never got spanked usually turn out to be
misfits in society as adults.

[karynnj]

270. I know plenty of excellent kids

who were putinto time out or punished in some other way who are perfectly decent people. I agree that kids who are not taught to behave properly will not fit in, but there are more kids who are misfits because they were mistreated.

[Pierzin]

297. Bravo! Bravo!

Perfect!
Thank you Solon! At last someone who lays it out and defines the Imperial America.

[BanzaiBonnie]

114. Don't you mean sterilized?

If there is no one left in the city, there will be no more need for an occupation.

[Hosnon]

18. We had to keep leaving in order to fight in other areas of the country. If

the original force could have stayed, Fallujah would be under control.

[arcane1]

21. define "under control"

the people of Fallujah were resisting the presence of American troops in their city. Please explain how more troops would make them change their minds

unless you are suggesting we turn Fallujah into a parking-lot?

[Hosnon]

49. Of course we don't bomb the town out of existence. But I believe there is

a number of troops that can be on the ground - highly visible and overwhelming - that will create de facto martial law and cool things down.

[arcane1]

51. so "highly visible and overwhelming" troops number will calm things down?

:wtf:

since when does martial law make a population more friendly to the invaders?

[Hosnon]

56. We don't need to make the population "friendly" to us. We need to have

them realize who is in control.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hosnon]

73. I do not. I support stabilization of the country and then we LEAVE.

And I've been around for long enough to easily brush off the neocon underground remark.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[peacebird]

43. If it had been done correctly in the first months after shock'n'awe then

*maybe* more troops could have made a difference.

But now - after Fallujah, Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, far too many "collateral" casualties and the complete clusterf*ck of "reconstruction" - now there is NO WAY yhay American boots on the ground can fix the mess we have made of Messopotamia. Period.

All our high moral ground has sunk into the muck and mire of massacre after massacre. That wasn't a wedding party - it was insurgents! They were insurgents (even the 6 month old?) We followed the rules of engagement. We ALWAYS followed the rules of engagement - even when we stuffed a man head first in a sleeping bag and sat on his chest while beating him. His death was accidental - a heart attack.

We cannot make a difference through FORCE at this point. We must leave. The Iraqi people have been a civilized nation far longer than we - hell - we aren't even potty trained next to them.

Staying - even increasing forces and staying - will not fix this problem. Out very presence outrages the citizenry at this point. Our lack of cultural sensitivity has trebled the difficulties we faced, and NONE OF THIS IS A SUPRISE. Our troops should have been given education on the basic rules of polite society in Iraq - for one - DON'T PAT DOWN SEARCH A WOMAN. Don't put a mans face in the dirt with your boot on his head in front of his family while you search his house. Minor little things...

We have done SO MUCH the wrong way that there is no way we can fix the problem now. Not if you put 10 troops per civilian. Hell - not if you made the ratio one to one.

We are an occupying force, and no one wants to live in an occupied country.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

6. yea. the escalation theory worked great in Vietnam too

:shrug:

[MercutioATC]

8. I'm not flaming, just disagreeing.

We've given Iraq ample opportunity to grab the reins. They've elected not to.

I advocate giving them a six months to get their shit together. After that, we start an organized withdrawl.

Have you realized that it only takes us three or four months to take off-the-street civilians and train them to fight a war? Why has it taken Iraq over three YEARS to accomplish less than we do in three MONTHS?

[arcane1]

12. because that is not what they are doing

the "plan" all along was to make Iraq a colony, basically. All this talk about the Iraqi's 'standing up' is phony bogus horse-shit.

[MercutioATC]

19. Kinda my point...

;)

[arcane1]

29. exactly :)

[niyad]

17. we shouldn't have had to train them-- there already WAS an army there--so

what happened to all of THEM??

[arcane1]

23. this "training" "security" talk is ALL BULLSHIT

with NO basis in reality

this whole thread is basically taking propaganda at face value

[MADem]

45. Per BushCo, they were ideologically "impure"

So now, instead of using that army, which was reasonably ready and well trained (all those years of fighting Iran were 'real-time' training), though indifferently equipped, we're starting from scratch. What they should have done is co-opted the generals with generous rewards and perks so they would get with the program (the shit really does roll downhill in most ME armies--it's like a fiefdom), raised the enlisted pay (which was abysmal) and procured loyalty with the almighty dinar and a bit of nationalistic speechifying and happy flag waving. All politics is local, after all.

Instead, Monkeyboy threw the baby out with the bathwater, and has started all over again with people who don't have a damn clue.

[Critters2]

248. We--that is, Rummy--disbanded their army

for "security reasons".

My beagle is better qualified to be Defense Secretary.

[guidod]

188. In the 60's it was 6 weeks of boot camp

and off you went to Nam.

[Nite Owl]

13. Our being there IS

the problem. Things will not get better until we leave. Right now our troops are in the middle of an escalating civil war and are making matters worse not better. This is what the Iraqi's themselves want and believe to be true.

[napi21]

14. I disagree with you.

it's THEIR Country now! We have xxx number of troops there to help them, teach them how to fight their own battles, and run their Copuntry themselves. We will do whatever training that's necessary, but we will be reducing our troops by 10% each month for the next 10 months, so they sure better get their act together, because in 10 months we'll be GONE!

[Hosnon]

20. Even if our pulling out would result in a worse situation than exists now?

[arcane1]

27. how could it?

one thing Iraqi's agree on: they want us out


OUT


they've been civilized since back when Europeans were still learning how to throw rocks at each other, they are not some half-witted race of people that needs to be baby-sat

[Hosnon]

238. Sorry for such a late reply...I seem to have consistently overlooked this

post.

The situation could be much worse. For all we know, the limited troop presence in Iraq is the only thing keeping Iran from invading and the whole country from devolving into chaos.

And yes, the Middle East has been civilized longer the Europe...however, in my mind, that is due to the migration of the species. Both cultures are highly civilized...one may be more so than the other but, in my opinion, it would be only a slight edge.

[napi21]

39. It wouldn't! Think about what's going on now.

If someone is going to fight your battles for you, and litterally DIE for you, why would YOU want to risk your own neck?

Have you heard about the "trained" soldiers & police who just decide to stop going to work? It's hard and it's risky, and they just quit!

It's similar to booting your kids out after they graduated from college. They're trained, and it's time for them to make it on their own. Sure, they'll make some mistakes, but they'll also learn from them, and be better people after the experience.

[MADem]

31. We won't be gone--we're building one of the biggest 'nations within

a nation' that the world has ever seen over there.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040323-enduring-bases.htm
http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/bases.htm
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/224055_iraqbases.html

We won't be patrolling the streets if we can get the Iraqi proxies to do that for us, but we'll be hunkered down behind the wire, all the better to watch over "our" oil....

[niyad]

62. it WAS their country before that poseur in the oval office decided to get

his rocks off invading a country for its oil. the american military is an army of occupation, pure and simple, and we need to stop occupying immediately.

[atreides1]

15. ?????

"We need to increase the amount of troops in Iraq so we can stabilize the country and get out."

Where do you propose to get these extra bodies to stabalize Iraq?


"I read an article that recommended 1 troop per 100 citizens in order to stabilize a country"

Do you have a link to this article?


"I didn't support going in but I also don't support abandoning the country...that will make the situation worse for the U.S., the region, and the world"

Explain how the situation will be worse?

One last question, will you be one of the extra troops they send? Or are you unable to perform military service?

[Hosnon]

28. Well I am a supporter of mandatory civil service.

I'm 24 and would gladly suit up if everyone else had to do the same or something similar.

I doubt I'm going to be able to find the article...it was a hard copy floating around my law school. However, I believe the point is valid.

The situation will be worse because we will have taken a stable country (under a despot) and turned it upside down and handed it over to warring factions and terrorist groups.

[arcane1]

32. we've handed it over to ourselves

these "warring factions and terrorist groups" are IRAQIs who want the INVADERS out of their country

what Bush says on tv is not reality.

[MADem]

35. Ah, so you'll sit it out UNTIL there's a draft!!!

Way to support your argument, young one. Not putting your money where your mouth is sort of makes your sincerity a bit questionable, to put it kindly.

[Hosnon]

52. It definitely does not hurt my argument and I think it supports it. I

think that all citizens should have to provide service to the country. However, until the burden is shared by ALL, there is no reason for me to voluntary join the service.

My point is to eliminate the deification of the military and personalize the military for everyone. This will cut down on the abuse of the military.

I'm sure as hell not going to join up for this fight, as is. However, change it a bit, as I suggested, and I have no problem with going.

[arcane1]

53. you'll have 'no problem going' if it's MANDATORY

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Hosnon]

57. Oh come now...even if mandatory, as was the case with Vietnam, there

were men and women who had a problem with going and who didn't have a problem with going.

[arcane1]

64. still, one would think with your support of more troops, more killing

that you'd put your money where your mouth is

[Hosnon]

76. I don't just support more troops...I support much more troops. And the

addition of one more would do very little.

[arcane1]

79. let me guess, you have "other priorities"

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

what you are supporting is more DEAD troops, which is why you don't want to be one of them

[Hosnon]

82. Do you not understand what I am saying or are you actively choosing to

ignore it?

[arcane1]

96. I understand, that's why I'm laughing

and also laughing because you've taken a side that has zero basis in reality.

[Hosnon]

106. It is not my fault that the idea is unrealistic. It shouldn't be and I'm

not so sure it is. We need to elect people that will do what is needed.

And again, if the appropriate force was assembled to do the job, I would gladly be a part of it.

[arcane1]

117. "the job" is to own Iraq, and enrich U.S. corporations w/its wealth

do you support that job? Agree with it?

[Hosnon]

137. I do not support that job or agree with it. nt

[MADem]

84. Get a few pals to sign up with you, then

Hell, son, you could be a one-man recruiting team!!

[Hosnon]

89. If I could recruit about 100,000 then I might consider it. nt

[MADem]

93. I think you need to get off the soapbox, and have a look into your heart

You're spouting absolute nonsense, creating impossible scenarios, you're advocating that "some other dudes" should do your work for you, and you expect to be taken seriously. I find that quite impossible.

I think Senator Lautenberg was precisely describing you, among others, on the Senate floor back in April of 2004.

[Hosnon]

99. Where am I advocating that "some other dudes" do the work?

I don't think increased troop levels are absolute nonsense nor an impossible scenario.

[MADem]

123. Come back and talk to us when you have your ship date to boot camp, thenNT

[Hosnon]

138. The validity of an idea has little to do with the person who states it. nt

[MADem]

158. Sure, kid, sure. NT

[Hosnon]

160. I don't understand why you are having difficulty with argumentation. I

would prefer we discuss things intelligently but you refuse to go beyond passive insults.

