Dean: US Won't Win in Iraq

[FORD]

Originally posted by Cathedral
Pull your fucking heads out of the clouds and get a wiff of reality already. the idea that we are going to WIN the war in Iraq is the ONLY option, or the world will be screwed.
Giving any terror cell the impression of victory to celebrate will be deadly to all free nations in the future, so stop helping them.

The situation in Iraq is a "civil war". It's not "terraists" and it damn sure isn't some fictional branch office of "Al Qaeda" led by Max Towelheadroom Zarqawi.

It's Sunni vs Shia and the one thing they CAN agree on is that they want the occupation to end.

You can't "win" that.

[LoungeMachine]

We can't win millitarily...

Even many Military Experts, including Generals have said that.

And we've pretty much thrown "winning the hearts and minds" out the window

It's a war of attrition, and they are willing to play it out......

10 years, and 10,000 lives later, we'll still be dodging IEDs that we failed to secure in the first place.

Have we learned nothing from History????????

[jero]

You allready won this one!
Netherlands is a small but proud partner of the US

[Warham]

Originally posted by Cathedral
"the idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong" - Howard Dean

You don't see the problem, eh?

Bro, even if the above statement were 100% true, saying that is a slap in the face to every soldier wearing a uniform and fighting right now.
I don't wanna hear talking points designed to take away from the very real and true impact words like this coming from someone in power has on a soldier. i hope it generates more of what if has already brought the Democrats who live by this idea that freedom of speech removes any accountability for the things they say to the people.

You reap what you sow, buddy, and the Democrats have one hell of a harvest coming when the troops finally do come home.
The problem with the Liberal minded is that they confuse cawardice with patriotism, and then only get mad when this is pointed out to them.
Tough shit, Howard Dean will not be able to spin out of those comments, and i don't give a flying fuck how anyone tries to down play it.
That was a very bad choice of words for the good doctor, AGAIN!

Y'all just want so hard to lay a failure at the feet of Bush that you are killing morale among the troops, while i might add putting their loved one's here at home through hell in the process, by denegrating what the troops have done there in the last 3 years.
You're DEAD to the idea that anything good is happening there, but it will not work for you, election day "06 is fast approaching and i feel a vibe, or wave as it were about to turn your boat over.

Like the Titanic, by turning away from the iceburg they sealed their fate and steered their destiny to an icey - watery grave.
But had they hit it head on the damage would have been confined to the front of the ship and the threat of uneven flooding minimalized, therefore buying more than enough time for rescue to arrive before the ship even came close to sinking.

Democrats are trying like hell to steer away from fear, but that is what is "plain wrong", my friends.
Face it now, (which as you can see hasn't been a cakewalk, and your, um, support, if that is what you still call it, of the troops hasn't helped)
Or face it later when the job is tougher and no chance at Victory exists at all.

You all forget that terrorism was already millions strong before 9-11.
I guess in your mind it was all the creation of the Bush administration?

That reminds me of a joke...What happens when a Democrat takes Viagra?
He get's taller...

Pull your fucking heads out of the clouds and get a wiff of reality already. the idea that we are going to WIN the war in Iraq is the ONLY option, or the world will be screwed.
Giving any terror cell the impression of victory to celebrate will be deadly to all free nations in the future, so stop helping them.

The best post eva!

You've got my vote for Post of the Year. :D

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
The best post eva!

You've got my vote for Post of the Year. :D

Your Chairman would vote otherwise, I'm afraid

Love ya, Catheter, but disagree with 90% of your points..


sorry.

[Warham]

Instead of calling the troops in Iraq 'babykillers' like they did in Vietnam, they've found a new word. 'Terrorists'.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Instead of calling the troops in Iraq 'babykillers' like they did in Vietnam, they've found a new word. 'Terrorists'.

My my my, a tad delusional today?

Who is "they" and who called US troops "terrorists?"

Can one of you pussies answer that question?

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
Instead of calling the troops in Iraq 'babykillers' like they did in Vietnam, they've found a new word. 'Terrorists'.

Nice misdirection from the real issues

Shall we move on to the War On Christmas next??


Settle this now, in one sentence.

WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER "WINNING"?????

I'd love to hear it

We can't WIN this if wiping out bombings is your goal.

If having Iraqis defend for themselves is winning to you, then SET TIMETABLES LIKE THEY DO ALL THE TIME.

We've already rid the nation of Saddam, and phantom WMDs

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
My my my, a tad delusional today?

Who is "they" and who called US troops "terrorists?"

Can one of you pussies answer that question?

no. they can't.

[smollen55]

Ok let me give my opinion...

Critics of the war in Iraq say there is nothing new in the "National Strategy for Victory" President Bush outlined at the Naval Academy last week. This is one of the rare instances where critics of the war in Iraq have gotten something right.

