Well....uhhh....at least they are trying to WIN now

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html


35 pages long. The word victory is on just about every page. I think thats to emphasize that the plan now includes this, i suppose.

11/30/2005 7:11:57 PM

Quote :

"VICTORY IN IRAQ DEFINED In the short term: An Iraq that is making steady progress in fighting terrorists and neutralizing the insurgency, meeting political milestones; building democratic institutions; standing up robust security forces to gather intelligence, destroy terrorist networks, and maintain security; and tackling key economic reforms to lay the foundation for a sound economy. In the medium term: An Iraq that is in the lead defeating terrorists and insurgents and providing its own security, with a constitutional, elected government in place, providing an inspiring example to reformers in the region, and well on its way to achieving its economic potential. In the longer term: An Iraq that has defeated the terrorists and neutralized the insurgency. An Iraq that is peaceful, united, stable, democratic, and secure, where Iraqis have the institutions and resources they need to govern themselves justly and provide security for their country. An Iraq that is a partner in the global war on terror and the fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, integrated into the international community, an engine for regional economic growth, and proving the fruits of democratic governance to the region. "

How long you figure that will take, given the makeup of Iraq? There's the Shi'ite Islamic fundamentalists in the south, Sunnis in the middle [who persecuted and killed 100s of thousands of Shi'ites under Saddam]and the Kurds in the north [who were gassed by the Saddam's Sunnis]

Hell, the Civil War in our country was over 100 years ago and people are still upset over it.

11/30/2005 7:47:16 PM

Well, Bush's delusion has been pretty well pwnt by Martin van Creveld, professor of military history at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. He wrote the important work Transformation of War and is not a reflexive anti-American or committed leftist. In fact, van Creveld happens to be the only non-American author whose work is required reading for US Army officer candidates. You can read his thoughts here

http://www.forward.com/articles/6936


Highlights? After concluding that the only real option is an American withdrawl, van Creveld observes that:

Quote :

" Handing over their bases or demolishing them if necessary, American forces will have to fall back on Baghdad. From Baghdad they will have to make their way to the southern port city of Basra, and from there back to Kuwait, where the whole misguided adventure began. When Prime Minister Ehud Barak pulled Israel out of Lebanon in 2000, the military was able to carry out the operation in a single night without incurring any casualties. That, however, is not how things will happen in Iraq."

Who wins in this whole business?

Quote :

" Tehran is certain to emerge as the biggest winner from the war — a winner that in the not too distant future is likely to add nuclear warheads to the missiles it already has. In the past, Tehran has often threatened the Gulf States. Now that Iraq is gone, it is hard to see how anybody except the United States can keep the Gulf States, and their oil, out of the mullahs' clutches."

So, even after their humiliating retreat from Baghdad (in the style of Napoleon's retreat from Moscow), American forces will still be committed to an open-ended engagement in the region. Except that this time it will be against an enemy that can fight back with nukes. Good luck.

Van Creveld's conclusion?

Quote :

"For misleading the American people, and launching the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 B.C sent his legions into Germany and lost them, Bush deserves to be impeached and, once he has been removed from office, put on trial along with the rest of the president's men. If convicted, they'll have plenty of time to mull over their sins."

Does anybody here remember the days of "shock and awe" or "mission accomplished"?

11/30/2005 7:59:40 PM

11/30/2005 8:00:18 PM

^^Fascinating read. BTW, aren't we in the process of building 14 military bases in Iraq?

[Edited on November 30, 2005 at 8:08 PM. Reason : Even a withdrawal is going to take a long time, according to that article.]

11/30/2005 8:05:59 PM

wow...bush owns all of you libs....that was an amazing speach

11/30/2005 8:51:03 PM

Hah

It really, really wasn't.

11/30/2005 8:53:26 PM

no no

it really was

11/30/2005 8:53:41 PM

Howso?

Was he eloquent?

Did he say anything new?

11/30/2005 8:57:29 PM

No, but trikk311 came for the third time in his life.

11/30/2005 8:59:17 PM

he didnt have to say anything new...he told the truth...which is what he has been doing all along....

hence....

great speach

...thats pretty funny there mathfreak....

[Edited on November 30, 2005 at 9:00 PM. Reason : asdf]

11/30/2005 8:59:22 PM

wow....John Kerry in his response tothe speach today said "we dont want a timetable for withdrawal, we want a timetable for success"

this guy is an idiot...trying to rewrite history in the midst of it....its not going to work

11/30/2005 9:07:58 PM

Quote :

"that was an amazing speach"

is bush great at speech delivery?

yes.

wont matter less something changes in iraq though.

11/30/2005 9:32:42 PM

Bush's speeches are like wine.

After a year or two, when reality proves his assessments of the present and predictions for the future to be horribly, laughably wrong,

then his speeches are great.

11/30/2005 9:37:43 PM

message_topic.aspx?topic=368783

11/30/2005 9:47:42 PM

no no

his speaches are great now...because the reality of the situation on the ground in Iraq has proven him to be right

thats why....

11/30/2005 9:47:54 PM

Which reality is that?

The increasing rate of attacks and deaths? The incredible unemployment rate?

Help me.

11/30/2005 9:54:37 PM

NEW RULE:


the president gets a max of 5 years to finnish a war that he said would take 6 weeks

11/30/2005 10:00:54 PM

the reality that Iraq is a democracy. that thier troops are getting better. that the iraquis are going to vote for a completely constitutional government in a few weeks. the reality that no terrorists can stop them. the one where a terrorist is not running the country as a dictator. where citizens are not being killed with WMD by the thousands.

that reality....so go ahead haters....bush owns you all

and you know it

11/30/2005 10:11:24 PM

Quote :

"because the reality of the situation on the ground in Iraq has proven him to be right"

I know right.

