Don't look now, but the U.S.-backed government and army may be winning the war.

[nana_356 0]

To bad the terrorists don't follow timetables. We should leave when the Iraq army can protect itself and the country, when the government can withstand the threats of Iran and not one minute sooner. A timetable will just give the terrorists a date they can wait until and then come back out. And who cares what percentage of Americans oppose the war? Wars are fought with the premise of winning and not by how many people like it.

Dont you remember what happened when when iran got to ellect? The absolute worst outcome that could have happened, that we taxpayers paid for and supported and arranged.

Edited June 3, 2008 by nana_356

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

To bad the terrorists don't follow timetables. We should leave when the Iraq army can protect itself and the country, when the government can withstand the threats of Iran and not one minute sooner. A timetable will just give the terrorists a date they can wait until and then come back out. And who cares what percentage of Americans oppose the war? Wars are fought with the premise of winning and not by how many people like it.

The trouble here is that I'm not sure that the Iraqi government is exactly conducive to the idea of Iran as a dangerous force that they must resist.

That's why I've been saying that this idea of "winning" seems to be based on flawed premises. Obviously the Iranian influence is something that the US has absolutely no control over whatsoever.

[nana_356 0]

People need to realize that the major weapon of the current Jihad is money -- not money that they have earned, but for the most part money that comes from an accident of geology. OIL

[Peikko 1,575]

It does seem to be an inconsistancy by some elements of the right, this idea that the US shouldn't interfere in overseas governments and how they conduct their own business - except in the cases when they can because of *insert whichever vague terrorist threat against the US nation is appropriate here*.

It's very confusing trying to understand the logic, particularly when these self same folk reject any form of objective review by entities such as the UN.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Or indeed why we have the conceit to believe we can affect an all around positive outcome in these situations when they're reliant largely on forces beyond our control.

[nana_356 0]

I believe the way to stop them from attacking is to take the money away, and lets be honest we are a big chunk of the money.

The money spent in Iraq might instead be spent on an energy program to deprive the Saudis and Ahmadinejad and others of the wherewithal that is critical to the Jihad -- I believe that the $2 trillion spent in Iraq would have been better spent on solar and wind projects, and on nuclear reactors. Oil is their most dangerous weapon and our dependency is giving them assurance that their guns will always be loaded.

Jihad is worldwide not just in afgan. and iraq. This does not require "the troops boots on their ground" here and there and everywhere. Not at all. It requires diminishing their oil revenues.

Gary 'prevailing' is not the same as claiming victory, you want the us to win this war and claim victory,I want the US to prevail.

Edited June 3, 2008 by nana_356

[HAL 9000 96]

Gary-

What? That makes no sense at all. We are fighting terrorists that want to do us harm. It seems you just want to throw up your hands and declare defeat. Go ahead, the rest of us will carry your water.

Perhaps you can convince your son to enlist and fight those terrorists that want to do us so much harm on their own turf.

To bad the terrorists don't follow timetables. We should leave when the Iraq army can protect itself and the country, when the government can withstand the threats of Iran and not one minute sooner. A timetable will just give the terrorists a date they can wait until and then come back out. And who cares what percentage of Americans oppose the war? Wars are fought with the premise of winning and not by how many people like it.

The trouble here is that I'm not sure that the Iraqi government is exactly conducive to the idea of Iran as a dangerous force that they must resist.

That's why I've been saying that this idea of "winning" seems to be based on flawed premises. Obviously the Iranian influence is something that the US has absolutely no control over whatsoever.

Well... we can dissuade this so-called Iranian influence by being smarter than the average bear.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well... we can dissuade this so-called Iranian influence by being smarter than the average bear.

That's just it - I'm not sure that we can.

People wrongly conclude that because of the Iran-Iraq war there must be some sort of huge, fundamental divide between the two countries. From what I understand that isn't the case - in fact relations between the two countries were fine until Saddam got on the scene and tried to exploit what he perceived as an opportunity.

The biggest clue however is that many exiled Iraqis (more specifically - influential guys like Nouri Al Maliki were living out their exile in neighbouring countries, not least of which is Iran.

[HAL 9000 96]

Well... we can dissuade this so-called Iranian influence by being smarter than the average bear.

That's just it - I'm not sure that we can.

