What have we learned from Iraq?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Patroklos
HAHA, look at you squirm!!! We went to war in Afgahistan for one reason alone, 9/11. While I do lump you with the libs because that is what you are, your personal views are irrelevant when talking about group behavior (sort of like you lumping me with the cons). American libs, which is who we are talking about NEVER advocated invading Afghanistan before 9/11. So don't pretend that human suffering, other than American, had anything to do with it.

What on earth are you talking about? *Sigh* I have to explain it again:

I am fully aware that the actual reasons for invading Afghanistan were not humanitarian. That's not the point--I, personally, supported taking out the Taliban for humanitarian reasons. Whether or not that was the aim of the government isn't the relevant issue.

And you're just plain wrong on lib groups. They were advocating strong action against the Taliban for years. Conservatives were saying nothing about it. So much for your theories on who cares about such things.

How this is a "tangent" I don't know, since you were the one who starting mouthing off about how "libs" weren't interested in humanitarian issues. So much for you claim about me "expanding" or "contracting" the debate, since I can't see any other explanation for this weird track.

Boris schooled.

Hardly.

You say yourself the requirements would need war-time footing. So we should expect foreign governments not only to back our ventures, but to put themselves in full wartime footing while we don't? Preposterous.

I'll take the German's word for the feasibility of such deployments over yours any day.

As for Taiwan, well, bad example for you because that would mean fighting China which would mean all out war. Care to guess what the American man pool is? Not that it matters, it would be a naval/air war anyways.

All a two front war like that would require would be a war footing, which is what I have repeatedly said we should be at now, and who I blame BOTH cons and libs for.

Taiwan may have been a bad example, but you're missing the point. If we're not going to a wartime footing, we shouldn't expect other allies to. You can't have it both ways. I see no reason why France or Germany or anyone else should have been compelled to go to such a footing over Iraq. Had they tried it here, public support for the war would have evaporated overnight.

BTW, that would be a 3-front war, since you seem to forget Afghanistan still is a problem for us.

Why are we undermanned in Iraq right now? Is it because the current military is stretched thin? You betcha. And nobody is going to convince the U.S. population to go to a wartime footing, esp. since current public opinion is against the war even here. Now go to a country where 80-90% of the population is against it.

So, bottomline, the feasibility of countries like France or Germany contributing enough troops to the campaign to make 100,000 new troops is pretty low.

And what's this "smear campaign?" Could it be you think disagreeing with the war was a "smear campaign?" That's what it sounds like.

[Boris Godunov]

I don't see how anyone could make the dumb claim that the UN mandated the war when most of the UN SC wasn't a participant in it, a majority of UN members opposed it, and the UN's chief weapon's inspector decried the war starting as he believed they were making progress and should have been allowed to complete their work.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
What we learned from Iraq?

That I was right on almost all counts. The exception being that oil prices didn't drop as much as I'd expected, but nevertheless...

Vindication
Situation in Iraq
Neo-cons + Hawks
Pacifism
Ted Striker

[Patroklos]

[

So, bottomline, the feasibility of countries like France or Germany contributing enough troops to the campaign to make 100,000 new troops is pretty low.

And again, who said anything about deploying 100,000 more troops? Unless you wish to take issue with Jane's and Wikipedia, just go home.

I like that you have basically responded with not-ahhs.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Not every anti-war vet was in Vietnam Vets Against the War.

BTW, Ned, people in communist organizations are not allowed to either smoke pot or chase girls, and we're strongly encouraged to wash.

Next, you'll have military haircuts and wear brown uniforms.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Operation Iraqi Liberation

Come on Whaleboy, be honest for a change. Tell me you knew all along at WMD's were only a pretext to the larger imperialist goals of a far right wing, fascist president. (Or something to that effect.)

Or, is this exactly what you mean to imply by your sarcasm?

[Ted Striker]

Well, yeah

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Patroklos
And again, who said anything about deploying 100,000 more troops?

Um, you did, on page 2:

Originally posted by Patroklos
Things like have a pool of another 100,000 troops to work with and people other than us rebuilding the place tend to improve things a bit no?

, but don't blame you for forgetting your own arguments. They are pretty forgettable.

Unless you wish to take issue with Jane's and Wikipedia, just go home.

Wait, weren't you earlier dismissing Jane's as not credible in the debate over the resistance?

I like that you have basically responded with not-ahhs.

I like how you failed to respond to all but one issue, and your response entails continual movement of the goal posts.

Well, that was fun.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Well, yeah

Ted, at least you and Whaleboy see to be on the same page about the "real" goals of a corrupt, fascist president. It is too bad that the likes of Pekka cling steadfastly to a belief that the main opposition to Bush's invasion was that the US didn't have enough proof of WMDs. To most of the opposition, the level of proof, being low as it was, only confirmed their suspicions about real goals the Nazi leader of the great Imperial power.

[Patroklos]

It is funny you should bring up the orignial quote;

Things like have a pool of another 100,000 troops to work with and people other than us rebuilding the place tend to improve things a bit no?

It says what I have always maintained, a "pool of another 100,000 troops to work with." Deployed to Iraq B, is your bag. But if thats how you see things, I am glad you have no problem with our troop levels in Iraq, as you seem to believe we have 2,000,000 soldiers there.

Wait, weren't you earlier dismissing Jane's as not credible in the debate over the resistance?

Dismissed as relevant to your arguement, as your article says that the resistance has gotten better at the tactics it already employs, ie command and control and coordination in conjuction with scale, than adaptive tactics. Though they do use the word adapt and evolve, there is no information given on that. Basically it is like you saying it. Again, what is the breath taking new tactic the resistance is using that they didn't before highlighted in your article?

Hint, they don't mention one

Car bombs, IEDs, torturing and killing civilian. Yeah, pretty much the same.

And of course it is also an opinion peice, not the dry but irrifutable statistics I gave you.

movement of the goal posts.

And again, glad you quoted my original post, as this is what I have been talking about all along, besides humoring your diversionary tangents.

FACTS BORIS HAS BEEN SCHOOLED IN

1.) France, Germany, and other non-US actors indeed do possess the ability to provide a 100,000 strong pool of soldiers to draw from.

2.) And I would like to point out this is straight from your liberal hand book, adding 14 more international players including at least two major ones, would alleviate the majority of the reconstruction problems.

Now you have repeated this grade three times B, Special Ed is next.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Next, you'll have military haircuts and where brown uniforms.

No brown shirts, but for a long time, commies weren't allowed to wear long hair by their organizations. Can you guess why?

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


No brown shirts, but for a long time, commies weren't allowed to wear long hair by their organizations. Can you guess why?

They didn't want to be confused with the SDS?

[Patroklos]

No brown shirts, but for a long time, commies weren't allowed to wear long hair by their organizations. Can you guess why?

What happened to you guys, "you used to be beautiful."

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
They didn't want to be confused with the SDS?

Very close, actually. It has more to do with not trying to alienate people. Face it, who has a better shot of talking to you? Someone who dresses and acts like you or some hippie freak burning a flag? As Saul Alinsky wrote, if you want to organize a synagogue, you don't walk in eating a ham sandwich.

[Patroklos]

"Clean for Gene"