[MADem]

164. You won't do what you want others to do. That's called hypocrisy.

It's why your "intelligent arguments" are nothing more than a crock of hooey from a "do as I say, not as I do" child.

[Hosnon]

166. You are still not paying attention. I would like to see many more troops

go. THAT is what I want others to do. And I will gladly be a part of that if the numbers are sufficient.

Where exactly is the hypocrisy?

And kindly cease with the passive aggressive remarks. It doesn't suit anybody well.

[MADem]

169. I AM paying attention. You've got a couple of choices.

You can lead, and you won't do that, you can follow, and you're unwilling to do that either, or you can just get out of the way. Third time's the charm, kid.

If anyone is passive-agressive, it's you. You have a grand plan, but you're too good to get down in the mud and get the ball rolling.

We're done here. Spout your nonsense to someone who cares what you think.

[Hosnon]

218. If you want to cease the conversation that is fine. I simply want you to

understand what I am advocating which you have trouble doing or refuse to. Perhaps we can find agreement in another thread. Good day.

Edit: And this should apparently be a reply to your post...not mine.

[Bjorn Against]

283. If everyone who advocated more troops enlisted it would be more than one..

If you really want to prove that you are serious about increasing troop levels in Iraq then you would enlist.

To say the addition of one more would do very little is an obvious dodge, because one person does make a difference, and we will never get to 260,000 if the very people advocating such a number refuse to enlist.

And please don't advocate making people like me who refuse to fight this illegal war into criminals with a mandatory service program.

[MADem]

80. Well, I did my many decades in uniform, and I have to say I remain

convinced that your assertions are "all talk, no walk." And just so you know, I wasn't drafted. I signed up on my own initiative, after careful thought, because I actually believed that it is important for citizens to serve their country if they are able.

You're waiting for the herd to move before you do, kid. And you're insisting that it be done your way or not at all. Guess what? It doesn't work like that. Even during the Vietnam era, the Quayles and Bushes escaped from danger, and there will always be loopholes for the wealthy and well-connected.

You just shot all your arguments to shit with those 'my way, or no way' caveats. You're just spouting, and not sacrificing.

Armchair warriors, who needs 'em?

[Hosnon]

91. Of course I'm waiting for the herd to move before I do. The "herd" is

necessary for a shot at success over there. And I'm not insisting that it be done my way or not at all.

You insist I shoot my arguments down...I'm either not explaining myself enough or you're not understanding...if the communication was perfect, I don't think you'd believe that.

And your last statement. That's why I support mandatory civil service. In one move we get rid of armchair warriors and take the "oomph" out of statements like the one you just posted.

[MADem]

94. But what if the herd is as fearful as you apparently seem to be?

You sit there, a keyboard commando, with all the answers. Yet you lack the courage of your so-called convictions.

When you sign up, and report back to us from the sandbox (and trust me, you'll love it over there, really :sarcasm:), then you'll have credibility. Right now, you're just mouthing off, and wanting others to do your work for you. Your arguments would go over big with the College Republican crowd, though--they've got the same shitty attitude.

[Hosnon]

100. I'm attempting to have an intelligent debate about this. In every post

of yours, you degrade me as either fearful, unrealistic or unintelligent.

Try reading the posts and responding appropriately.

We need about 100,000 more troops to stablize the country. Why is it hard for you to understand that that doesn't mean 1 more troop. Also, why is the necessary implication of that idea that I am afraid?

[MADem]

121. You are fearful. You have big ideas, but won't back them up with

muscle and blood. You won't put your life on the line or go in harm's way because of ideals you claim to have. If you think national service is important, don't wait--lead by example.

You want others to do the job, and you will only participate if "everyone" does. That's unrealistic.

You're not dumb, though--you sure know how to tell others what to do, while avoiding getting your hands dirty yourself. Your arguments are simply not credible because of this.

[Hosnon]

139. Once again, I'd prefer that you address the ideas rather than making

ad hominem attacks.

I stated what I think should be done in Iraq. Yes, it involves many more troops. The validity of this idea is not dependent upon whether I want to be one of those troops. If the numbers were to increase to a level that I think would fix the problem that we have, I wouldn't mind going. However, I'm not going over there given current conditions.

In my opinion, what is or is not a strong argument has little to do with the person who happens to vocalize it. It appears that we differ on this point.

[MADem]

159. Ad hominem, my ass

You want everyone to go "over there" and take care of business, but YOU will only go at the end of the line. Guess how much your opinion counts???

Don't try to tell others to do what you are unwilling to do yourself. Your very unwillingness suggests that you don't have the courage of your convictions. So get back to me when you have your ship date to basic.

[Hosnon]

161. I never said that I would only go at the end of the line. So long as there

IS a line going that constitutes sufficient troops to get things accomplished, I'll go anywhere along that line.

Please attempt to listen/read what I am trying to discuss before responding.

[MADem]

165. OK, then lead the way, kid. Sign up NOW. Then get back to us. NT

[Hosnon]

168. This is quite frustrating for me that you are not understanding what I am

advocating.

I would like to see:

About 100,000 additional troops in Iraq. Otherwise, the situation is unwinnable. If the President were to announce that tomorrow...I would have little problem going along.

I am NOT advocating:

More enlistments that are not coordinated. One additional troop will do very little.

[Zhade]

172. "I'm sure as hell not going to join up for this fight, as is."

So, in essence...you're a chickenhawk.

[Hosnon]

208. No, I view it as not being a "dumbass." nt

[Zhade]

251. Of course you would - who wants to think themselves a cowardly hypocrite?

NT!

[Hosnon]

255. Very true. But as with everything in life, there is more than one reason

for doing something.

Aristotle said virtue lies in the middle of two extremes. Regarding courage, deficiency is cowardness while excess is rashness.

I would consider going in the current climate an example of rashness.

[Zhade]

288. I would consider going AT ALL rashness.

Enabling illegal wars seems to me to be rash.

[Hosnon]

305. I would agree for the most part. However, enabling an illegal war may be a

lesser evil compared to what may occur if we pull out.

[Zhade]

309. Clearly, we disagree.

I'm not of the mindset that you let a burglar who has broken up your home, killed your family members and raped your mother stay to clean up the mess.

You arrest him, or, failing that, shoot him if he tries to kill you.

[Hosnon]

313. As with every analogy, it is not entirely accurate as a reference

because if it were, identity would be complete and one would be analogizing the same thing against itself.

Your analogy is a little off. It would be more accurate to suppose a family whose children want each other dead (literally) and only the brutal hand of the father is keeping the household from falling apart. The burglar kills the father...if he leaves, the children will murder each other.

Again, this analogy is not accurate either. I'm just trying to illustrate a point.

And it does seem we are in disagreement.

[atreides1]

42. I've done my time and my war

I did 13 years and served in Desert Storm, you say that you would gladly suit up if everyone else had to do the same. Why not lead the way yourself? Why does someone else have to go first? If you enlisted your argument would be a little more convincing.

As long as the warring factions and insurgent groups are fighting each other, they won't have much time to attack anyone else, will they?

By the way about that theory
• Peak troop strength in Vietnam was 543,482 (30 April 1969).

• 3,403,100 (including and additional 514,000 offshore) served in the Southeast Asia Theater which include Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, flight crews based in Thailand, and sailors in adjacent South China Sea waters.



And it didn't stop anything.

[Hosnon]

55. You misread my argument. I think everyone should perform some form

of civil service. No one should "go first." I'm not going to suit up and then see things stay the same. If the rules change and we go together...I would not have a problem.

The 1/100 idea probably does need qualification. The dense jungle of Southeast Asia would change the equation. One troop in the desert is far more visible than one troop in the jungle.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

50. Oh, see, you lost me.

There goes the credibility, right down the toilet.

[Hosnon]

58. Where did I lose you? Perhaps I can explain. nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

110. You've explained everything, thanks.

[Hosnon]

112. Really? Excellent.nt

[guidod]

173. If you're 24 years old, why don't you join up

and give them some help in Iraq? You have a lot of nerve saying we should double our forces while you sit on the sidelines. Get in your car and go sign up, if you don't sign up you should SHUT UP! :grr: :mad: :grr:

[Hosnon]

209. Kindly explain why one cannot have an opinion on the subject if one does

not join the military. This thread is full of responses to your post. I believe that about 100,000 more troops are needed in Iraq. If there is an initiative to send that amount, I'd probably join up.

[Breeze54]

233. What's stopping you???

http://www.military.com/Recruiting/Home/0,13387,,00.htm

Raise your right hand!!

The Oath of Enlistment (for enlistees):

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
So help me God."

The Oath of Office (for officers):

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance tot he same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."

:sarcasm: Oh..that's right, you're going to Law School.
But you're okay with sending MY SON's into that hell hole??
:nuke:
:grr:

[Hosnon]

236. I've been nothing but cordial to you and I would appreciate the same.

It is unnecessary to impugn my chosen profession - remember, the military is still all voluntary.

And I did not support this war. I do not support the way it is being conducted. Many more troops are needed. Yes, this will result in more loss of life but the ultimate cost, in my opinion, will be much greater if we simply pull out now.

I try not to let any emotion cloud my reasoning when I'm discussing things such as this...but do not act as though my education is worthless or not important.

[Breeze54]

249. I was cordial and you, child, are just that! A child! n/t

[Hosnon]

250. Yet I am the one whose argument has not devolved into name calling.

Feel big now or something?

[Benhurst]

22. Yeah, like we're there to help them and not just steal their oil and

build permanent military bases in our new colony.

It's time to pull out and start paying the massive reparations owed to the Iraqi people for our illegal and immoral invasion.

[rodeodance]

24. its a civil war. Let them fight it out themselves.

[Skip Intro]

25. Just wonder how many more deaths we'll pour into this quagmire

how much more blood will make it ok?

not a flame.

[BigYawn]

195. Lot less than WW II, Korea, Viet-Nam, Civil War, and even less Americans

killed so far in Iraq than on a single day on September 11, 2001.

WW war deaths = several MILLIONS
Korean war deaths = tens of thousand
Viet-Nam deaths = tens of thousands

Iraq war military deaths = 2500.

Every death is highly regrettable. I just want to put things
in perspective.

[Bjorn Against]

284. So lets just ignore the 150,00 civilians right?

This war is mass murder, and everyone who supports it is supporting mass murder. That is the truth, no matter how harsh the truth may seem.

[The_Casual_Observer]

26. Are you some kind of middle east expert, or just some guy

shooting the shit?

[Hosnon]

30. Definitely not one and hopefully not the other. Hopefully somewhere in

the middle.

[Canuckistanian]

36. What do you mean "pulling out won't fix it"?

What will "fix it"? What possible scenario where troops remain in Iraq will give a positive outcome?

You're not going to defeat anybody. The number of Iraqis wanting to kill Americans is staggering and growing every day. 80% of them are fighting for one reason - to make the Americans leave.

