Iraq Spinning Out Of Control....Again!

Devil5052 wrote:It doesn't need to be in my avatar as anyone can plainly see "where I am coming from" by my location which is plainly identified as Massachusetts.

The great Commonwealth of Mass, the progressive and liberal citizens of which, we now are learning from the John Adams series on HBO (not BHO ), provided the spark which led directly to the Declaration of Independence.

Patriots all! Hurrah!

stockingfull wrote:I just thought about that last night, that Basra was the city the Brits had before they "completed their mission" and left.

But there are two points to be made here:

1. Wasn't Basra one of the "easier" cities, thus, the one the Brits got for saying "yes" to going to Iraq at all?

2. Isn't the trouble there Shiia on Shiia violence, therefore (a) by definition not Al Qaeda-caused? And (b) a civil war?

Good point that I had forgotten. Our "Coalition" doesn't even contain the brits anymore. (you know....the good old Brits that we have fought side by side with for almost 100 years years.....Those Brits........ until GW Bush came along) So not only will we be dying in Iraq for another 100 years........We will be doing it all alone!
How can we ever repay the wisdom of GW Bush? (the man....not his office) Maybe by building him a bigger Presidential Library & making sure it has some books that he hasn't even started to color yet!

stockingfull wrote:I just thought about that last night, that Basra was the city the Brits had before they "completed their mission" and left.

But there are two points to be made here:

1. Wasn't Basra one of the "easier" cities, thus, the one the Brits got for saying "yes" to going to Iraq at all?
2. Isn't the trouble there Shiia on Shiia violence, therefore (a) by definition not Al Qaeda-caused? And (b) a civil war?

I don't think one British soldier that served in Basra would agree.
Iranian backed Mehdi Army, but the point is Basra is a glimpse of what a BHO Iraq would look like.

Devil5052 wrote:Totaly agreed other than my opinion that the person who will not give of themselves for a moment to provide any service back to this country, deserves little credence in advocating that others do the necessary work that he himself wont do. (Like fighting a war) It's like when Mitt Romney,strongly advocating the war in Iraq, was asked if any of his sons had performed military service & he (sheepishly) tried to convince us that their passing out his election stickers was their service to the country!..That's what I call a hypocrit who should just keep his mouth shut & has no right to push our sons & daughters towards a war that his family would never be withing 1000 miles of!

I agree if we're talking about the details of war fighting. Strategies, tactics, battle plans, etc. Direct experience has a great deal of usefulness in those kinds of decisions. However when it comes to deciding the usefulness or morality of engaging in a war, or the interest of the nation in maintaining basing in a country post-war, or of committing more or less resources (at a macro level) from a risk/reward/value perspective these are things that everyone has justified claim to voicing their opinion, and it is not "necessary" for a leader/decision maker to have direct experience for this kind of decision making. Certainly, we depend on the comments and insight of generals and soldiers and historians and the rest, but when it comes to making the decision or making the case for a particular choice, everyone has a more or less equal justification to being taken seriously. At least until you hear what they have to say and discover they are an idiot.

The recurring theme of discounting leader's or potential leader's opinions and thoughts on the Iraq War because of their children's choices smacks of... something... I don't know what it is, but I find it offensive at a deep level. Seriously, if we are to carry this out to its logical conclusion then the only people who could justifiably be in the "ruling class" in the congress and the White House are those who have served and we might give a pass to those who had children that served. This group would come from basically less than 1 or 2 percent of the population. Whatever one can say about the state of congress and the presidency in the modern age, at least we've done a fairly good job of maintaining an open system of nomination and election where people of all walks of life and personal experience and family history can join that elite ruling class.

The case of leaders who purposely avoided compulsory service during the Vietnam War (or are accused of it)... I've read and heard a great deal of opinion on this whole subject. I can understand your distaste for such a person or persons leading our nation in a war. I share in it to some extent, but having not lived through that period myself I find it difficult to get very worked up over it. And regardless of the hypocrisy that may be involved, the situation is what it is and there are plenty of people involved in the decision making process that are vets or who don't have the stain of draft dodging on their personal history so I find it has very little bearing on the lead ups to, decisions to start, and execution of the Afghanistan or Iraq wars.

As for your distaste for Romney and his position on the war(s) and his son's not being in the military (MMoore made a similar harague against congresscritters in F911), I do not understand your objections on this at all. First, parents don't send their children to the military or to war. The kids decide for themselves. Just ask the anti-war parents of children who chose the military in the past several years. Second, are we to hold the parent accountable for their children's vocational and service choices, particularly when there are a multitude of strong non-parental influences on those children as they grow up, many of which specifically advocate against militaristic service and even service in government. Third, are you sure it is Romney's sons not serving that you find objectionable, or is it simply your objection to anyone that supports or has supported the Iraq War, regardless of their personal service or that of their family?

