So It's a Quagmire

So this war is a quagmire? Let's ask a few pertinant questions?
1. How long has the first fully-elected government of Iraq been in office? ANSWER: 10 months. The cut and run crowd really likes to gieve democracy a chance, eh?

2. How long has Iraq had their first full elections? ANSWER: Just over a year ago, ditto the comment on question one.

3. How long has Iraq had their new constitution? ANSWER: About 15 months. How stable was the U. S. Government after its first 15 months?

4.How long has it been since Iraq had its first elected interim President? ANSWER: Less than two years, April 2005.

5. How long has it been since Iraq had its first multi-party election in over 50 years? ANSWER: Just over two years.

So Mr. Pull-Out-Now-Cut-and-Run Democrat(read liberal, secular progressive) we can see how microscopic your commitment to Democracy really is. You're more concerned about being called a Democrat"ic" party than you are committed to Democracy. If this is a quagmire, then you don't have any sense of perspective, not to mention a sense of commitment.

[Letum]

I think that decisions should be made according to the situation, rather then according to principles. I don't know anywhere near enough about the situation in Iraq to know what the best course of action is atm.

What are the immediate goals of the American Armed Forces there? (apart from self defence)

If they do pull out and Iraq is only left with only enough home-grown forces to protect a few government buildings; what would then be the worst case scenario?

What would be the best case scenario after a withdrawal?

*edit* Conversely, what are the best and worst case scenarios if The USA continues the occupation?

[Enigma]

i think the war is an absolute disaster of mismanagemnt, poor planning, and poor leadership, waged under false pretenses, and laughable policy.

Mr. Pull-Out-Now-Cut-and-Run Democrat(read liberal, secular progressive)

Oh! Sorry, you werent talking to me.

Originally Posted by Letum

I think that decisions should be made according to the situation, rather then according to principles. I don't know anywhere near enough about the situation in Iraq to know what the best course of action is atm.

What are the immediate goals of the American Armed Forces there? (apart from self defence)

If they do pull out and Iraq is only left with only enough home-grown forces to protect a few government buildings; what would then be the worst case scenario?

What would be the best case scenario after a withdrawal?

*edit* Conversely, what are the best and worst case scenarios if The USA continues the occupation?

I'll try to answer as best I can, knowing full well you won't change your opinion.

Firstly, if you don't stand for something you will fall for anything. You seem to stand on the premise that every situation has its own answer. That may be true but all decisions are based upon a belief. It is that belief that shapes the course of of how an individual and nations respond. Consequentially principals are always the guiding force.

The immediate goal of the US armed forces is to provide for the security of the democratically elected Iraqi government which in its infancy requires the same protection that France and Spain provided the fledgling US government against the forces of Britain.

The best case scenerio after a withdrawal at this point would be complete anarchy within the borders of Iraq. The worst case scenerio is theater nuclear war based on the words of Iranian leaders visa vis Isreal.

The best case scenerio if the US continues to support the recently elected Iraqi government is a country which can contribute socially, politically, and economically to the betterment of mankind without threatening its neighbors.

I attempted to answer your questions. If I missed one let me know.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by waste gate

I'll try to answer as best I can, knowing full well you won't change your opinion.

Like I said in the first post:
"I don't know anywhere near enough about the situation in Iraq to know what the best course of action is"
i.e I don't have a opinion yet!

Originally Posted by waste gate

Firstly, if you don't stand for something you will fall for anything. You seem to stand on the premise that every situation has its own answer. That may be true but all decisions are based upon a belief. It is that belief that shapes the course of of how an individual and nations respond. Consequentially principals are always the guiding force.

As long as principles/beliefs are able to adapt to the situation, right?

Originally Posted by waste gate

The best case scenario after a withdrawal at this point would be complete anarchy within the borders of Iraq. The worst case scenario is theater nuclear war based on the words of Iranian leaders visa vis Israel.

The best case scenario if the US continues to support the recently elected Iraqi government is a country which can contribute socially, politically, and economically to the betterment of mankind without threatening its neighbors.

Thanks
What would "complete anarchy within the borders of Iraq" be like?

Originally Posted by waste gate

I attempted to answer your questions. If I missed one let me know.

Just one.
You missed the worst case scenario if US forces continue the occupation.

[bradclark1]

So It's a Quagmire

Finally, he see's the truth.

[bradclark1]

What would "complete anarchy within the borders of Iraq" be like?

That happened after the invasion when we didn't plan beyond the battle.

One at a time fellas.
Letum
Worse case scenerio if US forces stay in Iraq.

US and other coalition solders die. People have been dieing for freedom, their own or others, for centuries and all western militaries are a volunteer forces. No one forced them to enlist.


Quote:
So It's a Quagmire
Finally, he see's the truth.

I'll post it again for you.

. How long has the first fully-elected government of Iraq been in office? ANSWER: 10 months. The cut and run crowd really likes to gieve democracy a chance, eh?

2. How long has Iraq had their first full elections? ANSWER: Just over a year ago, ditto the comment on question one.

3. How long has Iraq had their new constitution? ANSWER: About 15 months. How stable was the U. S. Government after its first 15 months?

4.How long has it been since Iraq had its first elected interim President? ANSWER: Less than two years, April 2005.

5. How long has it been since Iraq had its first multi-party election in over 50 years? ANSWER: Just over two years.


regarding not planning beyond the battle: see the above.

[Sailor Steve]

Sorry my last post was cut short; I was out of time at my first session at the library. I'll continue:

Originally Posted by waste gate

Firstly, if you don't stand for something you will fall for anything.

A quick, pat answer, and I disagree. There is a point at which a decision is made, based on available information. If you've already made up your mind before all the facts are in, you are almost certain to be wrong somewhere.

