Many Democrats want America to fail in Iraq
- Thread starter Earnest T. Bass
- Start date
Mad Martigan
New member
I'm not a republican, but I say this premise is ridiculous.
Mad Martigan
New member
Wait, I thought it was 5,000-10,000 lost in the first wave of invasion? 
flashman70
New member
Saw on the profile that slash is only 35. With age comes wisdom. When I was young and foolish I voted Dem.
Dems always say "I support the troops." But there's no denying that more American military deaths work to their political advantage. So when those who voted for the Iraq war (oh, I forgot "Bush lied, people died") later choose to take positions that are contrary to our success, it makes it hard for a simple guy like me to not conclude that they want us to lose.
If Republicans in WWII had behaved this way, they would have been tried for treason.
Dems always say "I support the troops." But there's no denying that more American military deaths work to their political advantage. So when those who voted for the Iraq war (oh, I forgot "Bush lied, people died") later choose to take positions that are contrary to our success, it makes it hard for a simple guy like me to not conclude that they want us to lose.
If Republicans in WWII had behaved this way, they would have been tried for treason.
Mad Martigan
New member
Otay. First I would say that some republicans do enjoy the deaths of ME people. Some of them probably aren't smart enough to define what would constitute overall "victory" in Iraq, much less plan its acheivement. That's not saying much, because I could just as easily say that some democrats want to outlaw the free practice of religion, confiscate privately held firearms, and deliver our sovereignty bound and gagged to the UN. While that may all be true, it does not present an accurate depiction of either republicans or democrats because applying it in larger context becomes hopelessly mired in unfounded generalization.
Second, I would say that the republicans' plan for winning in Iraq does not depend on piles of dead insurgents, because the goal is not to stamp out the insurgency. The goal is to help Iraq to the point where it can stamp out the insurgency for itself. As teh Iraqi government finishes forming itself, Iraqi troops will begin assuming more and more leadership in ground activity until the point where US soldiers are not needed for purposes other than training.
I'm glad I could help you make your point about generalization.
Mad Martigan,
Thank you, your answer was actually very helpful and well spoken.
There was a point in there about generalizations. Glad you caught it. Anywho...
So now we know where both sides stand with all of the rhetoric and noise removed.
I've got a follow-up for you tho' (just as I did with Leif):
What makes you think that the Iraqis will ever be able to stand up on their own in light of the current state of affairs?
Thank you, your answer was actually very helpful and well spoken.
There was a point in there about generalizations. Glad you caught it. Anywho...
So now we know where both sides stand with all of the rhetoric and noise removed.
I've got a follow-up for you tho' (just as I did with Leif):
What makes you think that the Iraqis will ever be able to stand up on their own in light of the current state of affairs?
Mad Martigan
New member
Well, the Iraqi problem is something of a Catch-22. Our troops are in Iraq, helping to secure the newly elected government from some real terrorist DHs. However, our occupation and overwhelming presence itself incites other Iraqis to violence in order to ward off what they may feel is a hostile invasion rather than a mission to help. As our troops come out, a good bit of that animosity will dissipate as well. As Iraqi forces grow and insurgent forces dwindle, I think conditions will probably improve, making insurgency less and less commonly welcome.
Our nation wasn't a total success from the beginning, and I'm willing to give Iraq a while to get with the program. However, while somewhat less restrictive and sectarian legislation won't be as big of a problem since Iraq was relatively sectarian before, I think it would do better as a confederation of 3 provinces than as a single nation.
Our nation wasn't a total success from the beginning, and I'm willing to give Iraq a while to get with the program. However, while somewhat less restrictive and sectarian legislation won't be as big of a problem since Iraq was relatively sectarian before, I think it would do better as a confederation of 3 provinces than as a single nation.
Which is exactly my point expressed in other threads on this subject. Glad to see that we agree on the nature of the problem. Anyway....
I understand you said that you're not really a Republican, but since you're the only one to provide a rational, thoughtful argument in response to my indelicately-worded question....please allow me to use your position.
