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

[Damocles]

Our own military says that very few of the insurgents are foreign fighters. 2 to 3% at most.

Your asking american soldiers to die in a civil war. In which there is no prospect of military victory. That's just plain wrong. Only political solutions by iraq and its neighbors will end it.

Regardless of the number, handing them a clear and obvious victory can and will enable them to create new and more direct plans.

Whether or not you want it to, this will effect our safety directly. Whether or not you or I wanted it to happen, it has. And whether or not I want it to be that way, it is. In fourth Generation warfare of this type perception can make or break you, we must be smart on the way we extricate ourselves. As Kissinger said, a fast retreat would be monumentally stupid.

Now can you link us to 2 to 3%? Or is that number off the top of your head?

 

[Cypress]

What the fuck was the point on continuing to fight in Nam? Ho Chi Minh was not a soviet puppet. He never became a client state of theirs. He wasn't even a chinese puppet. He went to war with Red China in 1979.

The khmer rouge were ferociously anti-soviet. Where the fuck was the upside, in containing the soviet union, by shedding vast amounts of our blood and treasure?

 

[Cypress]

Regardless of the number, handing them a clear and obvious victory can and will enable them to create new and more direct plans.

Whether or not you want it to, this will effect our safety directly. Whether or not you or I wanted it to happen, it has. And whether or not I want it to be that way, it is. In fourth Generation warfare of this type perception can make or break you, we must be smart on the way we extricate ourselves. As Kissinger said, a fast retreat would be monumentally stupid.

Now can you link us to 2 to 3%? Or is that number off the top of your head?

2-3% was the general's testimony in congress this week. Its' been publically cited everywhere in the media, except perhaps on Fox News and Glenn Beck. What DO you watch for news?

Our occupation is creating more terrorists. Taking the american-face off the occupation is in our strategic interest. The iraqis will kill the foreign fighters, once the focus is off the american occupation. Foreign fighters have killed thousands of iraqis.

 

[Damocles]

2-3% was the general's testimony in congress this week. Its' been publically cited everywhere in the media, except perhaps on Fox News and Glenn Beck. What DO you watch for news?

Our occupation is creating more terrorists. Taking the american-face off the occupation is in our strategic interest. The iraqis will kill the foreign fighters, once the focus is off the american occupation. Foreign fighters have killed thousands of iraqis.

Don't be disingenuous. If it is everywhere then a link must be easy to find.

One general's opinion on that doesn't a fact make either. If you haven't learned from this particular "war" that generals can and do have differing opinions on such things then I don't know what "war" you've been watching.

I've read your 2 to 3 percent thing for quite some time now. This is the first time I've asked for a link.

And still, as I stated, it doesn't really matter to the outcome I projected. Pretending that this cannot reach our own shores, and that it is exactly like VN in that way, is just covering your eyes and pretending you haven't already seen it.

 

[Damocles]

What the fuck was the point on continuing to fight in Nam? Ho Chi Minh was not a soviet puppet. He never became a client state of theirs. He wasn't even a chinese puppet. He went to war with Red China in 1979.

The khmer rouge were ferociously anti-soviet. Where the fuck was the upside, in containing the soviet union, by shedding vast amounts of our blood and treasure?

Viet Nam was just another of these inane "War Powers Act" wars that leave our nation in total debacles consistently.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

more beneificial for whom? for those additional americans who die in order to give our selves "victory"?

I again say.... one of those soldiers who died in the last years of Vietnam might very well have come home and found the cure for cancer and AIDS. Refute THAT!

More beneficial to the United States, who those soldiers swore an oath to fight for, and the cause they fought and died for. Yes, one of those soldiers may have cured cancer, it could have also been a Japanese youth who was incinerated in Hiroshima, or a German who was slaghtered by the Russians in Berlin. It might also have been one of those Cambodians who were slaughtered by Pol Pot, or a Vietnamese in the fall of Siagon. You are making a purely silly emotional appeal, which has never been a legitimate argument against any war.

Stamp that one: REFUTED!

 

[Cypress]

Don't be disingenuous. If it is everywhere then a link must be easy to find.

One general's opinion on that doesn't a fact make either. If you haven't learned from this particular "war" that generals can and do have differing opinions on such things then I don't know what "war" you've been watching.

