It doesn't look like the U.S. can get out of Iraq anytime soon. It seems that troop strengths will stay the same or perhaps even go up.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060919/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq_4

an, this is a no-win situation.

The U.S. can't stay because they are caught smack in the middle of a civil war which is escalating instead of abating.

The U.S. can't leave because the current government will collapse. There will be unbound civil war with no obvious end result. American credibility would be dealt a crippling blow.

In the best of scenarios, the majority Shias will eventually control the government, leaving both Iran and Iraq as Shia governments.

George, what have you done?

He's bringing democracy and liberty to the Middle East! He's the Decider!

Do you have any constructive advice to remedy the situation? America-bashing is becoming a tired refrain on this board.

Do you have any constructive advice to remedy the situation? America-bashing is becoming a tired refrain on this board.

Not America bashing but Shrub bashing ...

Despite what he may believe, he is no Louis XIV (yet)


Eri

I think the only solution might be to increase the number of troops hugely. Go with what the military first said was needed. Like approaching a quarter of a million. Quell the insurgency, rebuild the infastructure. And find ourselves bankrupt afterwards.

Failing that. Apologise profusely and leave hoping that they work it out.

Not America bashing rubut Shrub bashing ...When you're done mentally masturbating, perhaps you'll come up with some constructive input.

When you're done mentally masturbating, perhaps you'll come up with some constructive input.

Oops forgot. No point in arguing, seriously or flippantly, with you.


Eri

Do you have any constructive advice to remedy the situation? America-bashing is becoming a tired refrain on this board.

Do you have constructive advice to remedy the situation? Over-sensitive, nationalistic, tongue-wagging are becoming a tired refrain on this board.

aybe YOU don't want to hear about this issue, but some, including the majority of Americans (if you believe the polls), believe it IS an issue.

In actual fact, do you have something constructive advice on the Iraq situation?

You make it sound like civil war in Iraq is a BAD thing.

The enemy is contained, fractured, divided and warring between selves.

I say we pull all American troops out now(but not too far), and hand it over to the UN, and their peacekeepers.

See how much peace they can keep, for real.


1. Extremist Muslim vs Extremist Arab civil war(which could last decades)
2. US Troops out of Iraq.
3. US Troops just driving distance from Iran.
4. UN and Euros can prove to either keep talking or start walking.

A civil war in Iraq is not Good Guys vs Bad Guys, it is Bad Guys vs Bad Guys. Remember 7th grade algebra?, a negative times a negative is a positive.

And after 30 years of genocidal civil religious warfare when they look to us and say any sh!t, we can just say, truthfully, "Hey Moe, you guys wanted us to leave, so we did".

You need to worry when they stop warring and start working together. That is when stuff is going to get bad again, and have to go back in.

It is a Win/Win/Win/Win situation right now, honestly. We can't lose.

I still think that the US will be in Iraq for 10 years. After that point if Iraq can't defend itself then it may decend into civil war. The key is to get Iraq's defending themselves.

I don't think there is an easy answer. A solution or opportunity needs to come from within Iraq itself, a populist leader maybe who could unite enough of the country to make something work. I don't see it happening though. I'm glad I don't have to sort it out.

Do you have constructive advice to remedy the situation?Yes. I think we should rethink our role there. Our goal should be to remove any potential extremist leader whom the people might rally around, and to remove Iraq's military capability. Once that's accomplished, our job is done and we can leave.

If they want to fight a civil war, let them -- that's way beyond our original mission objectives. As Fyyr points out, if they're busy killing one another, they won't be killing us.

Bush is likely too prideful to pull out, but the Democrat who wins in 2008 won't be.

Yes. I think we should rethink our role there. Our goal should be to remove any potential extremist leader whom the people might rally around, and to remove Iraq's military capability. Once that's accomplished, our job is done and we can leave.

If they want to fight a civil war, let them -- that's way beyond our original mission objectives. As Fyyr points out, if they're busy killing one another, they won't be killing us.

Bush is likely too prideful to pull out, but the Democrat who wins in 2008 won't be.

Pull out. Let them kill each other. Yup... that's what the U.S. did last time. Vietnam.

The US has placed itself in a no win situation, if they leave the whole country will slide into Anarchy in a matter of minutes. If they stay they will be there forever and a day wasting peoples lives (both american and iraqi) in a no win war. such is the price of Oil.. err Freedom..

Dont you find it Ironic how concerned Bush was with regards to Iraq, Saddam and all those WMD?(look how many they found OMG!) and yet there is a nation not so far from iraq where genocide is being commited as we speak.. You can see how concerned bush is about that..The US has set itself up as the worlds police, the liberators the bringers of freedom and democracy.. that is if you have something they want..

More like undermine your troops who are winning every battle just like in Vietnam. The Democrats are pros at that. Alot of Republicans are learning now too.