I will use Leif's (again, well said) response as the Democrat position. Again, I understand that you are not a Democrat.
The question I pose to both of you: You both admit that our presence is having a degrading effect on the mission. Would you both agree that if we can maintain our presence in Iraq while minimizing these effects (by minimizing our direct contact with Iraqi civillians), it might offer our best chance to win this war?
Also, would you both agree that neither party's candidates are likely to endorse such a policy?
Mad Martigan
New member
I think that is the basic strategy at this point. Train Iraqis as fast as we can to make them available for enforcement, reduce the number of US troops in action, and GTFO. One thing we have realized is that just training Iraq troops to be soldiers or policemen isn't enough. We have to train them to lead as well, to act and function by themselves.
Hiding our troops from public view? No. Bringing troops home as their roles are replaced by Iraqis? Yes. As that is situation dependent rather than time dependent, you can probably already see who's going to support what.
The problems with the "stand down as they stand up" approach are:
1. The Iraqi police and military have a nasty habit of acting as sectarian militias rather than a national force loyal to the central government. Interior Ministry troops have been roaming around killing lots of civilians from whatever groups the troops oppose.
2. The administration has refused to give any kind of benchmarks as to how it would work. They have called such ideas a "timeline", even though it's more like an "eventline." Personally, I think that's because the neo-conservatives have no intention of leaving Iraq. Their own papers make clear that permanent presence and installation of a puppet government have always been the goal.
As long as we are occupying Iraq, Iraqis will resist us. The history of successful occupations by foreign powers is very, very short. And really, if the US were invaded and occupied, I'd hope that all here would resist with every means at their disposal, even if the invasion and occupation were "for our own good." Iraqis see it no differently, and just because it's the US doing it doesn't change that. Recent history, specifically the Soviets in Afganistan and the Israelis in the Territories have some lessons to teach. Unfortunately for us, those lessons aren't pretty.
If the Iraqis are gonna kill each other, they're gonna. I'd prefer that they weren't killing each other AND our kids. This has been a disaster, and it's time to end it.
--Shannon
1. The Iraqi police and military have a nasty habit of acting as sectarian militias rather than a national force loyal to the central government. Interior Ministry troops have been roaming around killing lots of civilians from whatever groups the troops oppose.
2. The administration has refused to give any kind of benchmarks as to how it would work. They have called such ideas a "timeline", even though it's more like an "eventline." Personally, I think that's because the neo-conservatives have no intention of leaving Iraq. Their own papers make clear that permanent presence and installation of a puppet government have always been the goal.
As long as we are occupying Iraq, Iraqis will resist us. The history of successful occupations by foreign powers is very, very short. And really, if the US were invaded and occupied, I'd hope that all here would resist with every means at their disposal, even if the invasion and occupation were "for our own good." Iraqis see it no differently, and just because it's the US doing it doesn't change that. Recent history, specifically the Soviets in Afganistan and the Israelis in the Territories have some lessons to teach. Unfortunately for us, those lessons aren't pretty.
If the Iraqis are gonna kill each other, they're gonna. I'd prefer that they weren't killing each other AND our kids. This has been a disaster, and it's time to end it.
--Shannon
Mad Martigan
New member
That's one of the reasosns they aren't ready to be running around without supervision yet.
The "event line" could be much more detailed, but we have had several goals made very public. As far as the evil neocon plan is concerned, there is no plausible motivation for such a plan save the "war for oil," which is as nonsensical as they come. The government planned for Iraq is no more a puppet than any otehr democratically elected government friendly to the US. Permanent prescence serves no real purpose and accusations of a publicaly elected puppet governemnt are wishful thinking by petty people.
So you would be one of the immediate withdrawl people? Oh, I'm sorry, the code word for withdrawl is "redeployment" now, right?
"they're not ready to be running around unsupervised yet" has got to be one of the most arrogant statements I've ever read. Pick up that "white man's burden" if you want to, I'm not going there. You either support self-determination for everyone, even if you don't like the results, or you're an authoritarian.