I've read your 2 to 3 percent thing for quite some time now. This is the first time I've asked for a link.

And still, as I stated, it doesn't really matter to the outcome I projected. Pretending that this cannot reach our own shores, and that it is exactly like VN in that way, is just covering your eyes and pretending you haven't already seen it.

It was General Hayden's (or General Abizaid, I can't remember which) testimony on Cspan in front of congress. I watched it.

I don't care if you think I'm lying.

 

[Damocles]

I don't think you are lying, I'm fine with that... I'd just like to have a link to review.

Honestly you keep attempting to bring that one up as if it were my whole point. It isn't. I have made my point clearly.

 

[Damocles]

Either the "we are making more terrorists in Iraq" statement we have heard so consistently is real, which I believe it is, or it isn't. If it is, pretending that they will have no urge to plan and attempt to attack on our shores is simply the wishful thinking that I have presented earlier. We are in more danger of that if we allow a clear victory. If we don't extricate ourselves in a manner much smarter than that, and if we leave Iraq in disarray when we do.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It was General Hayden's (or General Abizaid, I can't remember which) testimony on Cspan in front of congress. I watched it.

I don't care if you think I'm lying.

Well let me ask you something, since you watched it. Did they mention where all of these explosives and weapons are coming from? We captured and destroyed most of the Iraq Army's munitions, and the Insurgents don't operate any factories or means of production, so where are all of the weapons and ammo coming from?

Now, once you have formulated an answer to this, I want you to ask yourself, before you post it, can this condition continued at its present rate? The point I am trying to establish is, the insurgents are either being supplied and supported by outside sources, or they are destined to be destroyed eventually, due to lack of resources.

 

[Cypress]

a quick google on the keyword iraq, "foreign fighters", and "percent", shows a host of credible media sources suggesting the number of foreign fighters is very small.

General's haydens' testimony to the senate, indicated 2-3%. I can't find the senate testimony on line, it probably hasn't been posted yet since the hearing was just last week.

 

[Cypress]

Well let me ask you something, since you watched it. Did they mention where all of these explosives and weapons are coming from? We captured and destroyed most of the Iraq Army's munitions, and the Insurgents don't operate any factories or means of production, so where are all of the weapons and ammo coming from?

Now, once you have formulated an answer to this, I want you to ask yourself, before you post it, can this condition continued at its present rate? The point I am trying to establish is, the insurgents are either being supplied and supported by outside sources, or they are destined to be destroyed eventually, due to lack of resources.

Obviously, you've forgotten my post in which I suggested the US role has to evolve from fighting in a civil war, to force protection and border protection, along with a politial solution with iraq's neighbors.

 

[Damocles]

a quick google on the keyword iraq, "foreign fighters", and "percent", shows a host of credible media sources suggesting the number of foreign fighters is very small.

General's haydens' testimony to the senate, indicated 2-3%. I can't find the senate testimony on line, it probably hasn't been posted yet since the hearing was just last week.

I've read a few. It doesn't change one aspect of my previous posts... You are deliberately avoiding the point of the posts to focus on this miniscule aspect. That's fine, I retract the request for the link, there is no real need for it anyway.

I've already stated that even given that, there is still direct danger to the US if we leave in a less than careful fashion, that this "war" isn't like Viet Nam specifically in that aspect. That I would continue to fight in Iraq because of that has also been stated. So all of your questions have been answered, yet you still focus on this one inconsequential part of my post...

 

[Cypress]

I've read a few. It doesn't change one aspect of my previous posts... You are deliberately avoiding the point of the posts to focus on this miniscule aspect. That's fine, I retract the request for the link, there is no real need for it anyway.

I've already stated that even given that, there is still direct danger to the US if we leave in a less than careful fashion, that this "war" isn't like Viet Nam specifically in that aspect. That I would continue to fight in Iraq because of that has also been stated. So all of your questions have been answered, yet you still focus on this one inconsequential part of my post...

I don't think we can run for the hills, and precipitously withdraw tommorow.

I think we need a phased strategic redeployment on a time line, and we need to engage all the regional powers in a diplomatic effort.

A military victory is out of the question. Its primarily a civil war now.