The US has set itself up as the worlds police, the liberators the bringers of freedom and democracy.. that is if you have something they want..<!-- / message -->

Yes, we will tackle problems that are in our interest. We have the UN to handle the rest. Take your beef to them.

The US has set itself up as the worlds police, the liberators the bringers of freedom and democracy.. that is if you have something they want..

Actually, no, we've been asked, repeatedly, to be the World's Police.

From Haiti to Somalia to the Balkans...and usually, in the end, we take nothing but grief for it.

Actually, no, we've been asked, repeatedly, to be the World's Police.

From Haiti to Somalia to the Balkans...and usually, in the end, we take nothing but grief for it.

I must have missed the world asking the US to go into Iraq this time around..

...So now we're limited to doing only what the world wants us to do?

We're a sovereign nation with goals of our own, you know...

While I disagree with our war in Iraq...its not for your puling pathetic reasoning.

If they want to fight a civil war, let them -- that's way beyond our original mission objectives.

Well the mission objectives look in tatters. Counter the massive threat of Iraq to it's neighbours - check. Stop dangerous Islamic states getting WMD - check. Roll back terrorism - check. Catch the perpetrators of 9/11 - check. Create a beacon of democracy in the middle east - check. Free the Iraqi people from fear and persecution - check. Consolidate on the success in Afghanistan - check. Bring stability to world oil prices - check. Find a permanent middle east peace - check.

At least Saddam is on trial. All that's needed is for him to die of natural causes in custody like Milosovic.

Well the mission objectives look in tatters. Counter the massive threat of Iraq to it's neighbours - check. Stop dangerous Islamic states getting WMD - check. Roll back terrorism - check. Catch the perpetrators of 9/11 - check. Create a beacon of democracy in the middle east - check. Free the Iraqi people from fear and persecution - check. Consolidate on the success in Afghanistan - check. Bring stability to world oil prices - check. Find a permanent middle east peace - check.

At least Saddam is on trial. All that's needed is for him to die of natural causes in custody like Milosovic.

Wow. Have you an actual grasp on reality?

Stop dangerous Islamic states getting WMD - check. Yep be sure to check out iran because iraq never had any.

Roll back terrorism - check. Yep check out London, Madrid, Bali, Jordan Etc Etc

Create a beacon of democracy in the middle east - check. check out the definiton of beacon.

Catch the perpertrators of 9/11 - check. check out Osama..oops now where is he?

Free the Iraqi people from fear and persecution - check. check out how many people fear to get a bus to work

Consolidate on the success in Afghanistan - check. check out the telibans rising popularity.

Bring stability to world oil prices - check. check out how stable they are.. and how high.. possibly due to the worlds 2nd largest oil producer running at 1/3rd production.. cant figure out why... oh yeah someone bombed the **** out of them.

Find a permanent middle east peace - check. check out lebanon, check out the truth not just what the US press machine tells you to believe FFS

Lol Treiz... read Anka's post again. You guys are agreeing, not disagreeing.

I'm sure it would have been suppressed until after the elections but...

HE leaking of a classified intelligence report that says the war in Iraq has been a major reason for increased Islamic radicalism and has heightened the threat of terrorism has embarrassed the Bush Administration and is a blow for Republicans facing mid-term congressional elections in November.

The leaking of parts of the National Intelligence Estimate to The New York Times and The Washington Post shows that senior members of the intelligence services believe the President, George Bush, and his senior officials are painting too rosy a picture of the security challenges facing the US.

National Intelligence Estimates, which are prepared by senior US intelligence operatives and based on the work of 16 intelligence agencies, are delivered to the president and senior members of the congressional intelligence committees.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/damning-report-may-pave-way-for-election-defeat/2006/09/25/1159036472312.html

The leaking has embarrassed...

...or the report has embarrassed?


The Democratic senator Edward Kennedy said the report "should put the final nail in the coffin for President Bush's phoney argument about the Iraq war"
The alcoholic poster child for term limits and murderer himself should know about coffin nails.

Deflect, deflect, deflect. The topic is Iraq.

Then why post an opinion piece from an Australian opinion writer about the American public opinion of Iraq?

That is like 3 degrees off of Iraq directly.

Here you go: http://news.google.com/?ncl=http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0925/dailyUpdate.html&hl=en
Go pick out the source you like best. There's over 500 here. I just picked the first one I found this morning.

Since you chose the search parameters, I will take your search's first link.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2488177

Some Say Bush Made Terror Worse
Democrats Cite Report That Says America Is Less Safe Today Than After 9/11
Who 'some' are determines the value(or accuracy is most cases) of one's opinion. Does it not? Of course Demos would say that, they are politicians who want to win elections, and make their opponents lose.