The immediate goal of the US armed forces is to provide for the security of the democratically elected Iraqi government which in its infancy requires the same protection that France and Spain provided the fledgling US government against the forces of Britain.

The best case scenerio after a withdrawal at this point would be complete anarchy within the borders of Iraq. The worst case scenerio is theater nuclear war based on the words of Iranian leaders visa vis Isreal.

The best case scenerio if the US continues to support the recently elected Iraqi government is a country which can contribute socially, politically, and economically to the betterment of mankind without threatening its neighbors.

I agree. Of course the big question is, can it actually happen, given the number of opposing factions willing to kill each other and themselves just to make a point?

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Sorry my last post was cut short; I was out of time at my first session at the library. I'll continue:

A quick, pat answer, and I disagree. There is a point at which a decision is made, based on available information. If you've already made up your mind before all the facts are in, you are almost certain to be wrong somewhere.

I agree. Of course the big question is, can it actually happen, given the number of opposing factions willing to kill each other and themselves just to make a point?

Based on your reply I conclude you approve of the thought I put into my answers.

I see very little thought in your posts, just diatribe.

Regarding the first; You assume that people who stand for something will 'rush to judgement' based on what they believe. Only the very foolish do such things. The Duke University case and those who rushed to judge the La Cross team members is a prime example.

Your second paragraph presumes that the US is responsible for the sectarian violence, which is very likely fueled by Iran. Regardless, reducing force structure in Iraq does not allow for the security of the democratically elected Iraqi government which in its infancy.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by waste gate

Your second paragraph presumes that the US is responsible for the sectarian violence, which is very likely fueled by Iran. Regardless, reducing force structure in Iraq does not allow for the security of the democratically elected Iraqi government which in its infancy.

No, I don't believe we have anything to do with the sectarian violence. I was just speculating on the idea that if they refuse to stop killing each other, we may find ourselves stuck there forever.

On a personal note, I was originally against going into Iraq, simply because I felt we should do one thing at a time, and the first thing was to get Bin Laden. That said, it wasn't my decision to make and I argued both sides of the move with various people I know. I still question whether it was the right move, but the administration gets my support mainly because in my observation most people against the Iraq war aren't against the war itself, but rather hate Bush for the same reasons that so many conservatives hated Clinton--because he represented the other side and hating is easier than thinking.

For however long we stay there will be 'Lefties' crying that more soldiers are dying and we should leave now, and no matter when we actually leave Iraq if the situation there falls into chaos there will be 'righties' saying "I told you so"! Every day I read about another car bomb killing another sixty people and it seems to me that the only real solution is for the people who live there to learn that that won't solve anything...but they seemingly never will.

[TteFAboB]

Granted there are some patriots inside the Democrat party. Let me see...yup, they definitely exist, I just finished counting them with the fingers of one hand.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by waste gate

So this war is a quagmire? Let's ask a few pertinant questions?
1. How long has the first fully-elected government of Iraq been in office? ANSWER: 10 months. The cut and run crowd really likes to gieve democracy a chance, eh?

2. How long has Iraq had their first full elections? ANSWER: Just over a year ago, ditto the comment on question one.

3. How long has Iraq had their new constitution? ANSWER: About 15 months. How stable was the U. S. Government after its first 15 months?

4.How long has it been since Iraq had its first elected interim President? ANSWER: Less than two years, April 2005.

5. How long has it been since Iraq had its first multi-party election in over 50 years? ANSWER: Just over two years.

So Mr. Pull-Out-Now-Cut-and-Run Democrat(read liberal, secular progressive) we can see how microscopic your commitment to Democracy really is. You're more concerned about being called a Democrat"ic" party than you are committed to Democracy. If this is a quagmire, then you don't have any sense of perspective, not to mention a sense of commitment.

I'm not:

1. a "Mr.". :p
2. a Democrat, though I vote for people best qualified, not for their parties.
3. liberal - at least no one ever called me so.
4. secular progressive - oh, no, no!

But I don't believe Iraq will ever become a western democracy, even should all of Iraq's Sunnis and their local and imported terrorists magically disappear overnight and even should Coalition troops repair Iraq from top to bottom. See these very recent Iraqi poll results, for example.

The first advantage of being in Iraq is its attraction to Islamic terrorists from all over the world. Don't belittle this, as it may possibly rank as one of the greatest military diversion tactics in history. The problem is there's no way to measure what the effect would have been on world terrorism had the fly paper not been laid out in Iraq.

The second advantage of being in Iraq is being poised next door to Iran. Only the future will tell how significant this can or will be.

[Chaotic42]

I'm skeptical about Iraq (even though I tend to be very conservative and pro-military). I don't think that you can force democracy on people. If they were capable of sustaining a democracy on their own, they'd have revolted and formed one.

Every country always has exactly as much democracy as it can handle at the time.

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

But I don't believe Iraq will ever become a western democracy, even should all of Iraq's Sunnis and their local and imported terrorists magically disappear overnight and even should Coalition troops repair Iraq from top to bottom. See these very recent Iraqi poll results, for example.

The first advantage of being in Iraq is its attraction to Islamic terrorists from all over the world. Don't belittle this, as it may possibly rank as one of the greatest military diversion tactics in history. The problem is there's no way to measure what the effect would have been on world terrorism had the fly paper not been laid out in Iraq.

The second advantage of being in Iraq is being poised next door to Iran. Only the future will tell how significant this can or will be.

100% Right

Right. IMO terrorism got a terrific boost.

Who's to say Iraq would even allow themselves to be used in any form against Iran. They are of the same religion. The U.S. will bend over backwards to not have to confront Iran. Not that I agree but I think thats the reality of it.