Wes Clark lays out Iraq plan

[Nubclear]

MTG, Slowwy:

CHANGE YOUR AVATARS DAMMIT!!!! You two are confusing me to no end

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Now would you like to hear something else irresponsible? Rumsfield announced that in the next few months the US is going to cut back it's forces in Iraq by 25%. Why would the US want to decrease the number of soldiers in Iraq so dramatically when by every report lawlessness and insecurity are the rule of the day? Why because the White House is worrying about next year's election and so they are afraid the constant bad news and body bags might dampen Bush Jr's reelection chances.

It is totally unexceptable, in my mind, that Bush can talk out of one side of his mouth about staying the course and increasing security while ordering large scale cut backs which directly controdict what he's say.

It's Bushies' "fuzzy math" - less bodies will mean less body bags. Right?

[Drake Tungsten]

It would be possible to reduce the overall number of American soldiers in Iraq while still maintaining the same level or increasing it in the main area of resistance (Sunni Triangle), wouldn't it? I don't know if that's what Rummy has in mind, but I can certainly see how troop reductions in the relatively peaceful north and south of Iraq could be considered.

[Dinner]

Drake: Since cross border terrorism is suspected in a fairl number of cases wouldn't it be prudent to ramp up man power so as to seal the border (as well as can be done any way)?

[Drake Tungsten]

Well, I question whether the borders could be closed off at all, even if we drastically ramped up manpower. Besides, we know the ****ers are all going to the Sunni Triangle anyway, so why don't we just concentrate some more forces in there and hunt the bastards down? I really like MtG's idea about pacifying the area town by town with a large force. It's time to go on the offensive, as well as can be managed.

[Dinner]

Right now they are because with so many soldiers every where they can onlt opporat in areas where the civilian population will protect them. If there aren't soldiers in the other parts of Iraq then what is to stop them from carrying out terror attacks in those parts? I do agree that the borders cannot be 100% sealed but additional man power would make life much harder for those people who want to commit cross border acts of terrorism.

[Ned]

1) I do not understand Clark's call for interrim elections to elect a new council both to draft a constitution and to begin assuming security responsibilities. The UNSC has already issued a resolution that requires the Iraqi council to submit a draft constitution and a timetable for elections by Dec. 15. I think the ink will hardly be dry on Clark's plan before it is obsolete.

The current council is already recognized as Iraq's government. Why is he so eager to replace it? This does not make sense.

2) Another major problem I see with Clark's plan is that he wants to turn the spending of America's 20 billion of reconstruction aid over to one of the "jilted" allies.

Over my dead body. This is a travesty beyond measure. What in the world does he intend accomplish by such a stunt?

3) As I said before, we need to turn this over to the Iraqi's themselves ASAP. Thus I somewhat support the idea that Clark proposes concerning getting the Iraqi's more involved. Perhaps the council should appoint a CINC for Iraqi forces, to serve at their pleasure. Until we withdraw, of course, that commander would have to coordinate/take orders from US command. However, we should not be able to replace him without the consent of the council.

4) I also support the idea that the council should pay for the new Iraqi security forces out of oil revenues or other taxation. That would give the council additional control over the new army.

5) I oppose making any more concessions to our "allies" in order to get them to send troops. We instead should carry the burden ourselves while replacing our units with newly trained Iraqi units. They seem highly motivated to cut Saddam's throat. The chicken**** allies have proven themselves at Sebrencia as being totally incompetent from a command point-of-view.

[Sikander]

I'm not impressed with Clark's proposals. They rely entirely on a diplomatic position that he has no idea whether he can even begin to pull off, for one thing. This is the sort of "plan" that one puts together in a committee with one's political advisors.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
You, on the other hand, have said we need to stay until it's cleaned up; but no matter what happens, it's Bush's fault.
That's utter craola.

Well, BUSH decided to invade.

BUSH handed us a line of **** about Iraqis being able to launch WMD's 45 minutes from order, and an even more absurd line of **** about Iraqis having the capability to launch UAV's from ships of the US coast, and have those UAV's fly "hundreds of miles into US cities" spraying WMD's.

BUSH ran his mouth about turning Iraq into a "beacon of hope" for the people of the ME, and an "example of democracy or some such self-serving horse****.

BUSH is in theory in charge of his subordinates. Remember that bit about "the buck stops here" - it's called command responsibility.

So yeah, BUSH has ultimate responsibility, just like chicken-choker Clinton had ultimate responsibility for the ****up in Somalia, etc. etc. If BUSH can't handle ultimate responsibility for his policy choices, then maybe the Lima Delta shouldn't be President of the United States.

I tell you what, any respect I had for the Iraqi people is dying fast.

I'm sure they're both heartbroken at this prospect, and many of them would like to invite you not to **** around with their country.

Sonsof*****es need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and change their soiled panties.

You mean like the ones that are killing our troops to get us out of their country, so they can try to reestablish themselves in power? Yeah, we need lots more of those.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
The current council is already recognized as Iraq's government. Why is he so eager to replace it? This does not make sense.