The incidents at Abu Ghraib, Falluja, Guantanamo and Haditha have turned the entire Arab community against the American occupation.

Nor are reconstruction efforts led by Americans going to be done competently or on schedule.

Saddam has been taken out of power. The army has been replaced. There's a constitution and an elected body of representatives. Iraq is a recognized sovereign nation.

This is an occupation. Pure and simple. And AMERICA is the problem, not insurgents.

Time to leave.

[endarkenment]

37. How many dead Iraqis will satisfy your blood lust? nt.

[Hosnon]

59. You can't be serious. nt

[gaspee]

38. Bad idea

Not a flame, I just think it's a bad idea. No matter if we completley subdue a country and the only way to do that is with a draconian policy that would crush everyone, not just the insurgents, but the minute a controling force like that left, a power vacuum is created and the fallout is much worse. Unless we install a dictator who will brutally supress the fighting.

The only way to win a war of agression and invasion is to completely crush the local populace and repopulate with your own people. And that takes hundreds of years. It just doesn't work. If it did, Easter Europe would still be in the soviet block, for the most recent example. As soon as the Soviet Union fell apart, each region blew up, one after the other.

[alvarezadams]

44. A bit of a leap in logic here

It could be argued that our mere presence is what is keeping things out of control in Iraq.

It should also be noted that Iraq is an artificial country created by the ex-colonial power, maintained as a unit by post-colonial powers... and that what the Iraqi "government" is up against is a combination of forces that ultimately are not compatible.

If we stay things will not get better. Perhaps there will be a modicum of pacification at a great cost, but do you think that the Kurds will suddenly give up their 3000-year battle for independence? The minute we're gone the Kurds will negotiate themselves right out of Iraq and the Turks (and Iranians) will be mighty displeased about it. The Shiite areas will come into even greater Iranian control and the Sunnis...

Eternal shame on the neocons (and their DLC supporters and not a few DNC congressmen that bowed to political expediency) for letting their myopic and unfocused ideology wage an unnecessary and illegal war of choice. Our credibility as a nation has been dealt a blow that will take decades to overcome - once we finally stop our hawkish neocolonial policies. IF we ever do it.

I'm afraid that we are presented with a lose-lose situation by a misadmin that painted itself blithely into a corner. To pour in more blood and treasure is not an option IMO.

[Imperialism Inc.]

54. Hello President Johnson. Nice to meet you.

Will you be seeking or accepting the nomination of your party for another term as our President?

[LSK]

60. i disagree 100%

Our troops are there to protect contractors who are making wads of money off us taxpayers. Our troops are not there to stabilize but to only continue the chaos.

War = Profit, got it??

Please go watch F9/11 again and when your done, watch it 3 more times. Obviously you havnt figured out what this war is all about.

[rocktivity]

61. Bush WAS TOLD he'd need at least 200K troops to get the job done

so I think the 1:100 ratio is legit. He got rid of the person who said so because he didn't have the moral courage to institute a draft. And he won't institute one now simply because it would make him lose face.

There is no way things can begin to improve in Iraq as long as Bush stays--which is okay with him because the longer this takes, the more money he and his backers make. Aside from that, the only way to keep Iraq "stable" as defined by the madness of King George is to have 250K US troops there forever.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Hosnon]

67. I know...that is why Bush and friends need to go...they are amazingly

incompetent.

And I don't think that 250K would have to stay forever. I think it would stabilize the country to the point where a unified government could come into power and gain legitimacy.

[arcane1]

70. you've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker

"legitamacy" was NEVER THE GOAL

[rocktivity]

87. Seeing as there are least 400,000 ex-Iraqi troops running around

I think the first thing would happen after Bush pulled out of a "stable" Iraq is a junta--led by another Saddam.

:headbang:
rocknation

[MADem]

97. The person was Rick Shinseki, and I think his number was higher than that

I remember a figure that started with a MINIMUM of 350K.

Rick was right.

[Hosnon]

108. I agree...now why are you giving me such a rough time? nt

[MADem]

122. Rick made those statements to Congress BEFORE the war.

That was what was needed to do the job right at the OUTSET, before an opposition had been formulated and put into place.

Now, all the king's horses and men can't put Iraq back together. There's a civil war going on there, facilitated by Monkey's "On the Cheap" warplanning. We're sitting ducks. It will only get worse if we pile on; we need to get the fuck out of there and let them sort it out.

[Breeze54]

226. No draft?? Are you daft?? What do you call this??

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-01-05-army-troops_x.htm
Army expanding 'stop loss' order to keep soldiers from leaving
By Tom Squitieri, USA TODAY
Updated 1/6/2004 12:39 AM

WASHINGTON —

The Army will announce as early as Tuesday new orders that will forbid thousands of soldiers
from leaving the service after they return this year from Iraq, Afghanistan and other fronts
in the war against terrorism, defense officials said Monday.

The "stop loss" orders mean personnel who could otherwise leave the military when their
volunteer commitments expire will be forced to remain to the end of their overseas deployments
and up to another 90 days after they come home.
"Stop movement" orders also bar soldiers from moving to new assignments during the restricted period.
The orders do not extend any unit's stay overseas. <<<--- WHAT A JOKE THAT IS!! :rofl:

:wtf:

No but they just send them back two and three times!!! :grr:
No "official" draft but what do you call it?
:shrug:
Those orders are still in place!
:grr:

[Redstone]

66. Oh, sure, let's STAY THE COURSE! Let's FINISH THE JOB!

So tell me, what's the course, and what's the job?

Redstone

[Daylin Byak]

72. Well...

I said it once and I will say it again....I HATE SENATE DEMOCRATS, nothing but DLC lovi'n hacks, except the 6 that voted it(that includes feingold, kerry and harkin) they are patriots like Feingold.

What are you sacred of, huh? the voters?, Sean Hannity?, fox news? if you listen to the voters they would tell you that they want outof iraq, they want a timetable for withdrawal, they hate bush. Instead of listening of your DLC advisers like Paul Begala why not listen to the voters, your electorate and what they want cause there the ones that keep you in office, not paul begala.

[Hosnon]

78. I never said stay the course. Staying the course is just as bad as pulling

out.

The course needs to be changed - I just favor a different change than a lot of other people.

[LSK]

81. which is more troops to protect contractors??

[Stinky The Clown]

77. Two and a half years ago, when this folly started, I thought we needed

more troops.

Two years ago, I thought we needed to send in more troops, fix what we broke, and leave.

One and a half years ago, I felt we needed to get the fuck out.

I still pretty much feel that way.

Our presence didn't *have* to be a problem, but the way things have been done to date, we are ****absolutely**** a big part of the problem.

But this is far from a black and white, stay or leave issue. This is about a whole country. This is about our foreign policy as defined by our current cabal here in the US of A. This is about our less than stealth stealing of Iraq's natural resources. This is about our monumentally failed foreign policy outside of Iraq.

In short, as long as we have the cabal in power here, we can do NO good over there.

My whole view may well have evolved differently if we had honest leadership who were dealing more altruistically with Iraq. But the reality is ... we don't.

And then there's the whole ***very*** complicated history of the ethnic divisions in Iraq. There is a fundamental cultural divide that no amount of wishing is going to make go away. Saddam kept them 'together' through brutality. We're essentially doing the same thing.

No ...... we can accomplish nothing by staying. We need to leave and pay reparations to whatever country or countries come out of the shitstorm that will hit the day after out last helicopter leaves the Green Zone.

But I'll add this ...... if this were 2008, and it appeared we were about to take back the white house, and if our nominee were worthy of my trust and if our nominee had the foreign policy skills and creds ...... my view might yet again change. But this isn't the case and wishing won't make it so.

[lastknowngood]

83. How many American lives and how much money we don't have

are you willing to give to save the shrub's ego? It took 58,000 American lives and 1trillion dollars before we left Nam, is that the plan?

[Jed Dilligan]

85. More troops will just mean more deaths

They're hitting us wherever we present a front, and some of our guys hit back by randomly assaulting the population.

So you're for a bigger front and more guys to go off like that?

A quarter-million troops in that sandbox means we would be racking up 500 casualties every 6 weeks instead of every six months.

[ElboRuum]

86. A nation divided against itself can never stand...

And if Iraq isn't one of these, I don't know what would otherwise qualify. Iraq will implode. It cannot help but do so because its own people are sufficiently factionalized along traditional lines that they should never have been brought together in the first place. It can do so now. It can do so later. But it will do so. The Balkan states did it. And now Iraq will do it. Why? Because the country does not exist organically, it was fabricated politically.

[KurtNYC]

90. So sign up and get over there!

Quick. Here is a link to the papers to sign up. Sign up "100%"

If that is really the way you feel then make yourself part of the "we"; part of the 260K.

Take your pick:
Army: http://www.goarmy.com/contact/find_a_recruiter.jsp
Marines: http://www.marines.com/page/usmc.jsp?flashRedirect=true
Air Force: http://www.airforce.com/

[Hosnon]

92. This is being discussed above. I support the addition of about 100,000

troops. One more won't do much good. Find 99,999 friends to go with me and I might be up for it.

[arcane1]

98. LMAO

how old are you really? :rofl:

[Hosnon]

101. Why don't you look at my posts as opposed to your posts and ask yourself

that same question (mentally, not biologically)?

[arcane1]

118. your posts are empty talking points and catch phrases

"get the job done" etc. All fluff. We may as well be debating a Star Trek episode

[Hosnon]

140. Let me know what you would like me to elaborate on and I'll be happy to

do so.

[KurtNYC]

109. It is not as if every soldier we have is in Iraq

We have that extra 100K troops but they are deployed elsewhere. You could stabilize 100 Iraqis (according to your formula). And you said that was worth it so here is the phone number to call: 1-800-MARINES

You "might be up for it"? What happened to 100% support?

Aren't you really saying that you support the idea that other people's fathers, brothers, sisters, husbands, etc. put THEIR lives on the line but you won't? Eg: "it is a cause worth dying for as long as it isn't you who is dying"

[Hosnon]

111. Come now...stabilizing 100 Iraqis will not stabilize the country. And I

qualified with "might" because it is simply smart to allow yourself some wiggle room in case of extreme circumstances that someone can come up with to pin you down. In other words, I'd be up for it in 99% of circumstances.

I have no problem going over there...so long as there are enough troops to make the mission winnable. I'm definitely not going over there now if nothing changes.

[TheFarseer]

95. Why don't we debate this into a real solution?

Why do we keep debating, "Should we sit on the porch all day, or should we go get gang raped by the Japanese mafia?" False choices are killing the USA. You can do so many other things besides sitting on the porch and getting gang raped, just like there are a million things we can do besides stay in Iraq losing 60 guys a month indefinitely and pulling out now. The gulf for ideas is so wide but they don't want to focus on anything that might be useful to the debate. They just want to point out that it would be a disaster to pull out immediately, when most democrats are just calling for a real shift in tactics and a formulation of a strategy.