Lastly, the kind of service his sons (and even Hillary's daughter) are putting in is precisely the kind of thing for which Obama is saying we should be giving college students tuition money: civic service. Sure, this is a self-serving form of civic service, but it is volunteer civic service none the less. Indeed, as high profile people they face a lot press, a lot of scrutiny, and if they're putting in 100% it can be a grueling, worthwhile experience. If they truly believe their father (or mother) to be the best choice for President, isn't that service laudable? I've heard this same criticism thrown at Bush because his daughters didn't chose the military either, however at least one of them has put in significant time overseas with an AIDS relief effort, again exactly the kind of thing Obama is wanting to encourage with his tuition scholarship idea.

Devil5052 wrote:Of course I do..... Bush deserves the same amount of credit for the U.S. not being attacked since 9/11/2001 as he does in preventing an asteroid from slamming into the earth during his Presidency, which didn't happen either! (The US was not attacked by OBL between 1993 (first WTC attack) & 9/11/2001.......Was that because Bill Clinton kept us safe?)

Well, actually, kinda yes. There was at least one high profile attempted attack in this period that was stopped at the canadian border. How much of this is due to actions that Clinton took after 1993? Not too much considering not too much was done. But this foiled attempt did happen on his watch and he gets credit for it. There have been any number of attempted attacks on the US since 9/11 that have been stopped by the diligence and efforts of the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. and this adminstration through its concerted efforts to increase intelligence gathering, increase inter-departmental information sharing, and engaging security, intelligence, and financial services around the world in common cause. You are not giving this administration or its allies in congress (on these issues, republican and democrat alike) enough credit for preventing attacks since 9/11.

stockingfull wrote:1. Wasn't Basra one of the "easier" cities, thus, the one the Brits got for saying "yes" to going to Iraq at all?

No, not easy at all. Easier than Falluja, yeah, but probably in the top 3 for difficulty. Given Basra's location and strategic importance for oil exports it has been a difficult place to keep secure.

pvolcko wrote:

stockingfull wrote:1. Wasn't Basra one of the "easier" cities, thus, the one the Brits got for saying "yes" to going to Iraq at all?

No, not easy at all. Easier than Falluja, yeah, but probably in the top 3 for difficulty. Given Basra's location and strategic importance for oil exports it has been a difficult place to keep secure.

Yeah, but the material point here is that, as I understand it, it isn't "on the seam" between Sunni and Shiia territory. It's all Shiia. No Al Qaeda whatsoever. No "War on Terror" justification. 100% civil war.

And the notion that Iran arming their favorites in what's become the latest chapter of a centuries-old religious war is "meddling," particularly when we've been meddling in the area for going on 60 years, is ludicrous, at least in the world community, isn't it? Classic "do as we say but not as we've done" hypocrisy.

stockingfull wrote:Yeah, but the material point here is that, as I understand it, it isn't "on the seam" between Sunni and Shiia territory. It's all Shiia. No Al Qaeda whatsoever. No "War on Terror" justification. 100% civil war.

It's majority shia. There is a sizable sunii minority. AQ frequently makes oil infrastructure attacks. Iran has been meddling significantly, particularly with support to Sadr. Sadr army has probably been the primary source street violence though. 100% civil war, no. Couldn't put a number on it without more research, but 100% is overstating it I suspect.

And the notion that Iran arming their favorites in what's become the latest chapter of a centuries-old religious war is "meddling," particularly when we've been meddling in the area for going on 60 years, is ludicrous, at least in the world community, isn't it? Classic "do as we say but not as we've done" hypocrisy.

If you wish to take a totally dispassionate view of things, making no relative value judgements what so ever regarding the justifications, reasons, results, methods and openness in the "meddling", sure. Of course no one does this and rightly so. Not all actions are equal, not all motives are equal, not all methods are equal. We may still be reasonably deemed hypocritical, but not on the non-contextual, disinterested basis you outline.

stockingfull wrote:1. Wasn't Basra one of the "easier" cities, thus, the one the Brits got for saying "yes" to going to Iraq at all?

2. Isn't the trouble there Shiia on Shiia violence, therefore (a) by definition not Al Qaeda-caused? And (b) a civil war?

1. Yes

2. No

devil wrote:Good point that I had forgotten. Our "Coalition" doesn't even contain the brits anymore. (you know....the good old Brits that we have fought side by side with for almost 100 years years.....Those Brits........ until GW Bush came along) So not only will we be dying in Iraq for another 100 years........We will be doing it all alone!

There are roughly 4000 brits still in Iraq. Plans are to draw down to 2500 within a couple months. They're providing training to Basra security forces, after having turned over security there to the locals.

