Thread: iraq study group

the bush clan refer to him as 'bandar bush'.

Originally Posted by RDN

Originally Posted by machangezi

It saddens me to read the news about sending 20, 000 more troops to Iraq out of which 17,500 would be stationed in Baghdad to maintain law and order.

I ain't sad cos of hig American influx in Iraq. It saddens me to see how easy it is for those elite few to make such decisions. They don't care if these chaps would ever come back or not...

Rubbish.

perhaps you'd like to explain how machangezi's opinion is 'rubbish' and 'stupid'.

^ & ^ ^ Simple,really. I don't believe this for a second:

They don't care if these chaps would ever come back or not...

You've got to become a pretty sad cynic if you believe that.

^ come on RDN, you can't seriously believe that the US government actually cares for those kids. They don't wish them to be killed, but they know perfectly it will happen, and yet that didn't stop them for NOT thinking twice about the invasion and the new surge in troops.

butterfly

that's rubbish. stop making stupid posts.

^ ok sir, if you say so

Wise men don't want war, the inevitable sacrifice of young men and women only perhaps their parents care much for (a war hero is just a cripple at the end of the war), is only one of the reasons:

"Never has there been a good war or a bad peace."
—Benjamin Franklin

I still think the surge is a good idea, then without any doubt left, the US will have no choice but to leave. A bit expansive though.

Originally Posted by RDN

^ & ^ ^ Simple,really. I don't believe this for a second:

They don't care if these chaps would ever come back or not...

You've got to become a pretty sad cynic if you believe that.

Many jokes about U.S. casualties and Generals being scoffed at by the civilians at DoD, State, and the NSC are on record, in the very beginning.

Do these officials care?

Maybe on a superficial level. The ends justify the means.

We're talking trillions of dollars of the next several decades. And a lot of geo-politics, too.

Folks must remember that the U.S. casualties are a drop in the bucket compared to past invasions and wars, etc.

It only matters if you know the person, and moreso if they are a family member.

Casualties are only numbers; nothing more, nothing less.

Bush's Iraq Plan Meets Skepticism On Capitol Hill - washingtonpost.com

Originally Posted by Butterfly

^ come on RDN, you can't seriously believe that the US government actually cares for those kids.

Well, I do.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

They don't wish them to be killed, but they know perfectly it will happen,

Exactly. Tough decisions have to be made when you are at war.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

and yet that didn't stop them for NOT thinking twice about the invasion and the new surge in troops.

I'm sure they've spent many hours and days in meetings thinking of the best way forward. This is what they've decided on. You can either agree with it, or not. I think the "surge" should've come a lot earlier - maybe a year ago - but it's not too late.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

I still think the surge is a good idea, then without any doubt left, the US will have no choice but to leave. A bit expansive though.

More like expensive. More billions wasted on failure.

When this surge fails wait for another 'augmentation' to quote SecSt.

The article I read of the enlisted guys in the Stryker units really hit the nail on the head for me.

These guys have done at least 2 tours in Iraq.

They are on the ground. They work with the Iraqi army, deal with the Iraqi public, and really know what's going on.

And these guys are saying, that it's not going to make much difference - sending in the additional troops.

I think they should send them in, because they be inneffectual, and it will be another negative blow to W. Bush who is increasing alone, and on his own when it comes to this fiasco.

The Generals and Iraq Study Group don't see it the way he does.

But, Mad Dog, people are still clearing up the mess they left in Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos. I doubt the situation in Iraq will be any different once the Americans decide to move out. I appreciate that the outcome of each war is different, but they've had 30 years to start cleaning up the mess in South East Asia.

Originally Posted by Wallace

But, Mad Dog, people are still clearing up the mess they left in Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos. I doubt the situation in Iraq will be any different once the Americans decide to move out. I appreciate that the outcome of each war is different, but they've had 30 years to start cleaning up the mess in South East Asia.

Good point.

Iraq would be better off in the long run if America left now.

However, given Bush/Cheney/Gates' recent statements it appears that the target all along has been Iran and Iraq is to serve as a staging ground for either attacking Iran, Syria, or both (since both threaten the precious nation of Israel). Look soon for the desparate attack on Iran as the USS Busheneyates try to salvage a legacy.

I don't see how the US could do it, unless they join forces with Israeli troops, a possibility but then it would enflame the whole region and the real WW3 would start.

Originally Posted by surasak

Iraq would be better off in the long run if America left now.

However, given Bush/Cheney/Gates' recent statements it appears that the target all along has been Iran and Iraq is to serve as a staging ground for either attacking Iran, Syria, or both (since both threaten the precious nation of Israel). Look soon for the desparate attack on Iran as the USS Busheneyates try to salvage a legacy.

I've been reading about this two occasinally, but it would be a disastrous decision.

And one that the U.S. and Israel would regret.

I think the Aircraft Carriers are just a 'message sender,' and a stupid one at that.

Ahmadinejad doesn't give a hoot.

Surgical strikes will not be enough, whether done by the U.S., USrael, or both.

It could be another Gulf of Tonkin in the making....maybe they are hoping Iran will accidentally do something to provoke the U.S. into acting.

here's a map of the US naval presence inthe gulf....



The New York Times > Week in Review > Image > Naval Heft Meant To Intimidate

Originally Posted by surasak

It could be another Gulf of Tonkin in the making....maybe they are hoping Iran will accidentally do something to provoke the U.S. into acting.

And of course, Iran may be helped along a little bit to appear to attack.

Good map, Ray. Good information, too.

I am starting to wonder why the USS Stennis is joining the carrier already there.