More Troops, Less Troops, or.... Both?

your words Dix:

are you saying we should allow the Sunni's to gain funding from Syria and Iran, to overthrow the legitimately elected democratic government of Iraq, while we abandon our allies and withhold our support

Sunnis are more likely to gain funding from Japan than they are from Iran. The mere fact that you could WRITE those words proves you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
 
did you get that "pro-democracy vs anti-democracy" bullshit from Hannity?

"As far as you know"???? "As far as you know"????? That's about as far as the distance between your nose and your chin. YOu don't know shit about what you are talking about.

admit it.

YOU think that Iran gives funding to the sunnis. moron.
 
it is sunnis (who are probably getting assistance from Syria and other sunni muslim states) fighting against shiites loyal to Sadr (who, in all probability IS getting assistance from Iran)... and it is Al Qaeda in Iraq stirring up the pot against all sides, but primarily against Americans and the shiites and the government (which is controlled primarily by shiites).

Ohhh.... Okay.... so, it's not just a simple little internal conflict we have no business in. That's what I presumed all along. As far as I know, the Unity Government in Iraq was voted on and elected to power legitimately, by the people of Iraq. I think we have to honor their wishes here, don't you agree?

The Unity Government is comprised of Suni, Shiia, and Kurd representatives, and they have operated as a functional parliamentary democracy for a couple of years now. I don't really care who is funding who, the United States stands with our allies in Iraq, and the Unity Government that was elected. Any outside influence or support needs to be dealt with, because without it, the insurgency collapses, as I've articulated.
 
maineman said:
your words Dix:

are you saying we should allow the Sunni's to gain funding from Syria and Iran, to overthrow the legitimately elected democratic government of Iraq, while we abandon our allies and withhold our support

Sunnis are more likely to gain funding from Japan than they are from Iran. The mere fact that you could WRITE those words proves you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
Click to expand...


I think you'll notice the "ARE YOU SAYING" part, which clearly indicates, what follows is what I heard you say. I know Saddam was a Sunni, and the people loyal to him, are Sunni. I know the majority of Iraqi's and the controlling faction in their government, is Shiia. You said it was a Sunni/Shiia Civil War and we were stuck in the middle. But, we are supporting the Iraqi government, which is mostly Shiia. I merely asked you for some clarification to your idiotic statement.

This is indeed about political, governmental ideology. If you are foolish enough to think otherwise, you simply don't understand the world in terms of reality. The forces outside of Iraq who don't want to see Democracy flourish, are the same radicals we are at war with, in alQaeda.
 
Again....you are too stupid to grasp the intricacy of this conflict our boneheaded invasion set into motion. To suggest that the conflict is simply Saddam loyalist sunnis against the "legitimate" Iraqi government dominated by shiites is too simplistic to even approach the truth.

Tell me...in that simple scenario you have painted, where does Muqtada al Sadr fit?

and I LOVE it when you speak of the Iraqi people and suggest, "I think we have to honor their wishes here, don't you agree? "

The vast majority of the people of Iraq want us to leave their country. Well over half of the people of Iraq sympathize with the people who carry out attacks on us. Yes....I DO think we have to honor their wishes here....or do you get to decide which wishes to honor and which ones to ignore?
 
and if you ever "heard me say" that the Iranians were funding the sunnis, you need to clean the shit out of your ears.
 
and yousay, "The forces outside of Iraq who don't want to see Democracy flourish, are the same radicals we are at war with, in alQaeda."

again....oversimplification to the point of absurdity. Syria doesn't want to see democracy flourish in Iraq....Syria is not Al Qaeda. Syria is baathist, just like Saddam was. Iran doesn't want to see an independent democracy flourish in Iraq - it wants a theocracy that is aligned with Iran and completely under the influence of Iran. Iran is not Al Qaeda.


and you have the GALL to say that I do not understand the world in terms of reality?????? It is you, sir, who do not understand the world beyond the terms of kindergarten. Your knowledge of this area is as deep as the kiddie pool.
 
Again....you are too stupid to grasp the intricacy of this conflict our boneheaded invasion set into motion.

No, I understand the intricacy of it, that's why I don't think we can consider it a generic civil internal conflict. I also understand who the players are, and what side they are on, and about the only thing I don't understand, is this liberal mentality that says the best thing WE can do, is bail on Iraq and let them figure it out on their own.

Syria doesn't want to see democracy flourish in Iraq....Syria is not Al Qaeda. Syria is baathist, just like Saddam was. Iran doesn't want to see an independent democracy flourish in Iraq - it wants a theocracy that is aligned with Iran and completely under the influence of Iran. Iran is not Al Qaeda.

They all have a common objective, I understand this. Again, what I don't understand is why they can fund and support an insurgency to attain this objective, yet we are not compelled to support the Iraqi forces? I also don't understand why you want to undermine the democracy, by undermining the war with the simplification that this is a "civil war" when it's not. It's a war of ideology, a war of proxy, between forces who are anti-democracy and the legitimately elected democracy in Iraq.

