Forums | MacLife

gas huffer wrote:

charon wrote:

Oh, in answer to the topic question, I think I'd hold a referendum in the Shiite, Sunni, and Kurd sections of the country, asking "Do you want U.S. troops to stay?"  I believe the first two would tell us to go and the third would tell us to stay, and that's what I'd do.

So screw the minority viewpoint, in other words?

I don't think so.

First of all, I don't think there's much good we can do south of Kurdistan at this point.  The fact that most people there want us to leave is indicative.  So as a matter of pragmatism, it's probably time to do just that.  Referenda serve as a face-saving measure.

Second, we're supposedly in Iraq 1)not as an imperial force and 2)to help establish a democracy.  In both senses, it's difficult to morally justify staying when a majority of voters wants us to leave.

Last edited by charon (2006-11-30 9:29 pm)

charon wrote:

gas huffer wrote:

charon wrote:

Oh, in answer to the topic question, I think I'd hold a referendum in the Shiite, Sunni, and Kurd sections of the country, asking "Do you want U.S. troops to stay?"  I believe the first two would tell us to go and the third would tell us to stay, and that's what I'd do.

So screw the minority viewpoint, in other words?

I don't think so.

First of all, I don't think there's much good we can do south of Kurdistan at this point.  The fact that most people there want us to leave is indicative.  So as a matter of pragmatism, it's probably time to do just that.  Referenda serve as a face-saving measure.

Second, we're supposedly in Iraq 1)not as an imperial force and 2)to help establish a democracy.  In both senses, it's difficult to morally justify staying when a majority of voters wants us to leave.

Again you've not justified denying what may be a minority viewpoint.

Of course, you seem to think the Shi'a can vote away the rights of the Sunni, etc.

Its too bad we couldn't just spike their water supply with Xanex down there in the Middle East.

gas huffer wrote:

gas huffer wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

No, I'm trying to find out your opinion on the issues.

Your ever-present bitch-ass 'tude makes figuring out your actual stance an awful lot of work. I don't suppose you might care to lighten up a bit?

You want to start by explaining just what actions taken by Bush et.al. that have indicated he wants to win/leave Iraq?

I'd really like for you, or for anyone else, to try to answer this question.

Do we get to see you answer questions in response?

gas huffer wrote:

kb5zhh wrote:

gas huffer wrote:

I'd really like for you, or for anyone else, to try to answer this question.

Do we get to see you answer questions in response?

Thank you for not answering the question.  I expected as much from you.

gas huffer wrote:

In your case, it seems you'd rather be told the truth then do the work yourself.  Sorry, it doesn't work that way, so you deserve to be confused.

Try some books and policy memos, for starters.

Pariah wrote:

The real question is: What is Huffer's problem? Too little medication? Or too much?

If by "medication" you mean THE TRUTH, and by "too much" you mean ALL OF IT, then you're on to something.

:: recalls nuclear strike ::

:: looks in FFF ::
:: sees nothing ::
:: laments ::

bedstuy wrote:

:: looks in FFF ::
:: sees nothing ::
:: laments ::

I just updated it,  I was sleeping all day.



(and has Kev has requested, no further comments need to be made about this.)

Damn and I just got through reading Plato, too.....

WHY NO BAN'D caption under his NAME?

I think a better protocol would be to put little exes over the eyes of his "offline" Maxie.

sturner wrote:

As posted in "Some Thoughts For Those of You Against The War"

1. Instead of having Haliburton and its ilk making millions of dollars doing not much with Jordanians, Eqyptians, Saudis, and Kuwatis, how about them doing the job we really want done. Rebuliding the infrastructure of Iraq. Hire Iraqis. Lots of Iraqis, Pay them good money to dig those ditches, teach them to run the heavy equipment, build roads, water treatment plants, electrical plants and substations. Not just in Baghdad,  but all over the country.

2. Restrict the access of faith-based persons to be in Iraq. That is not the place for them. Especially in government or support functions.

3. Build up our military to fully support the effort in Iraq. Provide adequate security so that the training can take place.

4. Train and fully equip the police and the army.

I believe I said in another thread, that it takes about a year to train a soldier in his basics and integrate him into a unit. That still stands. I'm very pleased to see that Soldier agrees with that. It is paramount to ensure that we follow through on that training with operations where U.S. and Iraqi forces clear and secure areas together. Both for our assurances, and the Iraqi's.