 

[Damocles]

The military victory happened long ago. It is the occupation that has gone so horribly awry...

The only way to "win" in such a circumstance is to leave when there is stability. At this point the only victory will be diplomatic. They need to be able to "win" it for themselves.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Obviously, you've forgotten my post in which I suggested the US role has to evolve from fighting in a civil war, to force protection and border protection, along with a politial solution with iraq's neighbors.

I agreed with your argument for border protection. The Iraqi's are not in a "civil war" if one side is being supplied by outside sources. The country is under siege from outside enemies, utilizing insurgents from within. This is quite different from two political adversaries fighting for internal control of Iraq.

As for a political solution, some of Iraq's neighbors are conducive to just that. Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, are all on board with the plan to democratize Iraq, and glad to see Saddam gone. The countries who have not cooperated with diplomatic efforts, are Syria and Iran. Many believe they, along with the French and Russians, are who is supporting the insurgency in Iraq. They seek no political solution and do not want democracy in Iraq. This is not something we can "negotiate" with them, so what do you propose we do?

 

[Cypress]

I agreed with your argument for border protection. The Iraqi's are not in a "civil war" if one side is being supplied by outside sources. The country is under siege from outside enemies, utilizing insurgents from within. This is quite different from two political adversaries fighting for internal control of Iraq.

As for a political solution, some of Iraq's neighbors are conducive to just that. Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, are all on board with the plan to democratize Iraq, and glad to see Saddam gone. The countries who have not cooperated with diplomatic efforts, are Syria and Iran. Many believe they, along with the French and Russians, are who is supporting the insurgency in Iraq. They seek no political solution and do not want democracy in Iraq. This is not something we can "negotiate" with them, so what do you propose we do?

"The Iraqi's are not in a "civil war" if one side is being supplied by outside sources.

You're delusional if you don't think Iraq is a civil war. Its has nothing to do with "where" the waring factions get the arms. Lebanon does not have a major arms manufacturing industry - the warring factions in the Lebanese civil war got their arms from Israel, Syria, et al.

 

[Cypress]

The military victory happened long ago. It is the occupation that has gone so horribly awry...

The only way to "win" in such a circumstance is to leave when there is stability. At this point the only victory will be diplomatic. They need to be able to "win" it for themselves.

The military victory happened long ago. It is the occupation that has gone so horribly awry...

The old "mission accomplished" thingy in May 2003, eh?

I suppose by that Standard, the Soviet Red Army "won" their Afgan war in about two weeks in December 1979, and the next eight years wasn't really a war, as all the history books tell us.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You're delusional if you don't think Iraq is a civil war. Its has nothing to do with "where" the waring factions get the arms.

I think it does, it can't be a civil war if it's not being waged by internal factions. Unless you just want to argue that any war is a civil war, you must have some delineation. If the insurgents are being funded, supplied, supported, and aided by outside influence, this is not a generic civil war anymore. If one side IS being supported by outside influence, then why shoud we withdraw our support for the other side?

 

[OrnotBitwise]

You're delusional if you don't think Iraq is a civil war. Its has nothing to do with "where" the waring factions get the arms.

I think it does, it can't be a civil war if it's not being waged by internal factions. Unless you just want to argue that any war is a civil war, you must have some delineation. If the insurgents are being funded, supplied, supported, and aided by outside influence, this is not a generic civil war anymore. If one side IS being supported by outside influence, then why shoud we withdraw our support for the other side?

What evidence, outside of Fox News inuendo, do you have that the fighting in Iraq is being waged by "international factions?" That's quite a stretch. They're in Iraq, after all: it would take some considerable evidence to conclude that they're not Iraqis. Pray, enlighten us with the intelligence to which you are so obviously privy, Dixie.

Or is that you're just repeating what you've heard on the less repubtable TV channels?

Certainly some of the fighters in Iraq are not Iraqis. It's a fair bet, based simply on the geography of the region, that there are dissaftected Jordian, Egyptian and Saudi elements. It's also given that there are people in there with the support, whether explicit or tacit, of the governments of Iran and Syria, at least.

The mere presence of such individuals, however, doesn't mean that the bulk of the fighting is being waged by non-Iraqis.