As to the neocon plan, well, they wrote it, not me. And really, all wars come down to resources or land. They've got it, we want it, let's take it. I can't come up with a counterexample. What resources does Iraq possess that we need? The land? Right. I've been to the Middle East, although not Iraq, and I wouldn't want it. Even if you gave it to me. Our entire strategic interest in that region is oil. If it wasn't there, we wouldn't be in that part of the world at all.
So yes, I'm in favor of rapid withdrawl. Not from the region as a whole, because so long as we have a petroleum-based economy, we need the ME. But our presence in Iraq is not advancing our interests, and I see no likely outcome that will be good for us. If the consequences of staying are worse than those of leaving, you leave. If it's break-even, you leave, and save the money and lives you would have spent to get the same result anyway. Only if staying gets you more than leaving do you stay, and I just don't see that happening.
If you find yourself in a hole with a shovel in your hands, stop digging. I'm evaluating this from the perspective of American interests (as I see them), and on that basis, I think it's been a collosal mistake.
What likely outcome do you see that will justify the costs?
--Shannon
PS: Just for background, when GWB was elected in 2000, I thought he'd be a mediocre President, who would serve one term and be quickly forgotten. Events since, particularly the war in Iraq, have forced me to re-evaluate that. I now consider him one of the worst to hold the office.
As to the neocon plan, well, they wrote it, not me. And really, all wars come down to resources or land. They've got it, we want it, let's take it. I can't come up with a counterexample. What resources does Iraq possess that we need? The land? Right. I've been to the Middle East, although not Iraq, and I wouldn't want it. Even if you gave it to me. Our entire strategic interest in that region is oil. If it wasn't there, we wouldn't be in that part of the world at all.
So yes, I'm in favor of rapid withdrawl. Not from the region as a whole, because so long as we have a petroleum-based economy, we need the ME. But our presence in Iraq is not advancing our interests, and I see no likely outcome that will be good for us. If the consequences of staying are worse than those of leaving, you leave. If it's break-even, you leave, and save the money and lives you would have spent to get the same result anyway. Only if staying gets you more than leaving do you stay, and I just don't see that happening.
If you find yourself in a hole with a shovel in your hands, stop digging. I'm evaluating this from the perspective of American interests (as I see them), and on that basis, I think it's been a collosal mistake.
What likely outcome do you see that will justify the costs?
--Shannon
PS: Just for background, when GWB was elected in 2000, I thought he'd be a mediocre President, who would serve one term and be quickly forgotten. Events since, particularly the war in Iraq, have forced me to re-evaluate that. I now consider him one of the worst to hold the office.
Mad Martigan
New member
Your latent racial overtones are completely without substantiation and totally unwarranted. Your ultimatum is also false.
Oh, you have a copy? Post it on up.
Ahh, I understand now. So we have more oil now than we did in 2000. No? Well, we have cheaper oil than we did in 2000. We don't? Well, at least we have a more stable supply of oil from Iraq than we did in 2000. No again? Maybe you can help me understand this brilliant neocon scheme for Middle Eastern oil that apparently runs counter to any of its conceivable goals (its goals according to you).
Nothing. We shouldn't have been there in the first place. The UN should be there. I think it was a mistake. But we are there and the hole is too deep to climb out.
It's never been about the oil. It's so that in ten years you can drive through Baghdad and see a McDonald's, KFC and Starbucks on your way to the local Wal-Mart.
Eh, that's not saying much.
Then why do we have bases in Japan and Germany?
While I don't believe this war is about oil every time someone uses this argument I have to laugh. As if you're suggesting that if the war was about oil then we'd have black crude flowing through the streets as we speak. You cannot deny that a US-friendly government in Iraq will undoubtedly provide us with not only a slight increase in our oil supply but a better bargaining position with other OPEC nations in the future. It wouldn't happen overnight.