[Hosnon]

103. Thank you. I am trying to discuss one of the other options. As I see it,

the Democrat solution is just as bad as the Republican solution.

[Name removed]

120. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[niyad]

128. hmmm, pierce bush under a nom de plume?

[Hosnon]

142. You got me.

:sarcasm:

[Hosnon]

141. I never said I was a Democrat. I'm a liberal. I tend to lean Democrat and

that is where my presumption lies. I voted for Nader in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. This line isn't going to work.

[Name removed]

186. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hosnon]

210. Now how could you possibly make that assessment with any amount

of credibility. Basing that off of one thread? Come now...one reason I am proud to be more liberal is the tendency we have to be a bit more intellectually deep than that.

[guidod]

219. If you'll look at my original post #173,

which you chose not to answer, you would see what I'm talking about. You're 24 years old and you talk about doubling the troops in Iraq yet you won't go and enlist yourself. You should either put up, sign up or shut up. If you're serious about doubling the troops what is stopping you from joining, other than being a chicken hawk? Please give me an honest answer.

[Hosnon]

221. I did respond. Please understand that I have quite a few things going on

this thread and I respond as quick as I can.

What is stopping me from joining? The situation is only winnable, in my opinion, if there is a significant increase in the number of troops (100,000). One more troop will not do the trick. If the Congress were to act and draft/enlist 99,999 more troops and were committed to "solving" this problem, I'd probably be that additional troop.

[guidod]

229. Sorry, you're right you did respond,

I missed it. You weren't around during the Vietnam war, but what you're suggesting is exactly what Lyndon Johnson did. Here's a link, scroll down and read the last paragraph on the opening page. Then let me know if history isn't repeating itself.

http://www.americanpresident.org/history/lyndonbjohnson/

If you're a young 24 year old and advocate doubling the troops in a war, you should enlist so the words you speak wouldn't be so hollow.

[Hosnon]

239. Major military experts also advocated higher troop levels before

the war began.

The issue of my personal enlistment has been/is being discussed in detail throughout the thread. I have serious doubts, however, that the idea I am advocating would get much more acceptance were I of the military.

[guidod]

240. Yeah they did, but like

you said in your opening thread we should have never gone into Iraq in the first place. Fighting in Iraq is just like fightiing in Vietnam, when you fight in their playgrround they have a huge advantage.

Being a US Navy veteran from 1966 to 1972, believe me when I say your stance on the war and on adding more troops would get a lot more acceptance if you were, or had been, in the military. You know you should walk the walk before you talk the talk.

[Hosnon]

254. Well if someone is going to make a mistake (Iraq), I'd prefer if s/he at

least effectively makes the mistake.

Perhaps it would get more traction. I am not a fan of that type of argument though.

I don't have to be a woman to have an intelligent opinion about abortion;

I don't have to know someone who was murdered to desire its abolition;

I don't have to be African-American to want an end to slavery;

etc...

I don't have to have been/be in the military to form a coherent, effective, and accurate thought about when war is or isn't necessary.

Of course, being any of the above may be necessary to be an expert in the area but I have never claimed that.

[guidod]

271. I am a fan of that type of argument...

You're 24 years old and sound very intelligent, but come across as a very smug know it all. You know nothing of what a woman goes through when she has to deal with abortion. You do have to be African-American to understand the pain they've had to endure. And yes you have to have been/be in the military to understand the life of a soldier.

Otherwise all of your ideas are empty. At the YOUNG age of 24, I don't care how intelligent you are, you have to have experience. You come across as someone who has none. Peace

[Hosnon]

272. I apologize if I come across that way.

I know I know nothing of what a woman goes through when she has to deal with an abortion. I never made such a claim. I simply said that I don't have to be a woman to entertain an intelligent opinion.

I believe ideas can exist independently of those that hold them.

And I get that I'm young...been told that about 300 times in this thread.

Are you saying that only old military men CAN (didn't say should) form accurate ideas about war? If so, having lunch with my granddad on Monday - served in WWII and is a big Republican. I'll run it by him and then get back to you.

[guidod]

274. I will post to this but

I have to go somewhere right now.

[guidod]

286. Finally! I got a decent response out of you!

Did I say that only old military men can form accurate ideas about war? What I'm saying, and you're evidently choosing not to hear, is how can YOU form an opinion about something without ever experiencing it youself. How can you form the opinion that we ought to double the size of our military presence without thinking "is this the best way we can treat our troops?" You seem so ready to send men off to die to prove that your logic is correct without even considering how their deaths would effect hundreds of thousands of people, like their Uncles, Aunts Sisters, Brothers, Moms and Dads. When you talk you don't have any feelings in your words. If the President said on Monday he is going to send 99,999 more troops into Iraq would you REALLY go and enlist on Tuesday?

You never answered my question about this war looking exactly like the Vietnam war as it was explained in the last paragraph of that link I sent you. :think: :think:

[Hosnon]

307. No you didn't (say that that is - hopefully you did get a decent response

out of me). It seemed to me to be the implication of what you were saying.

The communication problem does not have to be because I am choosing not to hear. Perhaps I am not fully understanding. However, you've framed the question quite clearly so hopefully my response will be adequate.

How can I form an opinion about something without ever experiencing it? I do not think that personal experience of X is a necessary requirement of merely forming an opinion about X. I've never experienced a bullet to the chest yet I'm quite sure that I would prefer it not to happen. There are many ways in which we develop opinions. Every human being must not "reinvent the wheel." This is my opinion about how many troops it would take to stabilize the country. If you want to replace them with humanoid robots in order to dehumanize the idea, that may help. My thinking is, how many of X things are needed to solve problem Y. Of course, that is merely the beginning of the analysis. The humanity of the situation must play a large role in the final decision. And to that end, I believe that the overall human toll could very well be much higher if we pull straight out.

This does not mean that my opinion is expert or worth anything for that matter. However, I believe it is and part of the function of DU, in my opinion, is to air ideas and see how developed they are and how they can be improved upon.

And I would never want to send anyone to his/her death to prove logic correct/incorrect.

And yes, if Bush made a call for 100,000 individuals to enlist to be sent to Iraq with the intention of doing what is necessary to stabilize the country, I would most likely enlist (as mentioned earlier, I qualify that statement to prevent extreme counter-examples from being used against me, "most likely" can be understood as roughly 99%).

As to Vietnam and this war...What link are you referring to? I apologize but I've been off the board for about a day and it is difficult to keep track of everything on this thread.

[guidod]

310. O.K. I'll take you for your word.

If Bush increased troop level to 100,000 your inner feeling, your conscience, would almost force you to enlist, and we here at DU would be all over your ass to make sure you do. You can see by all the posts to your OP how passionate people here are about the war in Iraq.

If we left Iraq now, you're right, more people would die. They would die because they're in the start of a civil war and we have to make sure we're not right in the middle of it. They have to find themselves on their own, and we have to stay out of there way. I didn't see anyone come into our country during our civil war and try to tell us how to fight it. That's something they have to do on their own.

You've had to answer so many posts on this I'm sure you didn't see the link I sent to you about the Vietnam war and the Iraq war being so similar. Scroll down on the page that opens and read the last paragraph and, if you have time, let me know what similarities you see. To me lightning is striking twice.

http://www.americanpresident.org/history/lyndonbjohnson/

[Bjorn Against]

285. He even said he would consider voting for a Republican President

Check out post 206

"206. Of course. The labels, "Democrat" and "Republican" will not act as
blinders for how I vote. I will vote party when it is absolutely necessary - which mainly pertains to congressional elections. But as far as the presidency goes...I tend to look mostly at the individual."

[niyad]

102. you favour mandatory service for all, which is called slavery in some

circles, and is complete BS. Even if I were of an age, there is no way I would agree to serve a country whose thugs-in-charge are doing such deadly, horrific things. and I wouldn't be sliding around saying, "well, I'll do it if everyone else has to do it" CRAP--if you believe in it, volunteer. otherwise, you are, in texas parlance, "all hat, no cattle", just like chimperor.

quite apart from the devastation the various governments of the US(legally elected or otherwise) have caused, I will give you one very cogent reason for not sending in more troops, one that hasn't even been mentioned here. I am sick to death, and sick at heart, at having to deal with the devastation of our service members and their families--the ones coming back with PTSD and/or horrific injuries, the ones coming back with dead souls, the ones whose exposure to DU is going to cause them (and their offspring) lifetimes of misery-- the ones who are going to kill themselves, or their families, or complete strangers when they finally crack. the families of the ones who didn't come back, and who won;t be coming back, thanks to the sort of thinking you are espousing. YOU aren't the one dealing with these people, I AM--and thousands like me, and quite frankly, after 30 years, I am TIRED. I don't want to HAVE to do this anymore, but I will keep on, because we have to.

so for you to sit comfortably sit there and suggest that my, and others' jobs, get even harder, is absolutely appalling. I suugest, before you spout any more of this CRAP--that you spend time volunteering at a VA hospital, and see exactly what it is that you are proposing. until then, I politely suggest that you STFU, and go enlist right now. One of us will probably end up seeing you then.

[Hosnon]

104. Unncessary nastiness...I am not in favor of mandatory military service. I

am in support of mandatory civil service. Some period of time where each adult either serves in the military or volunteers at a charity/hospital.

I'll gladly discuss anything with you...however, please leave out the "STFUs" etc.

[niyad]

115. I didn't say anything about mandatory military service, I was referring to

mandatory service, PERIOD. I won't give one iota of my efforts to support a government with which I do not agree, EVER.



by the way, you didn't bother to address my points, and don't bother saying it was because of the "stfu"

also by the way, as others on this board can testify, I haven't even started to get nasty, much less unnecessarily. I have an extreme dislike for people creating more work for me, and others like me, without giving a thought to the consequences. so kindly address the issue of who is going to do the work and who is going to pay for all the broken bodies and souls and families that are going to be the direct result of your proposals.

[Hosnon]

143. The best way I can respond to that is by saying that it is amazing to me

that you would put your dislike of "more work" above the greater good. If doing A is more important than not doing A but doing A creates more work for everyone involved, should we simply not do A?

There is the distinct possibility that we would simply be pushing a certain amount of more work off of you while pushing significantly more work on someone else somewhere else in the world. I protested the start of this thing but we are there. And I think that pulling out will have a worse result in the long run than increasing the number of troops. Who will do all the work? I assume those that are doing it now.

As to not giving one iota of your effort to a government with which you do not agree...do you disagree with the entire government? Is there nothing beneficial it is doing?

And yes, "stfu" and things of that nature tend to make me less inclined to take time to respond fully.

