I think this is the common sense approach. Republicans actually want us to win, and they are willing to give the government one last chance to do that.
Dem's love to come up with ways to lose and do things that do not work, so they are trying to pass legislation to ensure our defeat.
Republicans are not saying we need to just stay forever...
We build up forces and really try to kick so ass with the kid gloves off.
If it doesn't work, if the plan is poor or if NO plan would work, then conservatives are willing to accept that Iraq can not be saved.
Which side makes more sense to you?
Friday, February 23, 2007
Ryan sees 'last chance' for U.S., Iraq
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
18 comments:
Neither. Any plan that ends with us leaving without a victory, or achieving our goals, will be seen as victory by the scumbags. This "last chance" crap is every bit as defeatist as anything the French-like Democrats support. Six months? This is another timetable that, if understood by our enemies, is no different that Dem timetables. We can and must win. Period.
Thank you Marshall. Although I disagree with you overall, your comment nails this so-called "common sense approach". We've already tried several surges and they haven't improved the situation. So why is this surge a "last chance"? Why wasn't the last one the last chance? What makes this "approach" different from the Democratic approach?
Jim, you say thank you, but you totally disagree with marshall...he wants to stay until we win, you want us to leave right now and lose
Game, you either can't read or can't comprehend English.
'We must win' sounds very good. But, in reality, things are getting worse. Blaming democrats is the easiest thing to do. Remember, administration had enough time to do what they wanted to do. But, it was a failure. We have to understand that this is not a conventional war. Democracy is not ‘plug and play’ that works in every society. Each society is different.
We need a different plan to achieve our objectives. I am inclining more towards using US troops for logistic support to Iraqi army and police. There is no point in getting in between two mad parties cutting each other’s throat in the name of religion.
We should stay back. But we should change our strategy and pull our troops out of Baghdad streets.
The freakin' strategy has only just begun! The emphasis has changed and there is no reason to believe that it's an automatic failure. And no matter what, certain realities will still exist should we fail. The scumbags will think they're the cats and Iran will further destabilize and seek to control the area. There is just too much at stake to ever think of backing off from this front.
As far as "things getting worse", that's a matter of perspective. An increase in scumbag activity is to be expected since they're convinced a little more pain will run us off. But while they escalate, Iraqis are taking more and more of the lead in handling the situations that arise. In this sense, things are definitely getting better. They are closer to taking care of business on their own. There is no such thing as a defined projected end to a war. It just has to be fought until one side is defeated. I prefer it not be us. The world will be better off if it isn't us.
Marshall said, "Iraqis are taking more and more of the lead in handling the situations that arise."
I would be happy to read some sources to back this assertion if you provide them. So far I have found nothing but talking points to back it up.
"It just has to be fought until one side is defeated."
What "side" are we trying to defeat in Iraq, Marshall? Is it the Shiites who side with Iran, the Sunnis who are doing the most killing of American troops, or al Qaeda who accounts for a small fraction of the perpetrators of violence in Iraq?
Or is it all of them? Then who's left? Defeating which "side" will bring the victory you seek?
Good points, Jim.
More over, I have been hearing about how the ‘escalation of violence’ is only temporary to influence our domestic policies ever since 2004 elections. Nobody believes all those arguments anymore. Everyone knows the grim situation in Iraq. There is no point in arguing.
Again, we need to stop comparing this to a conventional battle where you fight as long as it takes to wipe out your enemy soldiers. By those standards, we won the battle long time back when we took down Saddam’s regime!! Now, the enemy is stealth and he mainly comes in the form of hatred towards west. No tanker or air power can stop the crazy mindset of those suicide bombers. So, it has to be a political solution. US military’s role should only be to support Iraqi troops if needed and take out any terrorist camps. No point in making our soldiers sitting ducks in the middle of two fighting mad dogs.
I hate this talk about political solutions and changing the course.
What is the political solution? And how do we get there? And don't give me "somehow" or "getting the armed militias to talk." That is the goal, not the process.
The same applies with the "changing the course." What is the changed course? Letting armed bands of fanatics determine the future of Iraq?
We should stay the course, and keep killing the enemy until **they** give up. The political solution is keeping the government the majority of Iraqis voted for intact, and keeping the pressure on the armed revolutionaries.
Jason said, "We should stay the course, and keep killing the enemy until **they** give up."
Which enemy would that be, Jason? Who is **they**?
Jim said, "I would be happy to read some sources to back this assertion if you provide them. So far I have found nothing but talking points to back it up."
Though it may have been elsewhere, I've posted references to this in the past. From a Federal News Service report for Oct. 26, '06, a briefing by Maj. Gen. Wm. B. Caldwell IV, Spokesman, Mult-National Force-Iraq. This briefing outlined the progress being made in the campaign and lists the divisions, battalions, etc and the percentage of each that is ready and able to proceed on their own or in lead positions. Hopefully, I've given enough info for you to do a search and thus find similar reports that are more up to date. Also, recent HotAir.com offerings by Michelle Malkin following her recent trip to Iraq will also attest to not only progress being made, but grateful attitudes and testimony of Iraqi citizens.
Now, the "side" that we are trying to defeat is anyone involved with blocking the progress of the Iraqi government. We do this by our support of the Iraqis and our presence is a major part at this time. I doubt that those doing the fighting are as confused about the objectives as you and Vittal seem to be. As he says, no one is disputing how grim the situation is, only whether its possible to succeed in the mission.
I have to say that it seems a pretty wacky position to think that politics will solve the problem. What the hell makes you think that we'd be there if there was any possibility that that was true? It's just damned silly.
Marshall,
I will be happy to search for your Caldwell report and similar, but I will not take seriously anything written by Michelle Malkin.