The current counsil was appointed by the CPA, and "recognized" after the fact, in a limited way, by the UN as the "representative" of Iraq, even though it has no sovereign authority whatsoever.

2) Another major problem I see with Clark's plan is that he wants to turn the spending of America's 20 billion of reconstruction aid over to one of the "jilted" allies.

Over my dead body. This is a travesty beyond measure. What in the world does he intend accomplish by such a stunt?

Damn straight, we knocked over that country and set up a puppet council with no more authority than what we grant, and then we deficit spend to have some good corporate pork to give away. Iraq is our territory, we run it, and we intend for our corporate sponsors to get you taxpayer's money worth for your soldier's trouble. If other countries want to give corporate pork to their companies, let them invade their own third world countries full of oil!

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Well, I question whether the borders could be closed off at all, even if we drastically ramped up manpower. Besides, we know the ****ers are all going to the Sunni Triangle anyway, so why don't we just concentrate some more forces in there and hunt the bastards down? I really like MtG's idea about pacifying the area town by town with a large force. It's time to go on the offensive, as well as can be managed.

We can't prevent every tribal goatherder from wandering 500 meters over the border, but we can use UAV's and other technology to drastically reduce the chances of any large scale movements getting through. What's happening now is that large portions of the border, as well as lots of those munitions dumps, are just sitting there unguarded.

[NeOmega]

Osama wants Bush to win.

The Iraqi people would rather Clark won.

Bush's plan means more war and destruction. For those advocating "ramping up the offensive", it also means ramping up the oppression. Surely you folks have noticed the harder any nation has tried to clamp dwon on revolt, the more popular the resistance became?

There is no way most NATO troops will do anything for Bush, and the feeling is mutual. If Bush wins, Osama's enemy will continue to remain alone and isolated in Iraq. Have you not figured out why the Red Cross and UN are under attack? Is it because the resistors are evil? Perhaps, but that doesn't make them dumb. When turkey says it will not send troops, Osama is happy, when India and France will not send troops, Osama gets a stiffy. What Osama wants is Bush's go at it alone appraoch, that way he can pitch a battle between the Americans and Jihadists, with no pesky peacekeepers in the way.

It is my firm belief the "officers" of the rising resistance will be jihadists, but it will soon, within a year or so, get popular, if Bush remains in office. Also note, Turkey has announced they will not send troops in, and Bush has consequently announced he plans to rotate troops in. Greens for veterans. This is where Osama starts moaning with pleasure. Now it will be veteran geurilla fighters vs. green Americans. Oh, his glee.... ughhh....oooohhh... ahhh.. ahhh.. allah allah allah!

If Bush is re-elected, it's gonna get real messy. even if a Democrat gets eleted, it will still be incredibly hostile, even if clark gets elected, his plan has a couple of loopholes.

1) Iraqi Army
Their loyalty will hardly be tenacious for the US. Chances of units betraying is small, but not impossible. But chances of them fighting effectively against fellow countrymen? iffy. They would fight as hard for their current employer as their previous employer.

2) sealed borders
New Mexico, California, Arizona
need I say more?

[Q Classic]

I tell you what, any respect I had for the Iraqi people is dying fast.

why, because they're acting like stupidly patriotic/nationalistic people for the wrong country?
it's a shame that the rest of the world doesn't think like a red-blooded conservative american, isn't it?

Sonsof*****es need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and change their soiled panties.

hard to do that when you have an occupying army that's become unpopular.
we pulled ourselves up by our bootstraps with no occupying army. germany, japan, and korea did so with an american army they liked. iraq? they don't much like us. we still need to win their hearts and minds.

[Drake Tungsten]

We can't prevent every tribal goatherder from wandering 500 meters over the border, but we can use UAV's and other technology to drastically reduce the chances of any large scale movements getting through.

Agreed. Don't see how an increase in manpower would help in this mission, though.

What's happening now is that large portions of the border, as well as lots of those munitions dumps, are just sitting there unguarded.

I'm all for destroying those munitions dumps. Should've been done a long time ago.

If BUSH can't handle ultimate responsibility for his policy choices, then maybe the Lima Delta shouldn't be President of the United States.

****. I thought I knew what "Lima Delta" meant...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

We can't prevent every tribal goatherder from wandering 500 meters over the border, but we can use UAV's and other technology to drastically reduce the chances of any large scale movements getting through.

Agreed. Don't see how an increase in manpower would help in this mission, though.

You need to have sufficient manpower available to have rapid reaction air assault capability to nail these people when the UAV's etc. find them. We lack adequate density in the hostile areas, that's why a lot of these issues are being ignored or dragging on forever. Shinseki was right, and the chickenhawks were wrong, but they'll never admit it.

If BUSH can't handle ultimate responsibility for his policy choices, then maybe the Lima Delta shouldn't be President of the United States.

****. I thought I knew what "Lima Delta" meant...

Limp Cheney