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

the insurgents who are dying are Iraqis, Dixie.... everyone but you seems to have acknowledged that fact.

Some are and some aren't, this is the truth and the fact of the matter, regardless of how you want to spin it. Regardless of their nationality, they are being supplied, funded, and supported by outside influences, namely, Iran and Syria. If the outside sources of influence are eliminated, the insurgency will wither on the vine, as they have no viable means to replenish their arsenal.

You seem to do as you always do, and draw amazing conclusions to how all Iraqi people think, feel, and act, and the justifications for their actions. It's amazing, as if you can almost think for them! I don't think you can honestly say what is the dynamic in Iraq, whether it's Sunni and Shiia, or Anti-Pro Democracy, or mayyyyybe, a combination of both? You can't say honestly, how a suicide bomber thinks, or the motivation behind an insurgent setting an IED, you can speculate and you can blow your unfounded opinions out your ass, like you know more than the rest of us, but in all honesty, you really don't know and can't possibly say.

Throughout this thread, you can read my responses, I am not forming any preconceived notions about what is going on, I am entertaining all possibilities, and the ones that make no sense, are discarded. For instance, the notion this is simply a generic and internal civil conflict, when it's not. The notion that there is very little outside support, which can't fly because if it were the case, the insurgency would have collapsed by now. And the notion that this is simply a Sunni/Shiia conflict, when that isn't the case either.

One thing that has been demonstrated clearly here, the situation in Iraq is complicated and intricate, and it's not something that has an easy solution. Certainly, the solution is not found in just throwing up our hands and leaving. We owe it to the vast majority of Iraqi people, who have put their faith in the US, yet again, and to the young heroes who've given their lives for this, to insure the job is completed, and the objectives accomplished. To abandon this responsibility is to abandon our responsibility as leaders of the free world.
 
Put down the kool aid Dixie.

There is no military solution to cutting off armaments to the militias ans insurgents. I'm sure the Sovet Red Army tried their damndest to shut off supply routes to the afghan mujahadeen. Only a political solution is viable.

Second, there's no evidence to quantify how much or to what extent insurgent armaments are coming from iran and syria. Commons sense suggest that at least some of their supplies come with the tacit approval at least, of those govenments. But, there's no realistic way militarily, to totally shut it off.

Third, common sense also suggests that the insurgents are fully capable of reciving weapons via the international black market.

And fourth, since the police and Iraqi army are infiltrated by militias and insurgent groups, its probable that they are getting arms from the police and army.

There's no military solution, Dixster.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

Well.... IF this were a conventional war, or a generic civil war, that would be a valid point, and I would agree completely. That isn't the case, as we've established. When 1 suicide bomber can take out 140 trained Iraqi's, they do not need but a few thousand, particularly if they are being supported, supplied, funded, and aided by Syria and Iran.

The iranian and syrian armies aren't involved.

NO Armies are involved for the insurgents. This is why, if their sources of replenishment are compromised, they will collapse.... or, at least be relegated to a marginal, but tenable hindrance for law enforcement. The sources of their support are Syria and Iran.
 
Cypress said:
Put down the kool aid Dixie.

There is no military solution to cutting off armaments to the militias ans insurgents. I'm sure the Sovet Red Army tried their damndest to shut off supply routes to the afghan mujahadeen. Only a political solution is viable.

Second, there's no evidence to quantify how much or to what extent insurgent armaments are coming from iran and syria. Commons sense suggest that at least some of their supplies come with the tacit approval at least, of those govenments. But, there's no realistic way militarily, to totally shut it off.

Third, common sense also suggests that the insurgents are full ycapable of reciving weapons via the international black market.

And fourth, since the police and Iraqi army are infiltrated by militias and insurgent groups, its probable that they are getting arms form the police and army.

There's no military solution, Dixster.
Click to expand...
I agree. It's beginning to look like even the Bush administration admits there is no purely military solution.

Sadly, there may not even be a political solution anymore. Iran and Syria are reasonable places to start, though, on the chance that one remains. I doubt they have much direct influence but bringing them in may gain the Iraqi government some cred with the militias.
 