As President Bush comes off a series of speeches designed to reassure the American people, a classified report from the nation's 16 spy agencies tells a different story.
ore opinion stuff, no facts here. What different story? That Americans should not be reassured?


According to an estimate from the National Intelligence Council, the war in Iraq is making the threat of terrorism worse.
The 'threat' of terrorism. Well, I suppose if you measure the threat by 'out' Jihadists, I would agree. But we were attacked by hidden Jihadists for no reason. Are 'out' Jihadists worse and being prepared for them, or having covert Jihadists and not knowing about it better in terms of 'threat'?

America is less safe today than it was after Sept. 11, 2001, because the conflict is creating more extremists.
Suppose there 200 Million Islamic Jihadists in the world today, if there were 25% less or 50% less Jihadists 5 years ago, that still would have been 100 Million Jihadists. Have we really doubled our 'threat' or just have twice as many people to kill now? Jihadists started this war, we have morality authority on our side if we wish to kill them all. So in the end, does it really matter if there are 100 million or 200 million(as long as none of them are targetting Americans in America).?

"The war in Iraq has exasperated the global war on terror," said Robert Hutchings, the council's former chairman.
Possibly because of the restrictions that which American Public Opinion puts on those responsible for fighting Jihadists.

Now, six weeks before the election, Democrats are seizing on the report's findings to argue that Republicans have mishandled the nation's security.
If not this, then something else.

In a written statement issued Sept. 23, Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy said the president had made a "phony argument about the war."
Sir Eddy Rednose quoted again. You would think that he said something else, say "..'nother round, bartender".

The next day, Nevada Sen. Harry Reid also issued a statement, saying, "Bush Iraq policies have made America less safe."
This is the guy who took all the Abramhoff Casino cash, and did not even give any of it back.

But they're both countered by supporters of the Iraq war, including Arizona Sen. John McCain.
I like McCain, but think he is still kinda dovish.

"The fact is we were attacked on Sept. 11 without any encouragement. … We've got to win the war, both psychologically as well as militarily," McCain told reporters.
Um, ya. I don't know why people can't wrap their brains around this notion.

The White House says the leaked portions of the report are incomplete and out of context.
They would say that, thats why they hire spin doctors.

One of the president's aides emphasized that they believed taking the fight to the terrorists was, in their words, the best way to win.
Ya, cuz fighting a war on our soil is such a great idea. How can anyone argue with this, seems like a no brainer?

I like McCain, but think he is still kinda dovish.
Next to you, Alexander the Great would be considered a Dove.


One of the president's aides emphasized that they believed taking the fight to the terrorists was, in their words, the best way to win.

Ya, cuz fighting a war on our soil is such a great idea. How can anyone argue with this, seems like a no brainer?

Does anyone actually believe that? Other than you, I mean.

Next to you, Alexander the Great would be considered a Dove.
If a group of people have declared war on me, I have no hesitation killing them all. No, killing Jihadists, all of them, is a good idea. Unless one does not value his or her own life, that is.

Does anyone actually believe that? Other than you, I mean.
I think that one would have to be an idiot to think that fighting a war on your own soil, if it can be fought elsewhere, is a great idea.

I mean, if you are saying that NOT going to where Jihadists are, to wage war on them is a good idea, then the only option left is...wait for them to show up here and then kill them, or even better pacifist strategy, to just let them show up here and kill us.

I don't think that is such a great idea. I would question the sanity of anyone who does think it is a great idea. It definately should result in the revocation of the right to vote, by any means.

hehe

Here is this for irony...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060925.wterrorr0925/BNStory/International/home

The same group who you are pointing to Pan. From your same Google search.

Guess what? They were a central source of opinion for the WMDs that were in Iraq before we invaded Iraq.

It was a National Intelligence Estimate in October 2002 that wrongly said former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

Do you still trust their intel and opinions now?

Anyone been tracking the threats some extremists have been making against the pope for his recent speech?

Some of them have threatened to blow up the Vatican with a WMD. Nothing credible, or actionable, to use a military term, but definitely food for thought.

If some Jihadist group did detonate a nuclear or biological weapon in Rome, at or near the Vatican, then took credit for it, I think that might possibly be the worst mistake they could ever make. Collectively as a culture and people, they would never get continued existence to make other mistakes.

I am hoping there are some semi-sane people even within the Jihadists, considering that perhaps blowing up the Catholic's version of Mecca may not be the best of ideas.

I agree with most of that, Fy'yr...but we should be fighting jihadists in Iran...killing two birds with one stone, as it were.

Iraq was a mistake...a huge mistake. A mistake of mind-boggling idiotic proportions.

It was like punching the nerdy little kid who did nothing to you in front of the class, so that when it comes time to deck the kid who called your mother a whore, noone believes you or cares if you were justified or not.