People wrongly conclude that because of the Iran-Iraq war there must be some sort of huge, fundamental divide between the two countries. From what I understand that isn't the case - in fact relations between the two countries were fine until Saddam got on the scene and tried to exploit what he perceived as an opportunity.

The biggest clue however is that many exiled Iraqis (more specifically - influential guys like Nouri Al Maliki were living out their exile in neighbouring countries, not least of which is Iran.

Aint diplomacy great? This is why a regional effort at doing things with common sense would work better than simply creating more "martyrs" and sending them off to some weird Paradise. No better propaganda machine, I tell you, for creating more animosity against our own "side."

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well... we can dissuade this so-called Iranian influence by being smarter than the average bear.

That's just it - I'm not sure that we can.

People wrongly conclude that because of the Iran-Iraq war there must be some sort of huge, fundamental divide between the two countries. From what I understand that isn't the case - in fact relations between the two countries were fine until Saddam got on the scene and tried to exploit what he perceived as an opportunity.

The biggest clue however is that many exiled Iraqis (more specifically - influential guys like Nouri Al Maliki were living out their exile in neighbouring countries, not least of which is Iran.

Aint diplomacy great? This is why a regional effort at doing things with common sense would work better than simply creating more "martyrs" and sending them off to some weird Paradise. No better propaganda machine, I tell you, for creating more animosity against our own "side."

Its also why the idea of trying to manage this situation without engaging Iran in an official dialog presents rather exceptional difficulties. For example, there was a suggestion in the news (and there was an ex-military commander bod on NPR a few weeks back who said the exact same thing) that Iran was essentially behind the Al-Sadr ceasefire. Simply - they carry a lot of influence, and will continue to do so whether we choose to acknowledge it or not.

If we didn't want to be in situation where would have to make these sorts of concessions - we should have considered it at the beginning. As I say - none of the stuff that happened was in anyways unpredictable.

Quite simply, we've manouvered ourselves into this position.

Edited June 3, 2008 by Number 6

[nana_356 0]

Well... we can dissuade this so-called Iranian influence by being smarter than the average bear.

That's just it - I'm not sure that we can.

People wrongly conclude that because of the Iran-Iraq war there must be some sort of huge, fundamental divide between the two countries. From what I understand that isn't the case - in fact relations between the two countries were fine until Saddam got on the scene and tried to exploit what he perceived as an opportunity.

The biggest clue however is that many exiled Iraqis (more specifically - influential guys like Nouri Al Maliki were living out their exile in neighbouring countries, not least of which is Iran.

Aint diplomacy great? This is why a regional effort at doing things with common sense would work better than simply creating more "martyrs" and sending them off to some weird Paradise. No better propaganda machine, I tell you, for creating more animosity against our own "side."

Its also why the idea of trying to manage this situation without engaging Iran in an official dialog presents rather exceptional difficulties. For example, there was a suggestion in the news (and there was an ex-military commander bod on NPR a few weeks back who said the exact same thing) that Iran was essentially behind the Al-Sadr ceasefire. Simply - they carry a lot of influence, and will continue to do so whether we choose to acknowledge it or not.

If we didn't want to be in situation where would have to make these sorts of concessions - we should have considered it at the beginning. As I say - none of the stuff that happened was in anyways unpredictable.

Quite simply, we've manouvered ourselves into this position.

I agree.

[GaryC 7]

Gary-

What? That makes no sense at all. We are fighting terrorists that want to do us harm. It seems you just want to throw up your hands and declare defeat. Go ahead, the rest of us will carry your water.

Perhaps you can convince your son to enlist and fight those terrorists that want to do us so much harm on their own turf.

Robin is already talking about joining. Next question?

[HAL 9000 96]

Gary-

What? That makes no sense at all. We are fighting terrorists that want to do us harm. It seems you just want to throw up your hands and declare defeat. Go ahead, the rest of us will carry your water.

Perhaps you can convince your son to enlist and fight those terrorists that want to do us so much harm on their own turf.

Robin is already talking about joining. Next question?

Good for him. Very good for him.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

No way I'd sign up for something like Iraq.

[HAL 9000 96]

No way I'd sign up for something like Iraq.

Its for each individual to decide before enlistment. All I know is that of the "folks I know" (can't help but laugh at my own comment there for a moment) that have done actual tours of duty with combat, their perception of everything from the reasons to be there to our roles over there are not exactly the black and white picture some would have us believe.