[Zhade]

174. Where the FUCK is the "greater good" in KILLING MORE PEOPLE?

You seem to live in this fantasy armchair warrior world wherein "send more troops" somehow DOESN'T equate to:

more dead soldiers

more dead Iraqis

more destruction of Iraqi infrastructure

more torture

more secret detentions

and more of all of the horrible things involved in this fucking illegal war.

What part of "Iraqis want us out, yesterday" don't you understand?

[Hosnon]

212. I don't believe that more troops would not equate to most or all of the

things on your list. I understand that the Iraqis want us out. But just as the founders understood that the will of the people is not infallible, I believe that they want us out to satisfy short term goals.

[Zhade]

252. It's not up to YOU to determine what's best for THEM.

It's THEIR fucking country. As such, THEY decide. Anything less is just imperialistic White Man's Burden rationalization.

[Hosnon]

257. Well, we took on a heavy responsibility by invading the country.

Anything less is...? That is a bold statement. Perhaps it is a desire to clean up a mess in the most appropriate way.

[Zhade]

287. Then I vociferously disagree with your definition of "clean up".

NT!

[Breeze54]

244. Maybe you don't know what 'war' really looks like?

Photographs of Captured and Dead American Soldiers
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2635.htm
Take a gander!!!! :grr:





Collage from images of dead American Soldiers
April 4, 2004 - Artist is presently unknown




Maybe you should try your argument wih all the families of the above? :shrug:

I dare you to go read this!
http://www.thewe.cc/contents/more/archive2005/december/war_2005_december_images_1.html

Music Video Features "Eyes Wide Open" Boots
AFSC’s Eyes Wide Open exhibit is featured in the blues musician Robert Cray’s new music video.
The song, “Twenty,” from Cray’s Grammy-nominated album of the same name,
commemorates the soldiers whose lives are “used up” by the Iraq war.
http://www.afsc.org/eyes/

Song: "Empty Boots"
After seeing the exhibit in Greensboro, singer/songwriter Carl Laurent went home,
and couldn't sleep. Within 24 hours, he had written this song:
> Listen / download (mp3 file, 4 MB)
http://www.afsc.org/eyes/locations/Empty-Boots-song.mp3


Eight hundred fifty-six pairs of boots filled the lawn in front of the new Visitor Center,
across from Independence Hall. Crowds of tourists stumbled upon the Eyes Wide Open exhibit
in Philadelphia on Fourth of July weekend.

I'm pretty sure they'll need a lot more space for the exhibit now....


Quiet, neatly-spaced rows of empty boots — 1,545 pairs of them —
stretched across the floor of the Fisher Pavilion for two days,
when Eyes Wide Open visited Seattle.

http://icasualties.org/oif/
U.S. Deaths Confirmed By The DoD: 2498
Reported U.S. Deaths Pending DoD Confirmation: 3
Total --- 2501
DoD Confirmation List
Latest Coalition Fatality: Jun 16, 2006
TOTAL US Military Fatalities as of 06/17/2006 -- 2501

http://icasualties.org/oif/prdDetails.aspx?hndRef=6-2006
Fatalities
16-Jun-2006 1 | US: 1 | UK: 0 | Other: 0
US - NAME NOT RELEASED YET - Yusufiyah - Babil- Not reported yet
15-Jun-2006 2 | US: 2 | UK: 0 | Other: 0
US - DETAILS NOT RELEASED YET (Actual Date Not Known)- Place:Not reported yet - Cause:Not reported yet
US - DETAILS NOT RELEASED YET (Actual Date Not Known)- Place:Not reported yet - Cause:Not reported yet

And you have the nerve to say we should escalate this?? :grr:

[Pierzin]

298. Breeze54, we need more people like you

that's really great to post links to articles like that. Now if only the MSM would run TV shows that covered the war like that 24/7 like when it got started, maybe just maybe we would have more protests in the streets.
But that would be too much like right, wouldn't it? I just thank God no one in my family is over there, many were military and one still is. Bush and co are really screwing them over bad, and every vet out there should be totally pissed off.

[niyad]

127. STILL WAITING for you to explain why you think it is okay to make the jobs

of those who must try to put broken bodies, hearts and souls back together, that much harder. I repeat, before you spout any more of this crap, go volunteer at a VA hospital. you are all for mandatory service--let's start with YOU. Until you have some realistic notion of the end result of your idea, rather than whatever fanciful notion you currently have, I suggest, politely, that you don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about.

enlistment time, I think.

[Hosnon]

144. Patience, friend...I can't spend my entire life on the Internet. nt.

[leveymg]

105. Tell me something: does the nationality of the troops make a difference?

Iraq is divided by demographics into three parts, a Kurdish north, a Sunni center, and a Shi'a south.

Would it bother you if Turkey dropped out of NATO, and the Russians/Chinese armed the Kurds against a Turkish attack? What if the Egyptians, Syrians and Saudis took over security in the Sunni center, and Iran moved troops in to stabilize the Shi'a south?

Three well-defined, well-armed, autonomous states tied to other regional powers? Would that be acceptable to you? Because, from the day that Saddam Hussein's statue was toppled, that was what Pentagon and CIA planners said was going to be the outcome.

Hope you like the new Iraq that Shrub has given the world.

[Hosnon]

107. I don't like the new Iraq that is developing. That is why I think we need

to increase the number of troops to a level that is capable of stabilizing the country until a legitimate government can rule effectively...then we leave.

[leveymg]

113. Then we'll be fighting a proxy war in Iraq with all those other countries

for a very long time. There will never be a single "legitimate gov't" in Iraq, and never has been. Iraq is nothing more than lines drawn on a map 90 years ago in the British Foreign Office. The point of that exercise was to maintain the British Empire's control of central southern Asia by dividing up the natural groupings of people who lived within the Mesopotamian region of the former Ottoman Empire.

It isn't our responsibility to maintain those artificial lines, and it's not in our interest to continue trying. Let the British restore the status quo ante. It's a game we can't win playing by the colonial rules they set.

A fresh start, please.

[rocktivity]

151. DING DING DING! Leveymg, you're our grand prize winner!

Iraq is divided by demographics into three parts, a Kurdish north, a Sunni center, and a Shi'a south...

Would...(t)hree well-defined, well-armed, autonomous states tied to other regional powers...be acceptable to you? Because, from the day that Saddam Hussein's statue was toppled, that was what Pentagon and CIA planners said was going to be the outcome.

I wish the DU archives went back to early 2003, because from the day that Bush first started talking about toppling Sadda,, that was what a lot of people right here on DU said would be the outcome!

:headbang:
rocknation

[liberalpragmatist]

116. I Agreed with You in the Past, Not Anymore

Firstly, where are you going to get the troops? They simply aren't there. Our troops are overstretched - near breaking point. Afghanistan is falling apart. We're completely unable to take any kind of action in Darfur and we're more vulnerable to attack.

I agree that we had a responsibility to the Iraqi people to put their country back together having taken out their government. But foreign policy often comes down to picking the least bad option and I fear that's what we have to do at this point. Iraq is extremely chaotic and we're in the midst of a mid-level civil war. 72% of US troops in Iraq want us to leave by the end of the year. The majority of the US public feels the same way. The majority of the Iraqi people think the same as well. In an ideal world, we'd stay for some years and stabilize the country and its government and protect democratic rights. Unfortunately, what we'd like best isn't necessarily what we can realistically achieve.

Will Iraq fall apart if we withdraw? Quite possibly, and that would be tragic. But there's little reason to believe that our presence is changing this reality or preventing this from happening anyway. And there's at least a small possibility that a withdrawal could ultimately make things better by forcing the Iraqi government to become stronger and removing a major source of grievance for many Iraqis.

Now, I agree that a precipitous withdrawal is probably a mistake. A government - however imperfect - has been selected. Zarqawi has been killed. Violence has ebbed *SLIGHTLY*. IF things clearly continue to improve then we could probably manage to withdraw some troops but maintain a presence as an insurance policy for the Iraqi government. However, if the situation continues to deteriorate or there is no change, we're going to have to cut our losses and get out.

We can, as Kerry has suggested, maintain a presence in the Gulf in order to intervene with a rapid reaction force should the country start to fracture or should it become a major source of instability, and we can pledge that we will not recognize any breakaway state in Iraq or support an Iraqi government that reneges on its commitments to protect Iraqi religious and ethnic minorities. We can also promise to be part of a multinational peacekeeping force should the Iraqi government request one.

But the large-scale presence of American troops is not tenable in the long-term, nor are there more troops to send.

[IndianaGreen]

119. Obviously you are not a veteran

and even more obviously, Kerry's famous 1973 line about asking a man to be the last man to die for a mistake, did not register in that brain of yours.

I heard the same crap you are now spewing from a cowardly crop of politicians who were unable to end the carnage in Vietnam.

How Do You Ask a Man to Be the Last Man to Die in Vietnam?

By John Kerry

We watched the United States falsification of body counts, in fact the glorification of body counts. We listened while month after month we were told the back of the enemy was about to break. We fought using weapons against "oriental human beings." We fought using weapons against those people which I do not believe this country would dream of using were we fighting in the European theater. We watched while men charged up hills because a general said that hill has to be taken, and after losing one platoon or two platoons they marched away to leave the hill for reoccupation by the North Vietnamese. We watched pride allow the most unimportant battles to be blown into extravaganzas, because we couldn't lose, and we couldn't retreat, and because it didn't matter how many American bodies were lost to prove that point, and so there were Hamburger Hills and Khe Sanhs and Hill 81s and Fire Base 6s, and so many others.

Now we are told that the men who fought there must watch quietly while American lives are lost so that we can exercise the incredible arrogance of Vietnamizing the Vietnamese.

Each day to facilitate the process by which the United States washes her hands of Vietnam someone has to give up his life so that the United States doesn't have to admit something that the entire world already knows, so that we can't say that we have made a mistake. Someone has to die so that President Nixon won't be, and these are his words, "the first President to lose a war."

We are asking Americans to think about that because how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?....We are here in Washington to say that the problem of this war is not just a question of war and diplomacy. It is part and parcel of everything that we are trying as human beings to communicate to people in this country - the question of racism which is rampant in the military, and so many other questions such as the use of weapons; the hypocrisy in our taking umbrage at the Geneva Conventions and using that as justification for a continuation of this war when we are more guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions; in the use of free fire zones, harassment interdiction fire, search and destroy missions, the bombings, the torture of prisoners, all accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam. That is what we are trying to say. It is part and parcel of everything.

http://hnn.us/articles/3631.html

[NativeTexan]

124. So true now....except today that line would be..........

......"the last to DIE for a LIE"!!!

[Rainscents]

131. You really should watch 2004 debate between Bush and Kerry /

Kerry did say at the time, if he was elected as president, he would work with the world to train more Iraqis (at another country) and he would increase the troops (help from other nations troops) and first thing he would do, secure Iraqi borders and stabilize the Iraq.
Oh boy, he was destroyed by RW hacks, all because Kerry had a real good plans.