Regardless of how you see it, this is why we can't leave Iraq without finishing the job. We've established, by even the pinheadedest views, the insurgents are being funded by outside sources, and you will even suggest that they are all anti-democracy, and want to see it fail in Iraq. So, why are you so adamant about leaving Iraq to fend for themselves here? Is freedom and democracy not worth standing with our allies for?
 
Dixie said:
Again....you are too stupid to grasp the intricacy of this conflict our boneheaded invasion set into motion.

No, I understand the intricacy of it, that's why I don't think we can consider it a generic civil internal conflict. I also understand who the players are, and what side they are on, and about the only thing I don't understand, is this liberal mentality that says the best thing WE can do, is bail on Iraq and let them figure it out on their own.

Syria doesn't want to see democracy flourish in Iraq....Syria is not Al Qaeda. Syria is baathist, just like Saddam was. Iran doesn't want to see an independent democracy flourish in Iraq - it wants a theocracy that is aligned with Iran and completely under the influence of Iran. Iran is not Al Qaeda.

They all have a common objective, I understand this. Again, what I don't understand is why they can fund and support an insurgency to attain this objective, yet we are not compelled to support the Iraqi forces? I also don't understand why you want to undermine the democracy, by undermining the war with the simplification that this is a "civil war" when it's not. It's a war of ideology, a war of proxy, between forces who are anti-democracy and the legitimately elected democracy in Iraq.

Regardless of how you see it, this is why we can't leave Iraq without finishing the job. We've established, by even the pinheadedest views, the insurgents are being funded by outside sources, and you will even suggest that they are all anti-democracy, and want to see it fail in Iraq. So, why are you so adamant about leaving Iraq to fend for themselves here? Is freedom and democracy not worth standing with our allies for?
Click to expand...

Leaving Iraq to fend for themselves? You cannot possibly be that dense.....

These ARE Iraqis. They are all funded by outside interests..... You seem to have this mistaken notion that there are all these democracy loving shiites and sunnis and kurds on one side holding hands, hugging, and singing kumbaya praising Allah for the presence of Americans and hoping that we never leave until this mythical multicultural democracy flourishes in the fertile triangle shining like a beacon of truth throughout the middle east...

and this OTHER group of democracy hating, syrian backed sunnis, and iranian backed shiites, and foreign al qaeda fighters on the other side all holding hands and hugging and hating the American presence and the very idea of democracy itself.

This view is oversimplified to the point of ridiculous, laughable absurdity. period. Sunnis and shiites are NOT banding together with the common purpose of overthrowing the American backed, and propped up, "legitimate democratic government" of Iraq. That is absurd. Get it? IT IS FUCKING ABSURD. As long as you think that THAT is the situation in Iraq, your proposed solutions to fix that will always be EQUALLY ABSURD.

The syrians are helping out their sunni brothers because they are sunnis and baathists and therefore have a great deal in common. Similarly, the Iranians are giving support to Muqtada al Sadr because he is a shiite with similar views about the importance of the shiite variant of muslim theocratic thought in the governance of nations. The kurds are content to sit on the sidelines and let sunnis and shiites kill each other with their fondest hope being the dissolution of the Iraqi state as it is presently constituted and the creation of an independent kurdistan - which will totally piss off the turks..... when push comes to shove, the members of the Iraqi army and police forces will chose sides - and all indications are that the police forces - and maybe the army itself - already are so infiltrated by militia members who owe their primary allegiance to their militia and their sect that any sense of loyalty to the American backed Iraqi state is a myth.

But you want to stay the course. You want to keep doing what we have been doing even though it has led us waist deep into a swamp of shit.... for some strange reason you expect Americans to believe you when you suggest that all we need to do is keep wading into this swamp of shit and it is bound to get more shallow and less swampy and less shitty.

Doing the same thing day after day and expecting a different result is one definition of insanity. Your plan for Iraq is INSANE.

And for that reason alone, America will take the keys away from you in '08. We've already put the democrats up in the front seat with you and given them an auxiliary brake pedal, but getting you out from behind the wheel will do wonders for American prestige and safety and security.

You guys are so fucking nuts it is really scary.
 
Dixie said:
it is sunnis (who are probably getting assistance from Syria and other sunni muslim states) fighting against shiites loyal to Sadr (who, in all probability IS getting assistance from Iran)... and it is Al Qaeda in Iraq stirring up the pot against all sides, but primarily against Americans and the shiites and the government (which is controlled primarily by shiites).

Ohhh.... Okay.... so, it's not just a simple little internal conflict we have no business in. That's what I presumed all along. As far as I know, the Unity Government in Iraq was voted on and elected to power legitimately, by the people of Iraq. I think we have to honor their wishes here, don't you agree?

The Unity Government is comprised of Suni, Shiia, and Kurd representatives, and they have operated as a functional parliamentary democracy for a couple of years now. I don't really care who is funding who, the United States stands with our allies in Iraq, and the Unity Government that was elected. Any outside influence or support needs to be dealt with, because without it, the insurgency collapses, as I've articulated.
Click to expand...


As far as I know, the Unity Government in Iraq was voted on and elected to power legitimately, by the people of Iraq. I think we have to honor their wishes here, don't you agree?

