Iraq was a puny, second rate country with a shitty dictator and almost

[Stinky The Clown]

no army or air force.

And yet ......

We ain't winnin'.

Why?

Huh George? Why not? Why ain't the home team winnin' over there? I mean ... we're all tough an' shit. Ain't we? Got great cammos to wear and night see-em' goggles and cool guns. Why George? Why ain't our guys winnin'?

Why isn't the RW lowlife crowd askin' this of their king?

[MnFats]

1. didn't you hear? They welcomed us as liberators...

...just like holland and france in wwII. brought out their best wine and the women were liberally kissing our soldiers.

jesus, I'm sorry. I am an asshole to talk like that. i blame Dick Cheney for what I am.

[Lasher]

2. And where's bin Laden?

Didn't you say you were going to get him, Dubya? Where is he?

[shadowknows69]

15. getting ready to take over Iraq

if we leave. so saith the chimp. can't have bin laden get the oil.

[firefox]

3. We're ahead like 120,000 to 2000

We are winning. It is just an expensive proposition waiting on a forfeit. Geez, don't them Iraqis know when they are beaten? All they have to do is take democracy, allow occupation by military bases, agree to puppets, and quit saying it is their oil.

[babylonsister]

4. I'll tell you why. They are putzes.

They had no clue going in there other than their shock and awe campaign, their show of force, and they figured their will would be done. It didn't work that way, and never would have. That was pre-recorded, pre-conditioned, and discussed by people who were listening and knew what this admin was getting involved in.
It will not happen, never was about to happen; we need to get out of Iraq, because this is for no noble cause, and never was.
It's not going to get better; let's leave before it gets infinitely worse.
I now have a personal stake in this. I found out yesterday a kid I know got sucked into the Army infantry. The minute he graduates from high school, he's 'gone'.

[driver8]

6. My wife's cousin just joined the Marines...

His dad is all proud of him. I told my wife, "That kid is going to end up in Iraq...is he fucking crazy?"

This whole world is going crazy, I swear...

[babylonsister]

10. I am so afraid my b-i-l's 'kid' will get

in trouble there. He's a gung-ho child, the Army made it seem very seductive. I am agog. Why did his mom not try to talk him out of it, or did she? I don't know, but I'm still agog.:(

[driver8]

5. ...and, their going to end up paying for this war with their oil money!

How lucky can one country be??

[bluedawg12]

7. Where are the big mouth pundits that appeared on the eve of war

and promised a cake walk, and flowers and sweat tea, and spoke of smoking guns.etc etc?

We know who they are--the neoconnie fair weather friends have abandoned dumbo for screwing up their little invasion and by listening to that old fool rumeystrangelove-- he sent in too few troops- at the wrong time when afghanistan was not even secure when assama beenshrubspal was still running around free in tora bora.

what a cluster fvck.

[LynnTheDem]

8. Remember "egg on librul faces when we find all the WMD"? LOL!

THE YOKE IS ON YOU, ya stupid MFing rightwingnut idiots.

[bluedawg12]

9. Smug and sickening-and so superior about this war

some of them arms dealers! All radicalneoconniewingnut hacks.

These are the guys that destroyed Clinton- they are the vast right wingers. now they screwd the pooch with this war- over reaching sods.

[Tesha]

22. But you see, the pundits were right!

> Where are the big mouth pundits that appeared on the eve of war and
> promised a cake walk...

But you see, the pundits were right! The American forces absolutely
rolled over the opposition and occupied the whole country in a very
few days.

Unfortunately, the pundit class conveniently ignored a major topic
that the few million of us in peace-march "focus groups" didn't:
successfully invading a country is a much different thing than
successfully occupying it. The Iraqi defense forces knew perfectly
well that they couldn't stand up to the awesome firepower of the
modern American military, so they didn't. Like a Ju Jitsu artist,
they simply rolled with the punches, vanishing into the populace
for a while.

And now, they're very successfully counter-attacking every day.

As someone once said, it isn't the winners who get to decide when
a war is over, it's the losers!

And so far, there's nothing much to suggest that the originally-
alleged losers think this war is over. It's far more likely that
we will be the losers who get to decide (by pulling out of Iraq).

Yes, it was a clusterfuck from the get-go. But I suppose that's
what happens when you let a tinhorn AWOL deserter idiot play at
being the Commander-in-Chief.

