I'm skeptical of the Biden plan. It doesn't do a good job of directly addressing the issue of American troops. Simply saying that each ethic group is going to police its own territory is nice in theory, but I don't know if the forces are there to impliment it. The Kurdish regions could do it, but the Shia are still in a bit of a power struggle, and I don't think that there's any real Sunni force that could bring order.

Also, there are still a lot of areas that would be disputed, not just Baghdad. Not coincidentally, these are also the areas that control the largest oil reserves insdie the country.

Besides, this reminds me somewhat of what the Bush administration is doing right now: pulling troops from the countryside to help secure the capital, attempting to rebuild the economy (which we are failing miserably at), slicing up regions into ethic enclaves (which is what's happening defacto).

I'm not a big fan of Murtha's idea either because it will only reinforce the idea that the United States will cut and run on a moment's notice. There is a good case one could make in saying that the American withdrawals from Beirut in the 1980s and from Somalia in the early 1990s has only reinforced the idea for groups like al Qaida that one spectacular terrorist attack is enough to bully the Americans into giving up on any international commitment.

I do think that pryderi's assertion of Cut and Run vs. Draft is nothing but a cheap false dilemma.

8/24/2006 4:12:16 PM

It's unfortunate that radical clerics who continue to emphasize the religious differences b/w muslim groups have all but killed a true pan-Arab nationalism movement. Whether pursuing a nation or a partition, there is no solution that will solve the problem.

And the draft will only come into play if China, Russia, and Iran team up to try to start a war, which will only occur of Nostradamus really is what people claim him to be.

8/24/2006 4:15:29 PM

Quote :

"Maybe this thread will help out the rest of the forum. It looks like we've managed to get all of the stupid in one place."

Is this you moderating, or you helping further the discussion?

8/25/2006 2:49:01 PM

The only thing this war has solved is how to redistribute $500 billion of America's private wealth to the military industrial complex

8/25/2006 2:53:04 PM

Quote :

"PinkandBlack: It's unfortunate that radical clerics who continue to emphasize the religious differences b/w muslim groups have all but killed a true pan-Arab nationalism movement. Whether pursuing a nation or a partition, there is no solution that will solve the problem."

Name the problem.

Quote :

"PinkandBlack: And the draft will only come into play if China, Russia, and Iran team up to try to start a war, which will only occur of Nostradamus really is what people claim him to be."

What's that? A writer of anagrams so obtuse that thousands of interpretations of individual quatrains are possible?

8/25/2006 6:32:52 PM

Problem: sectarian and political violence which takes innocent lives.

The Nostradamus thing was in jest. Dry humor.

8/25/2006 7:18:39 PM

So was my question about what people claim him to be.

8/25/2006 8:10:06 PM

Quote :

"The burden of the Iraq War has fallen squarely on our all-volunteer military and their families. They have performed remarkably well, particularly in light of the unclear and ever-changing mission dictated to them by Pentagon civilians of the Bush Administration. But they are overstretched and overextended. They deserve fresh reinforcements so that they can return home to rebuild their units, their psyche and their family and community relationships. While the Administration stresses that we are a country at war, they refuse to spread the burden proportionately. Instead, they pursue tax incentives for the rich, run up our federal deficit, and spend astronomical sums in Iraq with little or no control over wasteful and fraudulent spending. This is not the picture of a country at war. Consider the following: The current war in Iraq has lasted longer than the Korean War, World War I and World War II in Europe. This war is the first protracted conflict in modern times in which our nation has not utilized a draft for additional support. If the President is genuinely serious in his comparison with communism and fascism, perhaps he should reconsider a call to reinstate the draft. The selective service provided: 2.8 million U.S. Servicemen in WWI, 10 million U.S. Servicemen in WWII, 1.5 million U.S. Servicemen in the Korean War, and 1.8 million U.S. Servicemen during the Vietnam Conflict The facts are that in 1950, the United States had about 1.5 million active duty personnel under arms and by 1952 they surged to 3.6 million. In Vietnam the U.S. had 2.7 million in 1964 and by 1968 we had over 3.5 million. In 2006, the overall active end-strength of our nation's military was 1,367,500. The President's 2007 budget request reduces that end-strength to 1,332,300. This means that there is projected to be 35,200 fewer troops on our nation's active duty rolls this year as compared to last year. We cannot sustain the President's open-ended, vague and bankrupting war policies indefinitely. He should try less rhetoric and more action. If we are to fight this war with the same sense of dedication and vigor as we did prior wars, we cannot do it without a surge in force. It is unlikely that the President will call for a draft. A draft is politically unpopular. But we cannot continue to allow the President to pursue open-ended and vague military missions without a change in direction. Two years ago, I was one of only two in the House of Representatives who voted for a draft, because I believe if we are a country truly at war, the burden should be shared proportionately and fairly. So Mr. President, you have two options, either change the course in Iraq and reduce the burden on our overstretched active force or reinstitute the draft. We cannot sustain the current course."

--Rep. Jack Murtha

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-john-murtha/to-surge-or-not-to-surge_b_28742.html

9/5/2006 2:10:39 PM

"We cannot sustain the current course." say's you.

9/5/2006 2:14:11 PM

I would say no to Cut and Run and no to Reinstating the draft

I would also request pryderi and everyone else link their sources, so instead of seeing a seemingly innocent article, we could be informed that its an article from the same website that publishes Practical Anarchy Magazine

9/5/2006 2:44:08 PM

Quote :

"they are overstretched and overextended."

I like how he says that and doesn't even bother to explain it.

9/5/2006 3:29:51 PM

The Huffington Post hasn't been elected and re-elected into Congress since 1974. Who gives a fuck what it says.

Quote :

"LoneSnark: "We cannot sustain the current course." say's you."

"We can sustain the current course." Says you.

9/5/2006 3:35:40 PM

^^^John Murtha is a US congressman...he wrote the article, not "Huffington Post"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/contributors/bio.php?nick=rep-john-murtha&name=Rep.%20John%20Murtha

[Edited on September 5, 2006 at 5:13 PM. Reason : ^]

9/5/2006 5:13:18 PM

this guy is turning into a salis like creature...he keeps bttt'ing his own crappy threads that a few people post in and then it goes away

9/5/2006 7:38:53 PM

Gamecat, it is to my dismay that we can sustain the current course. Economically speaking the U.S. could (and has been able to) afford twice the current military budget.

Now, I doubt we would gain anything by doing that, but we could do it with minimal difficulty.

9/5/2006 10:17:39 PM

vietnam

9/6/2006 12:34:39 AM