As units become operational, not just filled out, but fully field operational, they should be put into the operation plans for security, and as they do, our forces should be withdrawn.

I had wanted to reply to this when it was frist posted but time was limited for me.  But now that Im back home (YAY) I finaly get a little more.

Well at first glance this seems like a viable plan.  To be honest your not the first to think of most of it either.  Some people who make a whole lot more money than me have had similar ideas.  The problem is taking this from the blackboard to implimentation.  So lets go into some problems that arise when these things are tried.

1.  Your first idea is pretty much the one that the military has tried and is still pushing forward on.  The major problem that we run into here is the fact that the Iraqi people that we try to hire are scared.  You see whenever a local works with the US they become a very high value target for the enemy.  Now without giving to much detail, I was involved in a work project to construct a building in baghdad.  The day that the work started we moved with the workers to provide security as they dropped off materials and men.  The first few hours of the day went very smoothly.  But later in the day we were caught in a complex ambush.  The enemy never even fired at our vehichles, instead they went for the civilians.  We fought them off and escorted the convoy to safety, but the damamge was done.  The entire crew quit, and no matter how much moeny we offered they refused to come back.  Thats just one example but things like this happen allt he time.

2.  Now as for your restricting faith based people from Iraq.  This idea kinda puzzles me.  I have a feeling Im probably misreading the first part of it so Ill go on to the second part.  Which as I read it was to not allow them into goverment or any other position of power.  Now that would probably solve a good portion of the problems.  The only problem with that is who's left?  Iraq isnt like America.  Religion isnt a part of life it is life.  It would be like saying in America no one could be in politics that had a left foot.  Sure there are a few people here and there but not enough to staff every position.  Basicaly its not possible.

3.  Now as for us providing security so that training can take place.  Well thats what were trying to do.  Granted our success varies, but were fighting an insurgency.  Now the three tools of our enemies are snipers, roadside bombs (called IED's) and quick ambushes.  So lets go into this. 

Snipers:  In an urban enviroment a sniper will be able to get a shot off from a hidden position and we will have no idea where it came from.  The smart ones just take one shot.  Hit or miss thats it.  Most times they arent even that far (150 - 200) meters.  Normaly we can figure a direction, and maybe narrow it down to three or four houses.  It used to be we would just assault those houses and flush him out.  Now were not allowed to go in them so we just drive on. 

IED's:  ehh what are ya gonna do.  These things are incredibly hard to spot.  Your basicaly looking for an odd pile of trash or dirt pile, among all the other piles of trash and dirt piles.  Realisticly your not gonna find them.  Doesnt mean we ever stop trying.  This is why we have all the new armor, and this stuff saves lives.  I got hit by quite a few this year (somewhere around 13, but I stopped counting)  and none ever managed to give me anything more than a stiff neck. 
Instead of trying to find them in use we try to find the makers and the caches.  We cant find em like we used to because as Ive said before were pretty limited on where we can go and what we can do.

Ambushes:  We fare pretty well in these instances, hence why they are becoming so rare.  They try to hit us hard with small arms and rpg's and then run away.  We normaly get about half of them before they can get away.  But the rest do get away.  They run through houses and were not allowed to go into these places anymore without clearance from way up the chain.

All in all this isnt an easy fight for us.  One becuase an insurgency is just so complicated to fight without killing tons of civilians.  And secondly because the tools are limited more and more.  Ehh what ya gonna do though right.

4.  Train the army and police.  This idea is currently veiwed by the military as our way out.  Were throwing lots of money and lots of our soldiers out there to trian them and get them going.  But these people are so damned corrupt that its screwing it up every time.  Early in the war (right after the invasion was over) we started putting together the ISF (I think that was its name) which basicaly was soldiers from Saddams Army and police organizations so we could start getting them operational and taking over.   It fell apart in about a year because of all the corruption and scandals from within that we disbaned the whole thing and started from scratch.  This time we formed multiple agencies.  Army, Iraqi police (local cops), and national police (kinda like our FBI) and a few other smaller agencies to limit power. 


Now I hate to come and pick at someones post without having ideas of my own, but honestly Im burnt out on trying to think of ways to save Iraq.