There is no military solution to cutting off armaments to the militias ans insurgents.

Well, according to you, there is no military solution to anything, so it doesn't surprise me that you feel this way. I don't care if the solution is military or not, I don't believe in taking it off the table before you start to find a solution. If you don't think someone is going to have to militarily confront that nut bag in Iran or the one in NK before it's all said and done, you are kidding yourself. There are people and countries we can negotiate with and work with, and there are those we can't. That is just reality of the world we live in, and you would be wise to learn this.
 
If you don't think someone is going to have to militarily confront that nut bag in Iran or the one in NK before it's all said and done, you are kidding yourself.

In that case, Rangel's idea of a draft has merit. We're gonna need a lot more troops.
 
Dixie said:
the insurgents who are dying are Iraqis, Dixie.... everyone but you seems to have acknowledged that fact.

Some are and some aren't, this is the truth and the fact of the matter, regardless of how you want to spin it. Regardless of their nationality, they are being supplied, funded, and supported by outside influences, namely, Iran and Syria. If the outside sources of influence are eliminated, the insurgency will wither on the vine, as they have no viable means to replenish their arsenal.

You seem to do as you always do, and draw amazing conclusions to how all Iraqi people think, feel, and act, and the justifications for their actions. It's amazing, as if you can almost think for them! I don't think you can honestly say what is the dynamic in Iraq, whether it's Sunni and Shiia, or Anti-Pro Democracy, or mayyyyybe, a combination of both? You can't say honestly, how a suicide bomber thinks, or the motivation behind an insurgent setting an IED, you can speculate and you can blow your unfounded opinions out your ass, like you know more than the rest of us, but in all honesty, you really don't know and can't possibly say.

Throughout this thread, you can read my responses, I am not forming any preconceived notions about what is going on, I am entertaining all possibilities, and the ones that make no sense, are discarded. For instance, the notion this is simply a generic and internal civil conflict, when it's not. The notion that there is very little outside support, which can't fly because if it were the case, the insurgency would have collapsed by now. And the notion that this is simply a Sunni/Shiia conflict, when that isn't the case either.

One thing that has been demonstrated clearly here, the situation in Iraq is complicated and intricate, and it's not something that has an easy solution. Certainly, the solution is not found in just throwing up our hands and leaving. We owe it to the vast majority of Iraqi people, who have put their faith in the US, yet again, and to the young heroes who've given their lives for this, to insure the job is completed, and the objectives accomplished. To abandon this responsibility is to abandon our responsibility as leaders of the free world.
Click to expand...

I know that the sunnis and the shiites are not joining together to fight the pro-democracy forces of good. I know that much. I know that every authority who has spoken on the subject - every general who has been there has said that the insurgency is indigenous. I know that much. I know that you oversimplify to the point of absurdity. I know that much. I know that syria and iran do not have military units on the ground in Iraq propping up their chosen sides in this conflict. I know that much. And I KNOW that I know more about the region than YOU do, because you prove what an idiot you are about this topic every day. I know that much.
 
New Poll of Iraqis, Nov. 21, 2006:


-Overwhelming majority of iraqis want americans to leave within a year.

-6 in 10 iraqis support attacks on americans.

-By a wide margin, Iraqis think occupying american troops provoke more violence.

-94% of Iraqis express dissaproval of Al Qaeda (supporting my point that when the provoking american occupation is gone, Iraqis will hunt down and kill the foreign fighters who have wreaked so much carnage in iraq)


http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003410658
 
I know that the sunnis and the shiites are not joining together to fight the pro-democracy forces of good.

Oh really? Well, in a sense, that is exactly what is happening by your very own definition.....

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.
...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).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you effectively saying what you just said was not the case? Aren't these anti-democracy forces fueling the insurgency, and isn't the objective to thwart democracy in Iraq? Are you essentially saying that you don't know what you know for certain?
 
Cypress said:
New Poll of Iraqis, Nov. 21, 2006:


-Overwhelming majority of iraqis want americans to leave within a year.

-6 in 10 iraqis support attacks on americans.