They should fight for their government themselves, if they want it. The american army is not a proxy for the Iraqi government, though it appears you wish to make it so.

You've spent years saying there's only a few thousand insurgents. The iraqi security forces are up to 300,000 trained now.

300,000 should be able to take on a few thousand, don't you agree?
 
and I notice that even though Iran and Syria may, in fact, be "supporting" various sectarian militias in Iraq, there are no Syrian or Iranian armed forces stationed in Iraq - no Syrian or Iranian soldiers dying in Iraq.

If you want to suggest that we are compelled to support the "legitimate Iraqi democracy" because Syria and Iraq are supporting different "anti-legitimate Iraqi democracy" factions, then why don't we offer similar support?

Iran and Syria and sending some cash.... we are sending TONS of cash and have already suffered 25K dead and wounded. It would seem that our level of "support" is qualitatively and quantitatively in a different league from the "support" offered to those indigenous Iraqi forces who are opposed to the existing "legitimate Iraqi democracy".
 
They should fight for their government themselves, if they want it.

So, they should fight by themselves, while their enemies join together against them, and we are not obligated as allies to stand with them? Nice.

This is precisely the mindset I always understood the liberals to have, you aren't really willing to stand with your allies, you had just as soon turn your back on your friends for your own selfish interests, because you lack any morals or ethics. If you aren't willing to stand for someone elses freedom, who is going to be there to stand for yours? Oh, that's right, you take it for granted that no one will ever have to stand with you. I see.

and I notice that even though Iran and Syria may, in fact, be "supporting" various sectarian militias in Iraq, there are no Syrian or Iranian armed forces stationed in Iraq - no Syrian or Iranian soldiers dying in Iraq.

Wow, how observant! I guess you also noticed that NONE of the enemy insurgency is wearing a uniform of ANY armed forces? More insurgents have died in this conflict than American forces, so I don't really understand your point there, other than, they weren't wearing uniforms. Isn't that a GC violation?
 
the insurgents who are dying are Iraqis, Dixie.... everyone but you seems to have acknowledged that fact. This is not pro-democracy sunnis, shiites and kurds aligned and fighting against anti-democracy sunnis shiites and kurds.

You are wrong....and you have BEEN wrong about Iraq from day one....and you and your pissant little cowboy president have gotten us into a swamp and your only solution is to oversimplify and suggest that continuing to slog on through the swamp will miraculously get us OUT of the swamp and not, somehow, just get us deeper INTO the swamp.

Give up the keys.... you're all done.
 
"This is precisely the mindset I always understood the liberals to have, you aren't really willing to stand with your allies, you had just as soon turn your back on your friends for your own selfish interests, because you lack any morals or ethics"

Are you insane? We're in a position right now where we basically have to pick sides in Iraq based on nothing but exepediency. And that side DOES have to step up & fend for themselves at some point in the very near future; otherwise, we could easily - EASILY - be there for decades.

Wish you & Bush had thought about all of this stuff before getting us into this mess. It really is one major fiasco that we, as a nation, now find ourselves in the predicament of extricating ourselves from with as little further loss of life as possible. Yes, we want to do it in a way that doesn't benefit our enemies, but it's an almost untenable position we're in at this point. I'm SO tired of hearing platitudes about how we can't leave until we achieve "victory"...most people don't even know what that looks like in Iraq, anymore. Kissinger sure doesn't; neither does Baker....
 
The american army is not a proxy for the Iraqi government, though it appears you wish to make it so.

I have never indicated any such thing. However, if the insurgents can be proxies for Iran and Syria, why not? How fair is it to tell the Iraqi's they are on their own in this, while Syria and Iran funnel weapons, explosives, and insurgents, into Iraq, for the sole purpose of overthrowing the democracy?

Do you really understand this? Do you really give a flying fuck about anyone besides your pathetic self? Is it not in America's best interest to stand with our oil-rich democratic ALLY in Iraq?
 
and no enemies of the "legitimate Iraqi government" are "joining forces". that is another of your silly myths..... they are fighting one another as much as they are fighting the Iraq government.
 
Dixie said:
The american army is not a proxy for the Iraqi government, though it appears you wish to make it so.

I have never indicated any such thing. However, if the insurgents can be proxies for Iran and Syria, why not? How fair is it to tell the Iraqi's they are on their own in this, while Syria and Iran funnel weapons, explosives, and insurgents, into Iraq, for the sole purpose of overthrowing the democracy?

Do you really understand this? Do you really give a flying fuck about anyone besides your pathetic self? Is it not in America's best interest to stand with our oil-rich democratic ALLY in Iraq?
Click to expand...

You've said for years that there are only a few thousand insurgent, who have little popular support.

Unless you've been lying for the last three years, 300,000 trained iraqi security forces should be more than a match for the insurgents. The iraqi government forces have to be at least as well trained as the insurgents. They've had the exact same amount of time to train as the insurgents have.

The iranian and syrian armies aren't involved. We can support the iraqi govenrment, but according to your own assertions about insurgent strength, the iraqi government should be able to defend itseld. No need for american soldiers to play much of a combat role.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top