[karynnj]

155. Very nice summary of his debate position

It seems even better in retrospect than it did when he said it. (It clearly is not what Bush was doing then or now, but I wonder if some thought, because Kerry's plan sounded so rational, that it was what anyone (including Bush) would do.)

[NativeTexan]

177. I saw it....and you are quite ..........

......articulate and correct!

[Hosnon]

145. Nope I'm not a veteran. And Kerry's comment has registered with me.

However, the statement of one man does not rule the day without qualification and in every circumstance.

I think Kerry's point was appropriate for the era/war. I'm not so convinced it is as appropriate today.

[karynnj]

154. Kerry's proposal is also not cut and run

He has clearly made the case that the Iraqis have to stand up for themselves, and if the administration has told the truth, they have nearly the full number of trained soldiers. Kerry also proposes a summit that could help the Iraqis on getting an acceptable (there is no optimal) political solution.

Where Kerry 2006 is in line with Kerry 1971, is when he said it was wrong to sacrifice lives for a plan the leaders know is not working.

[Hosnon]

162. And I agree. Either we must devote an appropriate amount of troops to this

or leave. Staying the course is ridiculous.

And I don't think we should pull out of success is possible via some other route.

[Major Hogwash]

125. Have you been to Iraq lately? 2500 Americans have come back in a box!

You can't even get around in Baghdad without an armored vehicle!!

2500 American's have already died for the lie of WMD's, regime change, and spreading Democracy.

In 2 years, after another 1500 Americans have been killed in Iraq, will you still say that you "don't support abandoning the country"?

[LittleClarkie]

126. That wasn't the real resolution. It was a Republican one

that was designed to embarrass the Dems, presumably because when the real resolution comes up, they can say, "But gee, you already voted against it". I'm not completely sure. But it was meant as a preemptive measure I think.

Nevertheless, the real resolution will come up early next week and be given a proper debate.

[Hosnon]

146. I hope so. nt

[Douglas Carpenter]

129. perhaps the opinion of the Iraqi people should count? read the polls!!

"Poll by PIPA finds support for timed withdrawal, and for attacks on Coalition troops (Jan 2006) link:
http://www.iraqanalysis.org/info/55

Opinions on withdrawal: Asked what they would like the newly elected Iraqi government to ask the US-led forces to do, 70% of Iraqis favor setting a timeline for the withdrawal of US forces. This number divides evenly between 35% who favor a short time frame of “within six months” and 35% who favor a gradual reduction over two years. Just 29% say it should “only reduce US-led forces as the security situation improves in Iraq.”

Opinions on attacks on Coalition forces: Overall, 47% say they approve of “attacks on US-led forces” (23% strongly). There are huge differences between ethnic groups. An extraordinary 88% of Sunnis approve, with 77% approving strongly. Forty-one percent of Shia approve as well, but just 9% strongly. Even 16% of Kurds approve (8% strongly).

Poll by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland and was fielded by KA Research Limited/D3 Systems, Inc.

Polling was conducted January 2-5 2006 with a nationwide sample of 1,150, which included an oversample of 150 Arab Sunnis (hereafter simply called Sunnis)."
for more polls of opinion inside Iraq - link:

http://www.iraqanalysis.org/info/55

_____________________

[wisteria]

130. First, no one is abandoning Iraq. Kerry's amendment calls for

discussions with the Iraqi's and also calls for a summit that would bring together leaders from all countries interested in seeing Iraq succeed. Troops will still remain in Iraq as backup if necessary.
Second, more troops now will do no good and will add to an increase in the insurgency. This should have been be done when we first went in. Bringing in more troops now will only escalate the violence. Most of the fighting now is sectarian in nature. Iraqi fighting Iraqi. We should not get in the middle of this civil war.
Besides, the Iraqi army should be taking on the roles now being handled by American soldiers. Iraqi soldiers should be able to patrol the streets and enter Iraqi homes looking for insurgents.

You want to vote for the candidate that suggested more troops are necessary. Well, that would be McCain.

[wizdum]

132. The economy is about to crash. We can't stay. We're out of money.

The mission is a failure. Like it or not we'll be forced to pull out, and more than likely in retreat and defeat like we did in Saigon. That's the facts.

[Clarkie1]

133. I agree with the 93 senators as well, however...

While a larger troop presence would have been beneficial at an earlier date, at this time I don't see that idea moving the situation forward. I don't think it's what the Iraqis want either. I think at this time increasing troop levels would do more harm than good. We need to work with the Iraqis to reduce our troop presence, not set unilateral, arbitrary deadlines.

[mrgorth]

136. There is no solution in Iraq

MAYBE, if we had gone in with the amount of troops Shinseki recommended and de-baathified the standing army we would've had a shot. There is no way to fix it now. If we stay we're fucked. If we leave we're fucked. This is what the neo-con mindset hath wrought.

[Apollo11]

147. I agree with Al Gore on this issue

NOTE: The original title of this post was "Al Gore doesn't support a quick pullout". But I was accused of misrepresenting Gore's position on this issue, and that is the last thing I want to do. So I decided to change the subject title.

I know this is an issue that people have very strong feelings about.

Al Gore was asked about this question on Larry King Live on CNN this week (June 13th). This was a chance for him to say if he thought it would be a good idea to set a deadline for all US troops to leave Iraq. But his answer was more nuanced.

I mention this because many of us feel that Al Gore has a lot of credibility on this issue, being one of the first national figures to publicly disagree with Bu$h's decision to invade Iraq 3 years ago. Also - for what it's worth, Cindy Sheehan has said that Gore would be her first choice for President in 2008.

Here's what Al had to say to Larry King ...


KING: How do you end Iraq? Do you leave?

GORE: Well, yes, we need to get our troops back...

KING: Now?

GORE: ...as quickly as we can but we have to recognize that however bad I believe the mistake was in invading Iraq under these pretenses that turned out to be based on completely false impressions however big the mistake was in getting there, we now all of us, whether we thought it was wise or not, have a moral obligation to look at the situation as it is and try not to make the mess that's been created worse than it would otherwise be.
And we need to follow twin objectives, get our troops back home as quickly as we can. But, secondly, we need to avoid the moral mistake of just getting out in a way that enhances the already high risk of anarchy and/or civil war.

KING: That's a thin line.

GORE: It is a thin line and I said earlier in the program the unfortunate reality is we do not have good options now. We have to choose among the least bad options.


Al Gore on Larry King Live (transcript):
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/13/lkl.01.html

Cindy Sheehan on Al Gore (interview):
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/5/10/181122/700

In Gore We Trust :)
www.algore.org
www.draftgore2008.com

[Hosnon]

148. Hmmm, perhaps I'll vote for Gore. nt

[Apollo11]

149. If we can convince him to run again!

In Gore We Trust :)
www.algore.org
www.draftgore2008.org
www.draftgore2008.com

[Clarkie1]

190. I like that response from Gore A LOT. It sounds like Clark. nt

[Tom Rinaldo]

291. Very much so.

Gore made a similar statement on "This Week w/George Stephanopoulos" 6/1/06. This is from a story ABC News wrote about Gore's appearance on that show:

"...Gore, however, disagreed with Sen. John Kerry's, D-Mass., call to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of the year.

"I would pursue the twin objectives of trying to withdraw our forces as quickly as we possibly can, while at the same time minimizing the risk that we'll make the mess over there even worse and raise even higher the danger of civil war," Gore said.

Dismissing calls for any deadline, Gore added, "It's possible that setting a deadline could set in motion forces that would make it even worse. I think that we should analyze that very carefully. My guess is that a deadline is probably not the right approach; but again, you have to weigh that question in the context of how the political decisions are made between the Congress and the executive branch. Sometimes the Congress itself has blunt instruments and limited options to play a role in matters like this."
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/Politics/story?id=2037158&page=3

[Skittles]

150. you just don't get it

there IS NO FIXING THIS MESS

[Hosnon]

152. If that is the case then we need to leave. However, I'm not yet convinced

that is the case right now.

[The Magistrate]

156. There Will Be No Good Outcome To This, Sir

The only real decision is just how much harm the United States will take from it. We are going to depart, and in doing so will lose a good deal of prestige and embolden elements hostile to our country. This is unavoidable. In addition, every day we stay, we lose a measure of prestige, and in some degree embolden elments hostile to our country. In a situation where a fixed cost is certain at the end, and additional cost is accruing daily, the question becomes how much more cost one intends to bear above what is already certain to be paid out.

[Hosnon]

163. There are other decisions to be made that concern more than the interests

of the United States - mainly the region and the world. Bush got us into this mess but he is the result of an accepted democratic process (for the most part) that we all adhere to and accept.

As a country, we are responsible for Iraq now. An acceptable outcome would be one where Iraq is in as good a position as it was before we invaded. Anything better would, by definition, be a better outcome.

In my opinion, this has always been a situation of the administration refusing to do what is necessary for political reasons. Had the necessary troop levels gone in orginally, things would most likely be very different today.

I merely believe that the responsible thing to do, as a nation, is try everything possible to make things work in Iraq.

[The Magistrate]

179. No, Sir, There Are Not

The only consideration for U.S. policy is the benefit of the country and its people. The people have a tendency to punish at the polls any who place any other consideration higher than this, being at bottom sensible folk.

Iraq is not going to be in any better condition in the furure than it was before this Republican administration went in and broke the place. A Republican administration, that, oddly enough, proclaims its dedication to Christianity with the most disgusting unction continually, deployed U.S. soldiers into the Near East to erect the Islamic Republic of Iraq. This certain result cannot possibly be in the interests of the United States, or for that matter, of the region, but all are nonetheless stuck with it, and the sooner this country puts paid to the thing and leaves it to the horrid process of sorting itself out, the better it will be.

There is in life, Sir, a class of affairs that cannot be fixed or improved, but only dropped like a bad penny. Learning to recognize these early is one of the keys to living.

[Skittles]

196. THANK YOU MAGISTRATE

I am sick, sick to DEATH of this simplistic, ignorant STAY THE COURSE bullshit. As someone who lived during the Vietnam era I wonder DID WE F***ING NOT LEARN *ANYTHING* ??? IT WASN'T THAT LONG AGO !!!

[Hosnon]

215. I'm not sure if you are referring to me but I am definitely not advocating

"staying the course."

[Hosnon]

216. The only consideration for U.S. policy is the benefict of the U.S. and its

citizens? I do not ascribe to that notion. And even if I did, what occurs throughout the world effects the United States. If the Middle East deteriorates, it will have a negative impact on this country sooner or later. We must not be so short-sighted about world affairs.