Again, please stop with the 100 years of dying thing. McCain specifically said the 100 years was for a peaceful circumstance, akin to Germany/Japan basing. If you want to gripe about McCain then go after him about not being specific about what he'll do if/when the casualties continue to pile up at several hundred a year (we're averaging about 800 dead per year in Iraq at this point). His 100 years statement didn't address that circumstance and it is a question that should be put to him repeatedly until we get a clear answer.

[quote="pvolcko"]

I agree if we're talking about the details of war fighting. Strategies, tactics, battle plans, etc. Direct experience has a great deal of usefulness in those kinds of decisions. However when it comes to deciding the usefulness or morality of engaging in a war, or the interest of the nation in maintaining basing in a country post-war, or of committing more or less resources (at a macro level) from a risk/reward/value perspective these are things that everyone has justified claim to voicing their opinion, and it is not "necessary" for a leader/decision maker to have direct experience for this kind of decision making. If you look back at some of Romney's speeches, he was lauding the "details" of war fighting , namely the military tactic of "The Surge", for which he has zero credentials.



BTW, I find most of your posts articulate, well thought through, disspassionate & logical, I just simply disagree with many of your opinions. ( many here seem to debate by merely regurgitating White House "Talking Points" or posting videos from Fox News or other dubious sources)

Example: I just can't be swayed by a politician's argument that .......Let's say the schools. Some pols will argue that the US public schools are great, that teachers are paid enough & that it's ok to siphon national tax dollars away from them........Only to learn that he has his own kids enrolled in an expensive private school.--That to me is pure hypocrisy.

Example: I just can't be swayed by a politician's argument that "The Surge" is working, when he has no military experience from which to make such a decision.

Example: A politician being a "hawk" who has never even been in combat (or sometimes even the military) & who's male children likewise have never been wore the uniform of this country. (or daughters who have never done any kind of civic service)...Again hypocrisy.

These people have a right to their opinions of course, but I will not give them one once of credibilty on subjects they have no knowledge of. (terrible english sentance there but you get my point)

We simply disagree.

Where is BHO's cred?

spc wrote:Where is BHO's cred?

He isn't a hawk!

(see if you can follow my reasoning here: In my opinion, a "dove" needs no combat/military experience because he/she is not advocating war. A "hawk" does because he/she is.)

And please explain exactly why you insist on using Sen. Obama's middle initial in all your posts involving him? (I know why but let's hear your explanation)

Devil5052 wrote:

spc wrote:Where is BHO's cred?

He isn't a hawk!

(see if you can follow my reasoning here: In my opinion, a "dove" needs no combat/military experience because he/she is not advocating war. A "hawk" does because he/she is.)

And please explain exactly why you insist on using Sen. Obama's middle initial in all your posts involving him? (I know why but let's hear your explanation)

Ok so according to your logic BHO will not be able to use the military as Commander in Chief because he has no "combat/military experience". I feel safer already.

FDR, JFK, GWB, BHO, are you offended?

Devil, I thank you for your response. I think your positions and mine are fully on the table now. As you said, we disagree on a great many things.

I suppose this puts the lie to the idea that people can be convinced (either way) of something on the merits of a "logical" argument alone.

Wait, I can't let this one go, one more try:

In my opinion, a "dove" needs no combat/military experience because he/she is not advocating war. A "hawk" does because he/she is.

There were many doves on entering WWII. They were simply wrong. Maybe they weren't hypocritical, but they were wrong. Similarly, there were many people both military and not, that were hawks on WWII. They were right, yet some, by your logic, were unfit to advocate and not worth listening to due to their lack of military experience.

It doesn't matter if one has military experience or not when it comes to advocating for or against entering into a war. Those with experience, dove or hawk, can speak to the effects and mechanics of war in a more personal way, but even among them there are few that can speak more or less substantially about the rationale and moral justification and/or underpinnings for or against entering a war, because war isn't about "the personal" it is about events, ideas, and/or circumstance on a broad level. When it comes to planning and executing a war that's been green lit then we definitely turn to those with specific knowledge to make it happen, just as we did with the surge or in the prep for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. However, being a hawk or a dove is about personal beliefs on matters of macro scale morality, justice, economics, or international obligations which everyone is, more or less, as equipped as another to make judgments on. At this level it is more about being informed, and examining one's a soul and understanding the "soul" of the country, and being wise in judgment. It isn't about tactics and strategy and mechanics or even the emotional and physical toll of fighting a war, those things are all important, but they come after the decision to go to war is made or after major policy shifts are made.

The only exception is in informing the public of the likely costs of entering the war or making a policy shift. There of course expert knowledge and opinion is called for, but even then it is only to inform the public so that we and our leaders may make a decision with as much knowledge of those "macro" level aspects of the decision as possible.

This is an eternal debate that isn't about to be solved here. Just thought I'd take one last whack at it.