I read carefully both the 35-page document prepared by the National Security Council (its available at cnn.com in pdf format) and the text of President Bush's speech outlining it, and found in them nothing I didn't already know. This is what I expected. One shouldn't change a sound strategy when it is clear it is bearing fruit. All that's happening is that the president finally is explaining his strategy to the American people.

When can most of our troops come home? The short answer is: when Iraq has a stable, democratic government capable of defending itself.

So when will that be? Pretty soon. There need not be a significant weakening of the resistance before there can be a substantial withdrawal of U.S. troops.

The key to the U.S. security strategy is to create Iraqi army and police units of sufficient size and quality to be able to protect the country (mostly) by themselves. As the president put it in earlier contexts: "As they stand up, we'll stand down."

The Iraqi army will be "built out" (reach the size planned for it) by May or June of next year, and the Iraqi police are slated to be "built out" early in 2007.

Despite a large number of casualties from terrorist attacks, there's been no shortage of recruits for the Iraqi army and police. Though performance has sometimes been spotty, for the most part Iraqi soldiers perform well in combat. A year ago, (insurgents) freely attacked the Iraqi military. So the hostiles have resorted to remote bombings because they cannot stand and fight the Iraqi soldiers anymore.


The security situation is much improved over a year ago. People are actually seeing people walking their pets on the streets and the mortar and rocket attacks are extremely rare.

The security situation has improved chiefly because there are now so many Iraqi troops in the field. The president said 80 Iraqi battalions (500-800 men each) are now in the fight, and 3,500 new police officers are being trained every 10 weeks.

The increasing number and skill of the Iraqi soldiers and cops means that they can garrison communities once they have been cleared of insurgents.

"Clear and hold" is having a powerfully deleterious effect on the resistance, because it means the terrorists (largely) are unable to recover lost ground. The harmful effect on the resistance will multiply in the months to come, as more Iraqi units join the fight, and existing units gain more experience.

Currently, there are about 160,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, up from 137,000 to provide additional protection for the referendum on the constitution in October (which proceeded almost without incident), and for the election for a permanent government under that constitution scheduled for Dec. 15th. A few weeks after that election is over and a new government is formed, troop levels will drop back to the 137,000 level, probably a little further. More reductions -- to or just a little more than 100,000 troops -- will be made once the Iraqi army is "built out" in May or June.

The role of the U.S. forces that will remain in Iraq will change. Iraqis will take the lead in fighting and patrolling, with U.S. forces as backup. Most of the bases from which U.S. troops currently are operating will be turned over to the Iraqis.

Currently, only one Iraqi army battalion is considered capable of operating entirely on its own. The others rely on Americans for fire (artillery and air) support, logistical support, and some intelligence support.

It will take a few years to build up support units in the Iraqi military. But most U.S. combat units likely will be out of the country by the end of 2007, sooner if the resistance continues to weaken at the rate it has in the last several months.

The war in Iraq is being won everywhere except in the news coverage of it. (blame the liberal assholes and the fucking dems like Kerry, Kennedy, and this complete ass named Dean). The president must continue speaking out. The people aren't going to get the truth unless he tells it.

ok, I am done.....

[LoungeMachine]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by smollen55
[B]

[Nickdfresh]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by LoungeMachine
[B]

Originally posted by smollen55

You okay LOUNGE?

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
You okay LOUNGE?

:D

Damn meds....

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by smollen55
Ok let me give my opinion...

I read carefully both the 35-page document prepared by the National Security Council (its available at cnn.com in pdf format) and the text of President Bush's speech outlining it, and found in them nothing I didn't already know. This is what I expected. One shouldn't change a sound strategy when it is clear it is bearing fruit.

Buhuhuhuhawhawhawhaw!

All that's happening is that the president finally is explaining his strategy to the American people.

The same one he's been recounting over and over...

When can most of our troops come home? The short answer is: when Iraq has a stable, democratic government capable of defending itself.

Or when we have successfully trained two of the three factions in the civil war?

So when will that be? Pretty soon. There need not be a significant weakening of the resistance before there can be a substantial withdrawal of U.S. troops.

Of course, because there will be no major weakening in the insurgency in the foreseeable future.

The key to the U.S. security strategy is to create Iraqi army and police units of sufficient size and quality to be able to protect the country (mostly) by themselves. As the president put it in earlier contexts: "As they stand up, we'll stand down."

Or train one faction in the civil war...The SHIAs already have their own independent paramilitaries and militias, many of which are being trained by the IRANIAN Revolutionary Guards. They're going to protect THEIR portion of the country.

The Iraqi army will be "built out" (reach the size planned for it) by May or June of next year, and the Iraqi police are slated to be "built out" early in 2007.