Tesha

[yurbud]

11. a silver lining in that analysis: if a country a tenth our size can...

fight us to a draw, what are the chances that any country to would try to invade the US, and if they did, why would that be any more successful than us invading a smaller country?

[cassiepriam]

13. Anybody could invade us successfully in a hearbeat....

we are a lazy spoiled people. Not very bright either.
And we have no govt to protect us.

[Tesha]

23. There's no need to invade us. We could be destroyed...

There's no need to invade us. We could be destroyed any number of ways
from abroad. Here are a few:

o Call our paper. We owe trillions of dollars to everyone. We could
easily be destroyed by somebody callingthe loans or even merely
refusing to give us new loans.

o Block our oil. If oil imports stopped, we'd be murdering each other
in the streets inside of two weeks. It'd be pretty easy to block our
oil shipments, whether it was done using political or (para-)military
means.

o Infect a few people with a strategic disease and send them as
tourists to American population centers.

o Take out our satellites. Without their daily dose of TV trash,
most Americans heads would instantly explode!

(Okay, I was mostly kidding about that last one. But destroying
satellites isn't that tough, and we have some primo military and
communication satellites whose destruction would cripple large
swaths of America.)


And small "on-site" attacks would do the job too:

o Take out some fiber-optic telephone cables. As communications is
more and more concentrated onto a relatively-few very high-speed
links, it becomes easier and easier to disrupt huge swaths of it.
How often do we read stories about "Backhoe disconnects city"?
Low-tech attacks on a relatively few critical points would
disable most communications in this country.

o Black out America. Using carbon fibers, we destroyed most of
the Iraqi electrical infrastructure. Do you suppose we're the
only ones who can come up with carbon fibers and metal chaff?

I could go on, but I've probably already provided enough to get
me on some watchlists several times over already!

Tesha

[cassiepriam]

34. Yes. We could be brought down in a heartbeat, without any heavy lifting.

[cornermouse]

12. Meanwhile, over to the side waiting their turn, is China...

While we're all wrapped up in Iraq, thanks to George, China (the real threat) is quietly growing and waiting.

[GreenPartyVoter]

27. China will just buy us out

[Bullshot]

14. Back in the late '70s, Afghanistan stood up to the Soviets.

Many "experts" at that time felt that the Soviet military was slightly ahead of ours. But, Afghanistan eventually drove the Soviets out.

I've always felt that this was the chink in Reagan's armor on the myths that he toppled the Soviet empire. If a third-world nation fighting guerilla warfare could beat back a country perceived as strong as the Soviet's, then anything Reagan may have done was inconsequential. The Soviet Union was going to collapse at any time. Reagan just happened to be president when it happened.

It didn't happen because he told Gorbachev to tear down that wall in Berlin, like the dildoheads like to believe.

[Stinky The Clown]

18. Makes ya wonder if we're fighting a 21st century war with 20th century

strategery ...... yanno?

[htuttle]

25. The 21st century strategy on fighting insurgencies should be....

"Don't fight against insurgencies."

I think that the development and widespread distribution of personal automatic rifles and RPGs has qualitatively changed the nature of insurgent warfare. I simply do not think it's possible for a military to 'win' against well-armed insurgencies anymore. At least not military power alone.

The last really 'successful' case of an insurgency being put down by military force was MacArthur in the Philippines after the Spanish-American war. And they were very poorly armed at the time. MacArthur committed numerous atrocities in the process, but I think if the Philippine insurgents had possessed modern infantry weapons, they might have won.

In other more recent cases where insurgents 'lost', they lost due to more than just military force.

[renie408]

16. Cause we are NOT the 'Home' team? n/t

[NMDemDist2]

17. succinct, on topic and to the point. You got it in "one"

that sums it up perfectly

:applause:

[Nederland]

21. And the insurgency is?

Please. Learn a little about Iraqi politics before suggesting such nonsense.

[Tesha]

24. Home is where the heart is.

The insurgency is clearly supported by a significant fraction of
the Iraqis or they would have long since been exposed to us and
killed.

Tesha

[Nederland]

28. Clearly supported?

Again, please learn a little about Iraqi politics before posting such nonsense. The reality of Iraq is this: 80% of the population is non-Sunni and after decades of discrimination, oppression and outright genocide are pleased as punch to finally see the Sunnis out of power. That does not mean that they particularly like the US, as the administration might have you believe, but it does mean that they will fight to keep things from going back to what the insurgents feel are "the good old days". So why aren't they fighting right now? Well, to a large extent they are, given that the insurgency at this point kills far more Shiites and Kurds than Americans. However, they are more than happy to see the Americans do the real heavy lifting right now. If the Americans left right now, I imagine the first thing you would see is some serious retaliation for decades of oppression and a little mini-genocide of Sunnis at the hands of the Shiites and Kurds.