And I understand that there are times when we must cut our loses because there is no better alternative. However, I am not convinced that this has become one of those at this point.

[The Magistrate]

235. Are You, Then, Sir, An Internationalist?

One who holds that the people of the various lands have greater common interests than any group of them have with their own native land? It is a respectable position, of course, and may even be true from certain angles, but it is utterly bankrupt as a political line. Never have the mass of people in any one country been moved to action in adherence with it. The people of every country always take the view that the actions of its government should benefit their own land, and devil take whoever lives outside its borders. Political elements in any country that take a different view are consigned to irrelevance, unless by some chance they manage to seize and maintain power by revolutionary violence, and governments that press policies contrary to this view suffer calamatous losses of popularity only repressive violence can hope to redeem.

It is certainly true that a nation's government, in actions outside its borders, should take into account whether the consequences of these will be beneficial or not to its own people, and that it may prove to be the case that actions benefiting other nations will rebound to benefit the homeland. Enlightened self-interest will often dictate that the well-being of others is of benefit to one's self. But the situation into which the United States has been plunged by the current Republican administration in the Near East has long since passed beyond repair by appeal to this principle. The course these reptiles have pressed cannot have any good outcome for the country, and this was clear from its inception to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the region. The time for invocation of this principle was before the thing was done, and the proper application of it would have ruled out the adventure in the first place, and led wise leaders to forego it.

What you refer to as the deterioration of the Middle East is nothing more or less than the natural consequence of the U.S. invasion and continued U.S. presence in Iraq. It cannot be cured by maintaining that presence, any more than the infection of an open wound can be cured by rubbing fresh dirt into it on a daily basis. The fact is that, taking the cold-blooded view proper to the art of statecraft, Hussein in Baghdad was a keystone of such stability as existed in the region, and this had been recognized by the diplomats and analysts of the U.S. government for decades. He was not a comfortable presence, he was a cruel presence, and he had to be kept in check against his own expansive ambitions, but he, or someone very like him, was an essential element of a dynamic balance if it was to remain in any equilibrium. He held together a wholly unnatural agglomeration of peoples as a functioning nation, and he kept tamped down one of the major potential flash-points of a sectarian conflict that has frequently roiled the Islamic world down the centuries, and has the potential, once begun, to constitute a conflict of continental scale. He was the wrong thread to pull out of that tattered garmet, and as it has come to pieces, it cannot be restored short of complete re-weaving, which is not going to be done, and is beyond the power of any outside power to achieve, or at least to achieve by any measures its populace will be willing to see done.

The closest thing available to a restoration of the situation would require, in essence, the reinstitution of Hussein's rule: the erection of another figure to exercise a tyranny indistinguishable from his. No other form of rule can hold together the hostile fractions cobbled eighty-odd years ago into Iraq by foreign power. No other form of rule could hold in check the hostilities between Sunni and Shia, or the present excitation by fundamentalist radicalism agitating signifigant portions of its population. But this could only be achieved by the employment of a policy of frightfulness on a scale that must shock the conscience, and in the present disorder could not succeed without a degree of bloodshed and cruelty that would make a mockery of any claim the condition of the Iraqi people was being improved by the exercise, and dwarf the ordinary, day in and day out atrocities Hussein employed to maintain his tyranny in a steady state. If you have ever pushed a stalled automobile, you will be quite aware of the difference in effort necessary to maintain the thing under way, and that required to get it started moving in the first place, and the same pronciples of inertia apply to the creation and maintainance of tyrannical rule.

Democratic rule cannot have any good outcome in the situation, at least from the point of view of the United States, or from the point of view of anyone desiring stability in the region. Democratic expression of the popular will among Iraqis would result in the country's dissolution into several states, because the people of the place do not want to live under one central rule, but under local rule by the leadership of their own sort, and it would result in each of these several states being ruled by Islamic fundamentalist parties whose policies would be hostile to the interests of the United States, and whose conduct in their rule would be extremely offensive to the people of our country, and perhaps most particularly to those of us of left and progressive views. The break-up of Iraq into several states would unsettle Turkey and excite the expansive ambitions of Iran. It would create a potential cockpit of battle for the wider clash of Sunni and Shia that already simmers beneath the surface of the Islamic world, and even constitutes a good portion of the agenda of the radical jihadis, and expansion of this potential conflict would necessarily involve Saudi Arabia and the Gulf emirates, where substantial Shia populations dwell atop substantial oil fields.

Even absent true democratic expression of the people's will, this outcome is the one most likely to eventuate from the situation, as it is the one yong men with guns in their hands desire, and in the absence of established political institutions, it is always the desires of young men with guns in their hands that come to predominate, as they are capable of forcing them through whatever anyone else may desire. What it is absolutely necessary to understand is that these prospects cannot be prevented by the presence of U.S. soldiers; they were only made possible by the introduction of U.S. soldiers into the place, and no possible exertion of U.S. power can stop them unfolding, once its entrance on the scene put them in motion by toppling the lock-stone of its pre-existing order. We are, Sir, in agreement that the situation will hardly be improved, from the point of view of the people of the region, or from any humanitarian view, by the withdrawl of the U.S. garrisson from Iraq. But it is a seriously mistaken view to maintain that continuing the presence of a U.S. garrison in Iraq will achieve any improvement in the end result. It will not. Maintaining it will only cost the United States treasure, blood, and prestige, achieving nothing in exchange for the expenditure.

Once the Sage General said: "There is no instance of a state ever benefiting from prolonged warfare."

[Hosnon]

237. In some circumstances, yes.

First, let me thank you for the detailed reply. I greatly appreciate those that respond in kind and shy from simple name calling.

I am an Internationalist in the sense that I believe we are all human beings first and then citizens of various nation-states second. Also, I believe that the policies of the United States should incorporate international elements if not only to further our own self-interest. I agree that the people tend to support policies that, in the end, only benefit a particular nation. However, the nation-state is a relatively new creation and I believe the trend is towards more unity on the international level. I see that assessment and desire stated on this website time and time again. It is one of the reasons why I consider myself a liberal. The interests of the U.S. are usually paramount in my reasoning but those interests are not, by definition, in conflict with those of other nations or the international community. Furthermore, the interests of the rest of the world are a close second to those of the U.S. and can oftentimes trump those interests. In whatever way all of the above makes me an Internationalist, then I agree that I am.

I protested, at every turn, this invasion. And I still believe to this day that Saddam Hussein was a better alternative for the world community than what is occuring now. In some way, I do wish that we could reinstate his authority - however twisted. But that is in the past and we cannot turn back the clock and he will never be the "President" of Iraq again. The Bush administration has caused a great mess in the Middle East, this is practically beyond doubt. But I'm not an advocate of stirring a hornets nest and then unleashing its wraith upon whatever is near. Some may call the elections rigged - I for one have my doubts about everything. However, the system as a whole is as effective as possible and we all invest in it and rely upon it. This is our responsibility as a nation. If there is a way to make things as they were or better, I believe we must do so.

We will be paying for the errors of this administration for a long time. And perhaps only Saddam knew how to keep that patchwork together. It just does not seem responsible/ethical/mature to look at a mess and say, "Not my problem" - especially if the mess is as large and has the potential for such horrible consequences as this one does.

[The Magistrate]

242. Your Sensibilities, Sir, Do You Credit

It is clear that you would see the best outcome for all concerned eventuate, and though by my lights the course you think will achieve this will do no such thing, we are neither of us seers, and must acknowledge the future generally comes as a surprise.

It has been a pleasure to cross words with you, Mr. Duncan, and a pleasure to make your acquaintance.

Be well, Sir!

[Hosnon]

253. Thanks. It was a pleasure speaking with you as well. Have a good day. nt

[Skittles]

198. installation by the Supreme Court and stolen elections

are NOT "the result of an accepted democratic process". CAPICHE???

[Hosnon]

217. So did you miss the part I put in parentheticals after I said that or are

you just trying to score a cheap shot?

[SOS]

153. Agree

Iraq, as a unitary nation, is fractured beyond hope.
Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are migrating within the country now and nearly a million have fled to other nations.
Since Bush is so fond of free elections (except in Ohio) perhaps it's time to let the Iraqi people decide if they want one country or three.

[Roland99]

167. That's just what PNACer Kagan was saying the other day!

Add another 22,000 troops or so.


FUCK THAT!


They're playing Whack-a-mole over there and have been nothing but target practice for indirect fire and IEDs for way too long. We'd need well over 250,000 troops to "do it right" and then you'd see the level of violence increase and the # of casualties skyrocket.


BRING. THEM. HOME. NOW.


Remove the impetus for terrorists/insurgents.

[alvarezadams]

171. Kagan?

Howsa 'bout the DLC's own Will Marshall?

[Roland99]

182. I have as much respect for the DLC as I do for the PNAC

[Zhade]

170. "the status quo is simply torture"

Yeah, and by supporting even MORE soldiers, you're allowing even MORE torture of innocents to take place.

Utterly reprehensible.

[saskatoon]

176. 260,000 troops

Let's see now---that means we can kill how many more Iraquis(includind babies) way to go!

[hiphopnation]

178. I dunno

I thought this way about a year-and-a-half ago, not anymore. The point's been made several times in this thread, but I'll take a stab at wording it another way, if troop presence is the source of the insurgencie's violent attacks, how does increasing their numbers work toward making the place more secure? Seems like simple math to me.

The theory that we need more troops to make the place more "secure" suggests to me that this security of which you speak can only be achieved through force. Seems tenuous at best. Is the point of more troops to put down the insurgency for long enough for us to make an unfettered exit and claim "victory"? Seems to me to be faulty logic, unduly influenced by hubris and jingoism.

Bottom-line being, even when we "exit", we won't really be gone. Wasn't the whole point to establish a presence close to all that crude?

[Hosnon]

213. Thank you for what seems like the fifth rational, intelligent reply to

my thread. Seems most involve me being either a neocan or one who likes to drink the blood of Iraqi babies.

I don't necessarily agree with the presumption that our presence there is the source of the insurgency. I believe it has a lot to do with the civil war brewing between the Sunnis and Shias.

And I do believe that the security we need can only be achieved through force. Saddam knew how to keep that country together and force is what he used. Now, I'm not advocating the particular methods which he employed but the point is still that force is quite effective.

The point is to stabilize the country to the point where a government can assert control/legitimacy and then leave.

And yeah...the point might have been oil. But there are larger issues here. The area is a trouble spot in the world today and we have happened to make it worse.

[hiphopnation]

282. Fair enough...

it's just extremely unfortunate that this will most certainly cost more American lives, not to mention tax-payer dollars. Bush and the necon agenda have put the country squarely behind the eight ball and the dems have no choice but to address the 500 lb gorilla in the room this fall as well as in '06...possibly for years to come...imagine! YEARS!