-By a wide margin, Iraqis think occupying american troops provoke more violence.

-94% of Iraqis express dissaproval of Al Qaeda (supporting my point that when the provoking american occupation is gone, Iraqis will hunt down and kill the foreign fighters who have wreaked so much carnage in iraq)


http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003410658
Click to expand...


http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/15/iraq.elections/index.html


Strong turnout reported, even among Sunnis, in historic elections

Thursday, December 15, 2005; Posted: 11:51 p.m. EST (04:51 GMT)

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Vote counting in Iraq began Thursday night after a surprisingly high number of voters turned out to choose the nation's first full-term parliament since Saddam Hussein's ouster.

Results from the 33,000 polling stations probably won't be available for "two weeks or more," said Farid Ayar, spokesman for the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq.

Officials estimated about 10 million of the 15 million registered voters participated in the elections for a 275-seat parliament called the Council of Representatives.

Among those who streamed to the polls were Sunni Arabs, who had stayed away in previous elections only to find they barely had a voice in government.

The high turnout was remarkable considering curfews, bulked-up security, border closings, road closures and traffic bans across the country.

The turnout was so heavy in some areas that election officials gave provincial governments discretion to keep polls open an hour past the 5 p.m. closing time.

"It's been a good day for Iraq," said Laith Kubba, a top aide to transitional Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari.
 
Dixie said:
I know that the sunnis and the shiites are not joining together to fight the pro-democracy forces of good.

Oh really? Well, in a sense, that is exactly what is happening by your very own definition.....

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.
...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).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you effectively saying what you just said was not the case? Aren't these anti-democracy forces fueling the insurgency, and isn't the objective to thwart democracy in Iraq? Are you essentially saying that you don't know what you know for certain?
Click to expand...


OK....I'll correct you. You are, of course, wrong. The key concept that you seem to gloss over is "join together". If there is a sunni baathist, and that sunni does not want to see a government that is dominated by shiites..... if there is also a shiite loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr who does not want to see a government that allows any voice whatsoever to moderates or sunnis and would prefer to see an Iranian clone theocracy... Those two individuals are not "joined together". They are fighting one another as much as they are fighting the government. They do not want the government to succeed as it is presently constituted, and they do not want the other to succeed either.

I realize that, considering that this isn't a BLACK/WHITE... YES/NO ... GOOD/EVIL....EITHER/OR sort of situation, but rather more of a red/blue/green/orange situation, it is too complex for you to comprehend...and I am sorry for that.

But you are a moron who thinks that Iran would provide assistance to sunni insurgents.... you don't understand enough about this situation to really carry on an intelligent discussion. This is one of those situations that is too complicated for your simple mind to grasp. too bad.
 
Dixie said:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/15/iraq.elections/index.html


Strong turnout reported, even among Sunnis, in historic elections

Thursday, December 15, 2005; Posted: 11:51 p.m. EST (04:51 GMT)

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Vote counting in Iraq began Thursday night after a surprisingly high number of voters turned out to choose the nation's first full-term parliament since Saddam Hussein's ouster.

Results from the 33,000 polling stations probably won't be available for "two weeks or more," said Farid Ayar, spokesman for the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq.

Officials estimated about 10 million of the 15 million registered voters participated in the elections for a 275-seat parliament called the Council of Representatives.

Among those who streamed to the polls were Sunni Arabs, who had stayed away in previous elections only to find they barely had a voice in government.

The high turnout was remarkable considering curfews, bulked-up security, border closings, road closures and traffic bans across the country.

The turnout was so heavy in some areas that election officials gave provincial governments discretion to keep polls open an hour past the 5 p.m. closing time.

"It's been a good day for Iraq," said Laith Kubba, a top aide to transitional Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari.
Click to expand...

You must have responded to the wrong post.

An election in 2005, doesn't have anything to do with a current poll that shows majorities of iraqis support attacks on americans, and want us to get out within a year.
 
An election in 2005, doesn't have anything to do with a current poll that shows majorities of iraqis support attacks on americans, and want us to get out within a year.

