Such smugness, arrogance ...such insufferable moral superiority.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
MRT, you're in a damn dream world. Seriously.

one where 40 year old men who lived in a very possible world where nuclear war could have ended civilizaion are more shook about 3k people dying than the world they grew up in.

a dream world where im more likely to die at the hands of a fellow american than a terrorist?

a dream world where my tax dollars protect wyoming and the dakotas and fight wars based on truthiness?

a dream world where if i say im not afraid and i wont fear the unlikely i am cold and a traitor?

a dream world where i can eat pork shoulder sammiches without fear of being sploded?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ned
And, you will deliberately undermine the War on Terror so that an attack is more likely, an attack that could fundamentally damage the US economy for years.

I believe the title to this thread now fits Ned:

"Such smugness, arrogance ...such insufferable moral superiority"

[Ned]

Arrian, my point is that AQ goes big and damages big. What they do next, if they succeed, will be more than just blow up a building, they will attempt to fundamentally damage the US economy. Blowing up a really dirty bomb in DC might make it uninhabitable for years. Ditto Manhattan. Both attacks would hurt the US badly.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by MRT144


one where 40 year old men who lived in a very possible world where nuclear war could have ended civilizaion are more shook about 3k people dying than the world they grew up in.

a dream world where im more likely to die at the hands of a fellow american than a terrorist?

a dream world where my tax dollars protect wyoming and the dakotas and fight wars based on truthiness?

a dream world where if i say im not afraid and i wont fear the unlikely i am cold and a traitor?

a dream world where i can eat pork shoulder sammiches without fear of being sploded?

[Ned]

Hey, MRT, check out the thread on "They call us stupid..." These are the folks YOU elected.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Ned
Arrian, my point is that AQ goes big and damages big. What they do next, if they succeed, will be more than just blow up a building, they will attempt to fundamentally damage the US economy. Blowing up a really dirty bomb in DC might make it uninhabitable for years. Ditto Manhattan. Both attacks would hurt the US badly.

Your point, so far as I can tell, is that AQ might pull such a thing off if they have the Sunni Triangle as a haven. Which is by no means a sure thing.

I still favor "staying the course" a while longer, but like I said before I'd like to see some improvement soon (say, over the next year) to convince me that our continued presence is actually helping... rather than hurting.

-Arrian

[MRT144]

wow, almost an hour long DP

[Ned]

Originally posted by Arrian


Your point, so far as I can tell, is that AQ might pull such a thing off if they have the Sunni Triangle as a haven. Which is by no means a sure thing.

I still favor "staying the course" a while longer, but like I said before I'd like to see some improvement soon (say, over the next year) to convince me that our continued presence is actually helping... rather than hurting.

-Arrian

Leaving early cannot help. But a negative policy is no substitute for a way forward towards victory. Johnson gave us the negative policy for years ("we are going to stay the course in Vietnam until the North decides they cannot win"). In the final analysis, Johnson gave us the worst of both worlds. He gave us a long and bloody war, without victory, without honor and with eventual surrender and defeat.

With respect to Iraq, we need a plan for victory, not for surrender. Any plan that requires cooperation of our enemies (Iran and Syria) in order to work, will not work. Johnson proved that in spades!

[Arrian]

Leaving early probably won't help, but I wouldn't rule it out. The Iraqi government, such as it is, is vulnerable to charges of being "American puppets" particularly while our soldiers are in Iraq.

What is this plan for victory you keep talking about? I'd love to know how to win (provided you and I have similar definitions of "winning").

-Arrian

[Bosh]

With respect to Iraq, we need a plan for victory.

Which we're not going to get from Bush. "Muddle through and hope for the best" isn't much of a plan.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Bosh

Which we're not going to get from Bush. "Muddle through and hope for the best" isn't much of a plan.

Exactly why the people are dismayed.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Ned
Any plan that requires cooperation of our enemies (Iran and Syria) in order to work, will not work. Johnson proved that in spades!

Admittedly I haven't read it yet, but I believe the Baker Commission concluded that any plan that does NOT include Iran and Syria will not work.

[Ned]

Z, Exactly.

[Cranky]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Better get braced for another Republican president.

I wouldn't mind, as long he is not some inbred buffoon from hillbilly land like the one you have now.

[Seeker]

If I understand what Ned is driving at, he seems to be saying that there are no good answers whatsoever--all scenarios end in nightmare scenarios...???

Or something..?

Leaving ....out

Partitioning....out

"Staying the Course" i.e. patrolling, getting blown up, getting excited over enemy body-counts, occasionally levelling the odd Falujah....out

Iraqization...(see leaving, partitioning)

A vague, BS sounding "regional peace conference/stakeholders meeting" where everything gets mostly worked out and Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia somehow totally keep a lid on their borders and everyone starts singing kum ba ya....out

Doubling, tripling, quadrupling, whatevering the "boots on the gound" providing the insurgents with more targets and generally increasing the damage done to ordinary Iraqis exponentially....out

Giving control over Iraq to the IDF........out

Building an army of advanced bomb sniffing robots controlled from the Green Zone who go around getting bad guys 24/7 while their controllers hang out back at base......out

Following the Baker Commission report..... (see leaving, partitioning, cf 'eventually, delayed', also see 'face-saving measures')....out

So what's IN Ned? What would you do??