I have read or heard recently that Iraqi forces are again not proving capable of taking leading positions in the actions, but I can't give you a source on this at the moment.
"Now, the "side" that we are trying to defeat is anyone involved with blocking the progress of the Iraqi government."
Would that be the Sunnis who are supported by our friends in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt? Or would it be the Shiites (supported by Iran) who are the majority in the government but want the US to leave so they can get revenge on the Sunnis (who again are supported by our friends in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt)?
You keep alluding to defeating the enemy, but you continue to be vague as to the enemy is.
Marshall,
in Jim's world, the liberal media gives an fair and balanced view of the war in Iraq (which is simply all negative all the time) and any reporting that is positive and ACTUALLY indepth is crap...
Game said, "any reporting that is positive and ACTUALLY indepth".
You are implying that Malkin's writing is an example of in depth "reporting". Malkin is a partisan hack of the worst kind. Her business is opinion, nothing more.
Give me names of actual reporters who are providing "positive" stories, and I'll be glad to read them.
Pretty lame, Jim. Malkin has vids of her trip to Iraq with testimony of Iraqis and US troops. If you think they are going to be intimidated by her, or if she needs to search high and low for what she inevitably reports, then why should I believe any report from anybody? Her credibility is no worse than anyone you could come up with and far better than most. Who would you say she's a hack for? She's also ripped on Bush for his border policies. Plus, like Laura Ingraham before her, Michelle ventured outside the Green Zone for her report.
But what about Geraldo? He recently interviewed some troops who were each strongly in favor of the surge and each hopeful that they will be allowed to complete their mission.
So what "actual reporters" would you be inclined to believe (as if I didn't know) and why would I believe they were not lefty hacks? See how fucked up this can get?
First of all, stop calling anyone who has a different view as ‘confused’ person. It is a misrepresentation and it is wrong. Perhaps it shows your confusion on the subject.
Since you ‘hate’ any political solution, let me ask you – what’s your plan for Iraq? Staying the course? If so, how come things haven’t improved? If you don’t want to recognize other players in the region like Saudis, Iran, Syria and Jordan, how are you going to stabilize the situation? You talk about keep killing ‘them’. Haven’t we killed enough so far? Going by your logic, resistance should have gone down after all the killings in the past 3 years, right? Why it has only gone worse? What is your plan to control the sectarian violence? Again, don’t give me the same – ‘Staying the course’ talking points. If so, why things are out of control? All these fighting factions get money, weapons and political support from the regional power houses. Since you don’t want to talk to these people, how are you going to control these suicide bombers and death squads? Why do you want to send American troops for street patrol? Why not Iraqi forces? Let them handle those road side bombs, why our men?
Succeeding in our mission in Iraq should be our top priority. Our mission is to prevent and destroy any terrorist activities. Not street patrolling! I would have supported ‘staying the course’, if it had shown better results. It’s silly to ignore the reality and get stuck in the past.
Now, please don’t quote me a person like Michelle Malkin!! If I can trust her ‘reporting’, I might as well trust the propaganda from some of the far-left blogs and al-jazeera! Give me a break!
You obviously don't read or listen to Malkin, objectively or otherwise. You couldn't and still say such crap.
And let me remind you of what "staying the course" means. It means continue striving for the goals set forth at the beginning. It does not mean tactics and strategy. If diplomacy can be utilized to achieve the stated goals, you can be sure diplomacy will be used. If you think you can negotiate with liars and despots, you're an idiot and don't understand the people with whom we deal.
Our mission in Iraq is to support the new government and it's army until such time that they can secure their own sovereignty without our help. Preventing and destroying terrorist activities (sic) is the mission of all peace and freedom loving nations. We just happen to be the one nation that isn't all talk, though the left would prefer we were.
So my plan is to continue doing what we're doing in conjunction with the plans and initiatives of the military leaders in charge and support them as needed. In the meantime, I'll continue to await some kind of description of just what the hell a political solution would look like, who do think we could honestly negotiate with, and just for a little icing on the cake, just how long should this WOT last according to you and why do think it could happen that way?
But here's a little something I'd like to see happen: I'd like to see all the teachers and preachers in the Muslim world monitored. If they're not bringing up the kids to believe in peace to all the world, and live and let live, remove them from their positions. It's just a little pipe dream of my own, and I have no idea how such could be implemented, but the real success will be in how the kids are raised and if the cycle of hate will cease. Let us pray...
Of course, I read her from time to time. But I don’t believe in her crap like the way you do. You seem to be full of crap.
Who said you can’t negotiate with liars? Look at North Korea and how they are willing to talk with South Korea and negotiate a nuke deal. Look at Pakistan – another big liar and how we managed to negotiate with them to achieve some common goals. Don’t call me an idiot if I want to give a chance to talks and negotiations. You sound like a complete moron with no knowledge of what’s going on in this world.
Supporting the Iraqi government? Fine – but you once again have a distorted picture of Iraq. There is no ‘external’ enemy attacking new government. It’s the sectarian violence that is consuming Iraq today. And, Americans are being targeted by all three (shia, sunni and foreign) factions. You can’t control this unless you talk to those real ‘players’ who are pulling the strings here.
Well, agreed – there is a possibility that Political solution may not work either. But, why are you against giving it a chance? And, I am still waiting to hear your answers on all the questions that you dodged! Like, how come ‘staying the course’ has not brought down the violence in all these days? If so, why should I believe in the same tactics? What’s the solution to sectarian violence? Why are we doing the street patrolling? Why not just logistic support? Etc.
Finally – here is something that I agree with you. I wish I knew how to make Muslim world more open and tolerant towards other religions and faith. I wish I knew how to make those societies more democratic and free from any human rights violations. I only wish I knew how to change those ‘throat cutters’ for good….
Post a Comment