[kKFB1BxX]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat



The solution isn't to moronically and stubbornly keep troops in a non-sustainable mission for an indefinite period of time. Why do you hate America?

[vekiuytyh]

You pussies have only been in Iraq for four years and lost around 3000 men, yet you're already trying to throw in the towel. We were in Algeria for twice as long and lost six times as many men, yet you still think that we're the cowards...

Head back home with your tail between your legs, Yanks. You don't have the balls needed to run an empire.

[77rexulceme]

Since when did you start playing frog, Nebraska boy?

And how many frogs were actually lost in Algeria, as opposed to foreign legionaires?

Just because the frogs were too stubborn and stupid to stop the wastage in a losing situation doesn't mean we have to repeat their incompetence.

[encumeterz]

Are you saying the Iraqi's neighbors will not allow al Qa'ida to set up bases in Iraq (Sunni triangle) from which they can conduct worldwide operations? Some of those neighbors (Sryia and Iran) already support terrorists and training camps and are somewhat friendly to al Qa'ida. Only Saudi Arabia and Turkey seem opposed to al Qa'ida.

[KLIMOV25gyi]

Quit whining and finish the job already!

As I've once heard: "You Americans have been late for every major war! Now you want to leave this one early!"

Seriously, what has happened to the US since the hippy invasion? I still think we should have stayed in Vietnam to finish the job.

[kiosokkn]

afghanistan is bordered by Pakistan, Iran, and the Russian dominated central Asian stans. Paki, Iran and Russia all had substantial interest in the outcome in Afghan. And conflicts with each other. The net result was a state dominated by the pro-Pakistan Taliban, who were aligned with AQ. And before anyone says that no state would dare to ally the way Pakistan did then, I give you Pakistan today, and Waziristan.

An analagous, if not identical, situation, could still take place in Iraq. I dont see the configuration of nearby powers, or the terrain, preventing that. The proximity of US force is a difference, assuming a future US govt has the stomach to go back into Iraq to alter the balance against any faction that is protecting AQ.

The real question is whether there is any net benefit, either in terms of political progress in Iraqi reconciliation, or in improvement in the Iraqi army, from a continued US presence in say, the next 24 months. If not, then we might as well leave now, as the negative consequences of withdrawl will be no worse, and we could begin to rebuild our army. However a full analysis of that would require a detailed look at current Iraqi political situation, including the oil deal, the debaathification proposal, the ferment in Anbar, and the possibility of new alignments in the Iraqi parliament, rather than a "theyre just hopeless Arabs" snark, despite how much the events since Jan 2005 would seem to justify that.

[cucceevevaind]

Originally posted by Nylan-Nolan
Quit whining and finish the job Suck my ****, asswipe, and if you think it's a "job" to "finish" then get your own ass down in the sand.

[Jadykeery]

Originally posted by Nylan-Nolan
I still think we should have stayed in Vietnam to finish the job. How much time did you spend in-country? Who's "we?"

[BundEnhamma]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
afghanistan is bordered by Pakistan, Iran, and the Russian dominated central Asian stans. Paki, Iran and Russia all had substantial interest in the outcome in Afghan. And conflicts with each other. The net result was a state dominated by the pro-Pakistan Taliban, who were aligned with AQ. And before anyone says that no state would dare to ally the way Pakistan did then, I give you Pakistan today, and Waziristan.

An analagous, if not identical, situation, could still take place in Iraq. I dont see the configuration of nearby powers, or the terrain, preventing that. The proximity of US force is a difference, assuming a future US govt has the stomach to go back into Iraq to alter the balance against any faction that is protecting AQ.

The real question is whether there is any net benefit, either in terms of political progress in Iraqi reconciliation, or in improvement in the Iraqi army, from a continued US presence in say, the next 24 months. If not, then we might as well leave now, as the negative consequences of withdrawl will be no worse, and we could begin to rebuild our army. However a full analysis of that would require a detailed look at current Iraqi political situation, including the oil deal, the debaathification proposal, the ferment in Anbar, and the possibility of new alignments in the Iraqi parliament, rather than a "theyre just hopeless Arabs" snark, despite how much the events since Jan 2005 would seem to justify that. The question remains on how our withdrawal will help with the WOT. It surely will help the US armed forces, but that is not the question.

[conurgenceDen]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


I guess MTGs assumption is that a stronger US military will be useful elsewhere in the WOT. And not just in afganistan. Coming from most I would dismiss their willingness to really support, say, military action in Pakistan. From MTG, I would not. What I don't understand is how we can withdraw without some guarantee that al Qa'ida will not set up bases in Iraq. Otherwise, we will simply have to re-invade.