I'm sorry, I don't subscribe to Pinhead Polls-R-Us.com and I don't have the latest propaganda. I do realize that polls are often subject to interpretation, and dependent on how the questions are framed. I also realize there is a difference between a fair and objective evaluation of a national election, and the emotive responses in a poll of people who have lived in terror for 30 years. Can we pretend to be grown ups now, and stop living in some fantasy world?
 
But you are a moron who thinks that Iran would provide assistance to sunni insurgents....

That's right bitch, you keep repeating that lie. Just keep posting it over and over again, until it is ingrained in every one's mind, that this is something I said. Because that's all you have, attacks on my integrity. You can't argue the point, because you know you are wrong and I am right, and you don't have an argument, so you have to revert to sophomoric juvenile antics to try and save face.
 
"Can we pretend to be grown ups now, and stop living in some fantasy world?"

You're a real piece of work, Dixie. You're just now making this decision, after over 3 years of "liberals STFU" threads telling us how swimmingly everything has been going in Iraq?

Like another poster said - time to turn over the keys, and just shut up for awhile. You've been wrong on way too much to speak with this kind of arrogance & condescension. I'd really prefer to see nothing but apologies from you for awhile....
 
OK....I'll correct you. You are, of course, wrong. The key concept that you seem to gloss over is "join together". If there is a sunni baathist, and that sunni does not want to see a government that is dominated by shiites..... if there is also a shiite loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr who does not want to see a government that allows any voice whatsoever to moderates or sunnis and would prefer to see an Iranian clone theocracy... Those two individuals are not "joined together".

Yes, they are, they have a common objective. This joins them together, whether they cooperatively work together, that is a different matter, but they certainly are joined together to defeat democracy in Iraq. That is the only point that needs to be considered here, and it is valid.
 
Dixie said:
But you are a moron who thinks that Iran would provide assistance to sunni insurgents....

That's right bitch, you keep repeating that lie. Just keep posting it over and over again, until it is ingrained in every one's mind, that this is something I said. Because that's all you have, attacks on my integrity. You can't argue the point, because you know you are wrong and I am right, and you don't have an argument, so you have to revert to sophomoric juvenile antics to try and save face.
Click to expand...

Dixie...either you mistakenly thought that Iran was providing support to sunnis who was against the Iraqi government as you wrote, or, you are a complete and total moron who cannot understand basic english if you EVER thought that I suggested that Iran provided support to sunnis which is what you later wrote in your tapdancing act.

take your pick.

The point is....you want to make this some unified "joined together" bunch of bad guys fighting the poor beleaguered Iraqi government, and it is just not that simple.....

but YOU are.
 
Dixie said:
cypress: An election in 2005, doesn't have anything to do with a current poll that shows majorities of iraqis support attacks on americans, and want us to get out within a year.

Dixie: I'm sorry, I don't subscribe to Pinhead Polls-R-Us.com and I don't have the latest propaganda. I do realize that polls are often subject to interpretation, and dependent on how the questions are framed. I also realize there is a difference between a fair and objective evaluation of a national election, and the emotive responses in a poll of people who have lived in terror for 30 years. Can we pretend to be grown ups now, and stop living in some fantasy world?
Click to expand...

The 2005 election, was not an affirmation of Bush and an american occupation. As much as you might like it to be. As such, your response with a CNN article about a 2005 election, was irrelvant to how iraqis feel about the occupation and presence of american troops.

You've pretty much been wrong about everything in Iraq. Your simplistic assertions about evil-doers versus non-evil doers, and anti-democrats versuse pro-democracy forces is as ignorant as your simplistic assumption before you invaded iraq.

Shias are killing sunnis. Sunnis are killing Shia. Kurds are bailing out on the nation of Iraq. Theocrats are fighting nationalists. Jihaddists are killing secular iraqis. In short, there is no simplistic description of this conflict.

And your hopes for an Iraqi "democracy" are as hopelessly outdated, as your Confederate flag avatar. Even the bush adminstration and their allies are giving up hope of establishing a country, that would even remotely qualify as a democracy in the developed world. The only end game now is a stable iraq, that hasn't disintegrated into chaos.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top