It lends credence to the idea that any candidate in the fall or in '06 who voted for IWR doesn't deserve re-election: Indeed deserves scorn and ridicule. And the excuse "we all had the same information, and it was faulty" is total BS! I knew that going into Iraq was a mistake and I knew that Sadamm didn't have the capacity to get a powerful bomb anywhere near us and I knew that Bush and the PNACers just wanted close to the oil. How did I know all this? Pragmatism.

Sounds like you thought going into Iraq was a bad idea, too, so the only thing we disagree on is what to do now. Don't feel bad, no one in Washington, Iraqis, Americans and the world community alike can't agree on what to do with this farking mess.

[kerrygoddess]

184. Oh Please -

You mean the Phony Iraq Vote perpetuated by the Phony Iraq Debate - scripted by the Illegal Pentagon Talking Points????

[nickshepDEM]

191. It takes a lot of balls to post to something like this...

I respect you for that. I agree with you somewhat, but at the same time, we've been there for too long and the Iraqis overwhelmingly want us out. Its probably time to bring our boys home.

[Skittles]

197. not it does NOT take "balls"

besides the fact that male body parts are NOT REQUIRED FOR COURAGE, it takes IGNORANCE to think that we can fix what is irreparably BROKEN

[Hosnon]

220. Come now...I know you can recongize a simple expression. I hope you don't

believe that the poster actually believes that courage is produced in the testes.

And I agree. It would be futile to attempt to fix something that is broken and cannot be fixed. However, I don't think this is such a situation.

[Skittles]

224. F*** that "simple expression"

it's a sexist, tired expression that needs to be RETIRED

[Hosnon]

227. OK. nt

[nickshepDEM]

241. Right on, sista.

Damn the man!

[guidod]

243. I agree Skittles...

...I can't think of a much worse expressiuon than that one. Thank you

[Hosnon]

214. There is a point where we have to cut our loses and leave. However, we

must be sure that there is not a viable option for us that can lead to a better outcome. If we can do something to make Iraq better, I believe we are obligated to do so.

[DainBramaged]

192. Every death from this day forward to one of our precious

mothers or fathers, sisters or brothers, aunts or uncles, sons or daughters or any Iraqi citizen who dies because of this illegal war should have their names scratched into the skins of all who support it.


If there is a god, may he have mercy on those who advocate the deaths of anyone there over worldly treasures and gelt.

[katinmn]

193. 13 years of sanctions and 3 years of occupation isn't enough?

When will people wake up? America has destroyed Iraq. Let the nightmare end for those poor people.

Just as BushCo has caused division in America it has caused flamed division in Iraq.
Just as our borders and ports have gone unprotected, so have Iraq's borders been left unprotected so those who hate America can go into Iraq and fight US soldiers and also Iraqis who appear sympathetic to Americans.

I will cancel out your pro-war votes.

[Hosnon]

222. Perspective Post: I've never had a thread generate this much interest:) nt

[Breeze54]

223. MJDuncan1982 - Have you served in Iraq?

Do you have a degree in Military Warfare? :shrug:
Just wondering what you are basing this opinion on.

I haven't read any of the below papers yet but thought it looked like it had a lot of resources.
And maybe would give all of us some insight into the thinking and future plans of the US.

The Strategic Studies Institute of the US Army War College
publishes security and strategic reports and publications
which serve to influence policy debate and bridge the gap
between Military and Academia.
Our products are available at no cost.
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/

[Hosnon]

225. No to both questions. My opinion is honestly just that. Good God...thank

you for the resources. I have actually been recently wanting to find scientific analyses of warfare like this. Did you attend a military academy? I'm curious if there are classes such as "Offensive Armor Strategy," etc.

Not quite sure how long it will take me to digest this information or whether or not I'll be able to - but thank you.

[Breeze54]

228. lol...NO WAY!!

No, I never served in the military. I'm an 'army' brat...sort of. My father was Army Civil Service for 35 years.
I have a son who just returned from Iraq, that's where my interest lies!
That's all. And he's still under the 90 day MANDATORY Stop Loss! :grr:
See my post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2680732#2680880

When you say, "We should send MORE troops"? You are talking about MY SON(S)!!!
I resent that!

:scared:

[Hosnon]

230. Ah. Good to hear your son is safe. I've glanced at one of those papers and

it seems to be just what I'm interested in. I'm in law school now and plan on getting my LL.M. in International Law. I'm actually going to Paris next week to study it at the Sorbonne.

If you have any other resources such as these, I'd love to have the links. Thanks.

[Breeze54]

231. I just did a google for 'war college'...have at it! But...

... he won't be 'safe' until he is OUT - discharged and has his DD214 in his hand!
Same for my second oldest son who is currently completing his 8 year USMC reserves status!

[Hosnon]

232. What is a DD214? Stop loss papers? Wow...a family of military guys...

My brother was in the Air Force.

Good luck with everything

[Breeze54]

234. A DD-214 is...

http://www.vba.va.gov/ro/providence/C&P/dd214.htm

...issued to military members upon separation from active service.
DD-214s were issued to separated servicemembers beginning in the 1950's.
The term "DD-214" is often used generically to mean "separation papers" or "discharge papers",
no matter what form number was used to document active duty military service.
If VA has a copy of a DD-214, it is usually because the veteran attached a copy
(or sometimes, the original) to his or her application for disability or education benefits.

Don't be to impressed. They joined the military against my wishes.
My second oldest signed up right out of high school, in spite of me. :grr:
And he regrets it! He has a back injury now from training exercises.
His motto, not long after he joined was: "Eat the apple. Leave the corp!"

[Stinky The Clown]

266. A DD214 is what your guy couldn't find in the campaign

I know NO ONE who doesn't know where his DD214 is.

[Hosnon]

269. My guy? Come now...Nader in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. nt

[globalvillage]

260. There are some interesting publications there.

REVISIONS IN NEED OF REVISING:
WHAT WENT WRONG IN THE IRAQ WAR

"...critics also have neglected the larger lesson that there are certain limits to what military power can accomplish. For certain purposes, like the creation of a liberal democratic society that will be a model for others, military power is a blunt instrument, destined by its very nature to give rise to unintended and unwelcome consequences. Rather than “do it better next time,” a better lesson is “don’t do it at all.”

[Hosnon]

261. I agree...Going to try to find a hard copy so I can read. nt

[Breeze54]

275. Nice find!

"Rather than “do it better next time,” a better lesson is “don’t do it at all.”

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[Name removed]

256. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ChipsAhoy]

273. MJDuncan and you are both correct!

Let's just get this wrapped up and head out, with ALL of our troops! I really liked the last sentence of the story above:

"I don't want a ticket out," he said. "I want to stay here so we can take as many people home as possible."

[guidod]

290. I think we have a troll amongst us...

...:freak:

You probably love this symbol don't ya? :nuke:

[Tom Rinaldo]

292. Oh c'mon. Is the OP completely at odds with this statement:

It is different yes, but different enough to make a Troll charge? Is Al Gore a Troll also for not wanting to set a fixed deadline for withdrawal, which is what the title of the OP is about?

This is from a story ABC News wrote about Al Gore's appearance on "This Week w/George Stephanopoulos" 6/1/06:

"...Gore, however, disagreed with Sen. John Kerry's, D-Mass., call to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of the year.

"I would pursue the twin objectives of trying to withdraw our forces as quickly as we possibly can, while at the same time minimizing the risk that we'll make the mess over there even worse and raise even higher the danger of civil war," Gore said.

Dismissing calls for any deadline, Gore added, "It's possible that setting a deadline could set in motion forces that would make it even worse. I think that we should analyze that very carefully. My guess is that a deadline is probably not the right approach; but again, you have to weigh that question in the context of how the political decisions are made between the Congress and the executive branch. Sometimes the Congress itself has blunt instruments and limited options to play a role in matters like this."
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/Politics/story?id=2037158&page=3

It's fine to disagree with the OP, it's fine to point out that the OP writer's opinion is significantly different than Al Gore's, because the writer suggests sending in additional troops. But it sure as hell isn't different enough to say this poster is a Troll while Al Gore is a solid Democrat. What they both have in common is a concern for what happens to Iraq now, and the consequences that will follow if Iraq moves into civil war. Can't we even listen to and discuss the differences between us without shouting "Troll! Troll!" over an opinion sincerely held, one which is also held by a number of other sincere and solid Democrats?

P.S. Significantly edited from the original comment I posted in that in initially skimming this thread I failed to note that the OP called for increasing the number of troops inside Iraq, rather than simply rejecting a fixed withdrawal date.

[guidod]

293. NO. It's not the statement in the OP that

makes me say that he is either a repug or a DLCer. I've been talking to him on 3 or 4 different posts. If you read post #4. #, #189, #206, #277 and #280 you'll see where I came up with at least DLC. :shrug:

[Tom Rinaldo]

295. OK it's late now but I'll try to Sunday. Still, saying "DLC" is probably

more fair to suggest as an option than outright Troll. Though I didn't read much of this thread, I checked out the exchange the posteer had with The Magistrate, and s/he seemed sincere in those posts. I'll try to get to the ones you noted in the morning. Thanks for explaining.

[guidod]

296. You're probably right, DLC.

All the posts #'s I gave you are together.

[Hosnon]

304. I'm not a troll. I don't have the patience to hang around here for two

years building up credibility to use it up on something like this.

[ChipsAhoy]

311. Calling you a troll is breaking the rules.

It really irks me that differing views are handled this way, with name calling and insults.

AGAIN, I say, that we are all on the same side. We just envision different ways to get out of this mess.

For the record, I really liked this thread. In fact, I tried to nominate it for the greatest, but I got a message that I had to do that within the first 24 hours it was posted. But, I saw it too late.

[Nutmegger]

294. That's nice. Let the DRAFT begin. [nt]

[Coes]

299. can you link to that article...

...that recommended 1 troop per 100 citizens in order to stabilize a country? Or was it a paper article?

I would like to read it, see for examples of that ratio. I'm just not convinced that foreign troops who don't speak the native language are a very stabilizing factor as such.

[Hosnon]

308. Paper article. It was floated around about three months back. I'll attempt

to find it.

[Jacobin]

306. Vietnam redux. Great idea

[w4rma]

312. I no longer believe that staying in Iraq to "fix" the problem will fix the

problem. I no believe the best thing is to just go and see what the Iraqs can do for themselves. Especially under the current leadership which appears *not* to have the interests of anyone but their own wallets in mind.

[Spaceman Spiff]

316. Nobody wants to see the troops come home more than me

(Well, maybe not as much as somebody with family over there.)
Anyway, I'm affraid Iraq is a "you break it, you bought it" situation. We have to leave Iraq better than we found it.

[izzybeans]

318. Our pullout does not inevitably screw them.

They are not a nation of savages. We are not their savior. They are our debtor. We owe them restitution in any other form but an army.