[EtellaObtaite]

No, it wasn't all bad, but it wasn't exactly good either

[BGThomasis]

Originally posted by Ned


What I don't understand is how we can withdraw without some guarantee that al Qa'ida will not set up bases in Iraq. Otherwise, we will simply have to re-invade. 1. MTG seems to think we would reinvade, if necessary

2. Even if we wouldnt, we have to ask if we are weakening AQ enough by staying in Iraq X more years, then we would by using the resources elsewhere. I dont think MTGs case is ironclad, depending on what you think of the political movement in Iraq, or of the ease of reinvasion. But it certainly has a logical structure such that it could strongly make sense, if you grant certain empirical assumptions.

[Gypejeva]

just the Catholics of Vietnam

Given that Catholics only comprised around 10% of the population of South Vietnam I'd say that this view is ridiculous.

[Sxscdergh]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


1. MTG seems to think we would reinvade, if necessary

2. Even if we wouldnt, we have to ask if we are weakening AQ enough by staying in Iraq X more years, then we would by using the resources elsewhere. I dont think MTGs case is ironclad, depending on what you think of the political movement in Iraq, or of the ease of reinvasion. But it certainly has a logical structure such that it could strongly make sense, if you grant certain empirical assumptions. I don't think so as the political realities would forbid it.

So, we would be in a WOT against al Qa'ida with a major if not only base of operations off limits to US intervention.

[neerewed]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
just the Catholics of Vietnam

Given that Catholics only comprised around 10% of the population of South Vietnam I'd say that this view is ridiculous. Not if you know anything about the history of Vietnam and who was running SV.

[SHpuntik]

How is the war in Iraq going to help the WoT? Is it going to help or not? It's not trivial. Anyone who claims they know the answer are also the people who tell you stuff they can't vouch for, the fact is none of us really know.

The problem is when we start mixing up the Iraq thing with terrorism. Most likely the terrorists entered the zone after the war started, I mean individuals and groups that actually counts and not some rogue boyscouts.

There's even a possibility the war in Iraq has actually lifted the terrorism level and the support for it, thus ensuring bigger future resources. We do not know this. What we know for sure is that the people who have sympathies for west are less and less, so at least one more generation of recruits is guaranteed.

What could help the WoT is if Iraq becomes a stable country. However, this doesn't seem likely now, so there's two options: a) cut losses and get out or b) build up the strength multiple times and take control for years.

The first option seems to be the more realistic one. Since the coalition is not getting support, the word is when to get out and not about the build up, so there won't be a build up. It's a matter of time, and how much of a mental loss it'll be. The pragmatic approach is to cut losses to the minimum and face the reality of the situation as soon as possible and let the chips fall as they may. See what the future brings up with the new Iraq.

[YonkFiorc]

Originally posted by Nylan-Nolan


Excellent rebuttal! Your reponse is SO convincing... I gave the original post all the effort it was worth.

Perhaps my family's long time history in the US military could help you calm down a bit. I may not be "in the sand" myself, but it doesn't mean I don't understand the implications. I'm well aware at how much war stinks. Not really. There are a lot of REMF slots in all services, and family history ain't unique. 3200 deaths, or even more, could be justified if there was a proportionate result. 3200 deaths for no definite result, no signs of achieving a definite result, are a different story.

I'm also well aware of what happened to the last country we left early. Which one? Korea? Still there. Vietnam? We're trade buddies now, and they were never a strategic threat since we left? Somalia? A useless festering shithole then, a useless festering shithole now.

[russianstallian]

Originally posted by Ned


Not if you know anything about the history of Vietnam and who was running SV. I know enough to know how influential the Catholic minority was. But they were hardly the only ones threatened by a takeover.

[DoctorWeryDolt]

There are a lot of REMF slots in all services HA, nice MTG. Not only belittling service family members but now service members themselves. Is there any active duty/vetern other than you whose time in counts? What the hell makes you think you are so special? Your seriously hurting your reputation with crap like this.

[viepedorlella]

Originally posted by Wildbore
Saddam Hussein was given the chance to comply with inspectors by the deadline, inspectors said he didn't. Actually, yes he did and the inspectors said that. It's sad that after 4 years, some people still haven't listened what Hans Blix actually said.

Do you get your news from FOX NEWS, by any chance? I'm interested in who originally started spreading this lie.