The bottom line is this: despite what you claim, the insurgency does not represent a significant fraction of Iraqis. They are a tiny minority surrounded by people that hate them to the core. Furthermore, they do not control the areas of the country where the oil, and therefore the money, is. Finally, they have no support from outside rich countries.

Their days are numbered.

[Tesha]

29. That's okay; I understand that you've always been for the war.

That's okay; I understand how you've always been for the war and
the cognitive dissonance you're experiencing now probably really,
really hurts.

Doubtless that's why you call what we're saying "nonsense".

Tesha

[Nederland]

30. That's true

I have always been for the war, just like many Democrats. In fact, my position on the war is identical to John Kerry's: the war was a necessary thing that was executed very poorly.

In DU, that apparently is a problem. In the real world, that makes me part of the majority.

[Tesha]

32. Kerry's wrong, and so are you. (NT)

[Nederland]

33. You are entitled to your opinion

...of course.

However, in ten years, after the insurgency has run its course and Iraq is a semi-stable semi-democracy (similar to most Central American countries today), you will have a lot of explaining to do as to why you supported blood thirsty terrorists that indiscriminately killed civilians and opposed American boys and girls desperately trying to establish the first Arab democracy despite an inept president. That description is, of course, terrible unfair and not at all representative of what you actually believe. However, it is how history will portray the anti-war movement. Just look at how we view the anti-war crowd of WWII and you'll see a glimpse of your future.

John Kerry knows how history will play out, and that's why he took the stance he did.

[npincus]

19. you forgot: no WMD

[Nederland]

20. Depends on how you defining "winning"

When I look at the news, I certainly don't think the insurgency is winning. That is not to say that we are "winning", but if you had to make a call at this point I wouldn't bet on the insurgency. I mean come on. Who controls more ground? Who controls the oil? Who controls the airspace? Who has more casualties? Compare the position the Iraqi insurgency is in to the position the North Vietnamese enjoyed in 1969 and there is no comparison. The insurgency has a long way to go before they can start claiming that they are "winning".

Truth is, right now both sides are stalemated and it is just a matter of time before we see who gives up first. I think we probably have years to go yet, and we will see then.

[cranston36]

26. King Tony

Recently Tony Blair made a speech with the head of the Iraqi government standing by his side.
King Tony asserts that Iran is reportedly interfering with Iraq’s government and may be supplying the Rebels.
King Tony made this claim after following logic that went sort of like this :
1. The Rebels in Iraq are using explosives.
2. Iran has explosives.
3. Therefore the Rebels in Iraq are being supplied by Iran.
King Tony is apparently laying the political groundwork for a propaganda push to end in the attack and invasion of Iran.
King Tony expressed worry and anger about Iran’s nuclear power program he claims is a danger to world peace because they might make nuclear bombs at the power plants.
His logic for this seems to go something like this :
1. Great Britain has nuclear power plants.
2. Great Britain made nuclear bombs.
3. Therefore Iran will make nuclear bombs.
King Tony hasn’t spoken about Iran’s plan for a Petroleum Stock Exchange due to open in 2006. The Exchange will threaten the hold London Banks and Wall Street have over world petroleum markets.
Cash and assets continue to flow out of Wall Street and London banks into the Middle East with no end in sight.
A desperate King Tony will do what he can for London’s corrupt banks.
All he needs to do is convince the United States that Iran is dangerous. Otherwise his alternative may be invading Iran with the 8,000 soldiers he has in Iraq.

[Nederland]

31. Questions

The Petroleum Stock Exchange that Iran plans to create, will it be controlled by the Iranian government? Will the largest oil producer in the world, Saudi Arabia, really like to see power shift to a country of Shiites? Will western investors, who buy the oil, trust this new exchange? Will they believe that all of the international laws that govern international financial transactions be followed and enforced by the Iranian government? What advantages will it hold over the London and Wall Street exchanges? Will it have better technology? Will buyers get a better deal on this exchange than they do currently? If so, why?

I'm sorry, but I simply don't see this new exchange as a threat to any western market makers.