Despite a large number of casualties from terrorist attacks, there's been no shortage of recruits for the Iraqi army and police. Though performance has sometimes been spotty, for the most part Iraqi soldiers perform well in combat. A year ago, (insurgents) freely attacked the Iraqi military. So the hostiles have resorted to remote bombings because they cannot stand and fight the Iraqi soldiers anymore.

The IRAQI Army is built mostly of former Kurd and Shia militiamen or veterans of those ethnicities. It would have been easier to have mustered the old IRAQI Army back after we took Baghdad, then reformed, retrained, and payed them instead of many drifting into the insurgency/pro-gov't militias. Relatively few open SUNNIs are in the police/army. And many who are are guerilla infiltrators, as evidenced by the suicide bombings in the Police Academy yesterday, in which 43 (mostly) Iraqi police cadets were slaughtered. And so many join the security forces because they pay well, and the unemployment rate is high among males aged 18-45...

The security situation is much improved over a year ago. People are actually seeing people walking their pets on the streets and the mortar and rocket attacks are extremely rare.

Really? There are a consistently high level attacks on Coalition Forces and US casualties are consistently numerous in caparison to two years ago. Also, Iraqis continue to die at a high rate even if the number of suicide bombings vary from month-to-month...

The security situation has improved chiefly because there are now so many Iraqi troops in the field. The president said 80 Iraqi battalions (500-800 men each) are now in the fight, and 3,500 new police officers are being trained every 10 weeks.

Only 40,000 Iraqi troops are capable of independent action, and BUSH patently lied in his speech when he mentioned that IRAQI forces "led" the way in a recent (Tal-Afar?) offensive, when it was US troops like (enlisted) Green Berets were acting as senior (Iraqi) commanders, and US Marines and soldiers "out front" according to an embedded journalist.

The increasing number and skill of the Iraqi soldiers and cops means that they can garrison communities once they have been cleared of insurgents.

But not the SUNNI communities...

"Clear and hold" is having a powerfully deleterious effect on the resistance, because it means the terrorists (largely) are unable to recover lost ground. The harmful effect on the resistance will multiply in the months to come, as more Iraqi units join the fight, and existing units gain more experience.

There is no "Clear and Hold," US forces in IRAQ are undermanned, so they are unable to "hold" and garrison villages "cleared" of insurgents.

Currently, there are about 160,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, up from 137,000 to provide additional protection for the referendum on the constitution in October (which proceeded almost without incident), and for the election for a permanent government under that constitution scheduled for Dec. 15th. A few weeks after that election is over and a new government is formed, troop levels will drop back to the 137,000 level, probably a little further. More reductions -- to or just a little more than 100,000 troops -- will be made once the Iraqi army is "built out" in May or June.

"Built out" of what? Ethnic factions?

The role of the U.S. forces that will remain in Iraq will change. Iraqis will take the lead in fighting and patrolling, with U.S. forces as backup. Most of the bases from which U.S. troops currently are operating will be turned over to the Iraqis.

Currently, only one Iraqi army battalion is considered capable of operating entirely on its own. The others rely on Americans for fire (artillery and air) support, logistical support, and some intelligence support.

It will take a few years to build up support units in the Iraqi military. But most U.S. combat units likely will be out of the country by the end of 2007, sooner if the resistance continues to weaken at the rate it has in the last several months.

No, it ISN'T WEAKENING!! THERE WILL BE NO COMPLETE VICTORY. WE DO NOT HAVE THE TROOPS, AND THE IRAQIs DO NOT WANT US THERE (82%)! The very, active, presence of US troops is driving the insurgency as much as anything else...

The war in Iraq is being won everywhere except in the news coverage of it.

Why, because Fearless Leader GEORGIE BUSH told you so in his bullshit PDF?

What about this?:



Did you believe him then too BuSHEEP?

(blame the liberal assholes and the fucking dems like Kerry, Kennedy, and this complete ass named Dean).

Now you're just getting mean. Did they invade a country based on false pretenses with no plan to "win the peace" and not enough troops to secure the country after "the end of major combat operations," despite military critics that said their plans were fanciful, self-serving bullshit?

I thought conservatives were supposed to take responsibility for their mistakes, and not blame others ("liberals," the media).

The president must continue speaking out. The people aren't going to get the truth unless he tells it.

ok, I am done.....

Yeah right, he's just been dead on so far..

The guy, and his cronies, that got us into this mess is going to get us out.. Yeah, uh-huh.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
My my my, a tad delusional today?

Who is "they" and who called US troops "terrorists?"

Can one of you pussies answer that question?

Who's they? Kerry, perhaps? Liberals everywhere hoping for a US defeat, so they can lay the blame on Republicans?

Again, by definition, if somebody is terrorizing somebody else, what are they?

It's not a hard question to answer.