He totally admitted that there have been some bumps on the road to freedom in Iraq.

If that isn't the whole reality of the situation, then I don't know what is.



^naivete = reality?

[Edited on November 30, 2005 at 10:15 PM. Reason : .]

11/30/2005 10:13:22 PM

Quote :

"where citizens are not being killed with WMD by the thousands."

when did that happen again? do you know how many dictators exist on this planet who kill by the thousands?

[Edited on November 30, 2005 at 10:16 PM. Reason : =]

11/30/2005 10:16:15 PM

General Sherman fucked the South but good.

11/30/2005 10:17:04 PM

there have been bumps in the road to winning this war..which is what we are doing

and does negativity/pessimism/blameamericafirstism/defeatism = reality??

Quote :

"when did that happen again? do you know how many dictators exist on this planet who kill by the thousands?"

it happened in Iraq. and yes i know it happens elsewhere. and that is not relevant at all.

11/30/2005 10:29:50 PM

^ said WHEN did it happen

but yea...its not relevant because your argument falls apart when you try and say that sadam is the only one worth going to war against.

11/30/2005 10:31:48 PM

once again proving my point

you people know nothing about reality

we will succeed

11/30/2005 10:32:49 PM

I thought you said you were leaving?

11/30/2005 10:44:13 PM

Quote :

"but yea...its not relevant because your argument falls apart when you try and say that sadam is the only one worth going to war against."

uhhhh huh....because thats what i said and everything....way to go man...you lose

11/30/2005 10:47:40 PM

well argument is hard. anyway good try.

11/30/2005 11:02:16 PM

like i said....you lose

11/30/2005 11:26:17 PM

You've yet to demonstrate how the "facts" Bush gave us in his speech have anything to do with reality.

11/30/2005 11:30:13 PM

yeah i have...the porblem is you live in some alternative reality so no matter what the truth is you only see what you want to see

11/30/2005 11:38:16 PM

Quote :

"where citizens are not being killed with WMD by the thousands. "

instead they're killed by our conventional weapons, which makes it better, of course.

[Edited on November 30, 2005 at 11:41 PM. Reason : adf]

11/30/2005 11:41:17 PM

yeah...by terrorists

11/30/2005 11:41:35 PM

so, how many civilians do you think were killed by US troops, 5?

11/30/2005 11:42:28 PM

nope...more than that

11/30/2005 11:43:00 PM

then answer the question.

[Edited on November 30, 2005 at 11:45 PM. Reason : e]

11/30/2005 11:45:04 PM

you answer the question...how many??? and then tell me how many have been killed my terrorists....including saddam ....

and its not relevant...bush has a great plan for iraq...and its going well..and we are winning...

11/30/2005 11:46:40 PM

define win

11/30/2005 11:47:45 PM

i know the answer, but clearly you do not.

i love how you marginalize thousands of iraqi civilian's lives

[Edited on November 30, 2005 at 11:48 PM. Reason : i cannot spell tonight, damn]

11/30/2005 11:47:46 PM

i love how you do the same thing

11/30/2005 11:48:40 PM

Quote :

"bush has a great plan for iraq...and its going well..and we are winning..."

aaahaha.

11/30/2005 11:48:51 PM

well, let's play the numbers game, then.

11/30/2005 11:50:35 PM

ok....

11/30/2005 11:51:46 PM

which means you bring your numbers to the table, because you are the one that first asserted civilian deaths.

it's said that i have to explain such simple things.

11/30/2005 11:53:03 PM

yeah...your ignorant...if you think US troops have killed anywhere near the number of iraqis that terrorists have killed. thats not even a point worth arguing

11/30/2005 11:54:15 PM

why don't you try to persuade me with some facts. and if your facts are reputable and prove me wrong, then i will concede.

i've done it before when i am wrong. so prove it.

11/30/2005 11:56:14 PM

please. conervatives dont use facts. they use slogans and talking points.

11/30/2005 11:56:52 PM

yeah, i forget these things.

he'd probably bitch and moan if i used deaths from the sanctions, too

11/30/2005 11:57:43 PM

ok....quick google search....

Quote :

"Approaching two million, including between 150,000 and 340,000 Iraqis and between 450,000 and 730,000 Iranians killed during the Iran-Iraq War. An estimated 1,000 Kuwaiti nationals killed following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. No conclusive figures for the number of Iraqis killed during the Gulf War, with estimates varying from as few as 1,500 to as many as 200,000. Over 100,000 Kurds killed or "disappeared". No reliable figures for the number of Iraqi dissidents and Shi'ite Muslims killed during Hussein's reign, though estimates put the figure between 60,000 and 150,000. (Mass graves discovered following the US occupation of Iraq in 2003 suggest that the total combined figure for Kurds, Shi'ites and dissidents killed could be as high as 300,000). Approximately 500,000 Iraqi children dead because of international trade sanctions introduced following the Gulf War."

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.html


im dont arguing this...you lost along time ago when you tried to legitimatly argue that US soldiers have killed more iraqis than terrorists. and non of this is relevant anyway, the pont of this thread is that Bush has a clear plan for Iraq, its working, and we are winning.

11/30/2005 11:59:42 PM

did you actually read that? i'm talking about civilians, and you are bringing up military deaths.

what i see is your report crediting saddam for the deaths of the sanctions imposed by the UN e(enforced by the US), the gulf war, and the iraq-iran war (which we helped fund, remember?). and you are using the kurds who may or may not have been gassed by iranians.

find an accurate source. those aren't even reports.

and that's with you citing the deaths caused by OUR sanctions.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200410/s1230305.htm
gives me 100,000 in 1.5 years.

[Edited on December 1, 2005 at 12:49 AM. Reason : didn't realize i took out my source.]

12/1/2005 12:39:05 AM