Hugh did you know that McCain used the word "tarbaby" and is being lambasted over its use, saying it was racist? From your discription of the term "tarbaby" how coud possibly the media ever make such a mistake?

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at March 18, 2007 7:24 AM

Presidents Johnson and Nixon tried to win the Vietnam war through Bombing the North. It didn't work then and the same result can be expected if applied to Iran.

It is apparent that Both Houses of Islam have been in disagreement with one another for 1,200 years. They are both still here today and they still find the time and effort to do us harm. I find it hard to believe it will change any time soon.

As prommising and plesant as it may be for some members in the house to kill each other. It still doesn't take into account the rest of the household who will seek vengence upon those who they will blame for starting it.

I don't think the Western World wants to go back to walking and dirt farming. Cutting off the flow of Oil from the Region will make that happen in one big hurry.

I have no problem with the goal, just the means

Posted by: flowerknife_us at March 18, 2007 9:06 AM

A military action against Iran while the US has an army forward deployed in Iraq risks the substantial destruction of that army if the Iranians decide that serves their purposes, and it assuredly would. That would have catastrophic implications for the ability of the Army to recruit volunteers in the future. This to my mind is the strongest argument for an "as hasty as safely possible" pullback from Iraq. Get them out of there so our hands are untied to deal with Iran.

One small encouragement to me is that in hearings within the last two months on the "surge plan", Peter Pace responded to a question of "what to do if the plan fails" in roughly these terms: "If the plan doesn't work, the additional troops will be useful in the implementation of our alternate plan." General Pace didn't specify the details of that alternate plan, but I suspect that it is something on the order of a "fighting withdrawal" along the exposed lines of communication back to bases in Kuwait or to less exposed positions in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Army assuredly has developed plans for this contingency, and I think that such a plan would be executed as expertly as the original invasion was.

Posted by: Dhimmisoftheworldunite at March 18, 2007 10:34 AM

"The truth is until the Iranians are dealt with it would be folly to move out of Iraq." I happen to know that poster, and others, that have been kicked off jihad watch, they say, for insisting that the followers of that war-manual, The Koran, for the safety of the United States, needs to have a complete standing army with bases right in the middle of the Muslim heart land with the support of the Arab elites. We have a Trojan horse right where is really matters - where we can protect all of those slightly friendly neighbors - who in their right mind would give up such an advantage? Bush is doing the right thing - the only save thing - the only possible thing at the present moment - please, for our survival, support George Bush - lots of mistakes were made, but a bigger one would be to give up our Trojan horse after such a sacrifice to get it inside emeny lines. If we were not there, they would be here already with poison and an A bomb near the Empire State tower.

Posted by: crux at March 18, 2007 11:05 AM

It is such folly to think that we do not need a standing army at the ready in the Middle of the Islamic heartland because Islam is hopelessly divided into two warring camps and will stay that way forever - war will get them together in a flash as soon as the United States is out of the way - it is madness to think otherwise! And Madness to be willing to bet civilian lives on this crazy assumption! Even Hitler made fast friends with the Japanese whom he considered an extremely inferior race. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" They are not that crasy that they would not unite with their twin to kill our children.

Posted by: crux at March 18, 2007 11:29 AM

Don't even think our troops would be at a disadvantage should the Iranians attack across the Iraq border. Were that to happen, the rules of engagement would change drastically; there would be no more "NO Go" zones!No more "na-nah-nah-na-na" from inside the Mosques! And remember; Iran was unable to defeat the Iraqi Army in 8 years. We did it in two weeks!! I'm sure the Iranians remember "Shock and Awe", which is what would devistate any invading army. Besides, should this scenario unfold, perhaps congress would get off their ass and declare war on Iran. Then, perhaps, when air superiority is achieved, (two days) a single airstrike would solve the entire mideast problem!

As to Viet Nam; Militarily we won that war, even with all of the same "Politically Correct" restrictions that we now have in Iraq.But the likes of Jane Fonda, John Kerry, and Ramsey Clark snatched defeat from the jaws of victory! Let us hope that Hollywood, Alan Colmes, and Cindy Sheehan, et al are not able to accomplish the same!!!!

Posted by: xach at March 18, 2007 12:43 PM

Crux, I cannot recall ever being kicked off this site for expressing the views I do.

For several Months I did nothing but read the articles and the opinions expressed by others.

I found great comfort(in a way) that opinions I had about Islam were in essence,confirmed by others who obviously knew far more about the material than I.

My opinions on these matters come as an Amateur who has read Military History for the last 30 years. Old School to re-visonist, with multiple works on weapon systems.

For all the critics of Rumsfeld. He did conduct the Invasion of Iraq in text book fashion. At least as far as I understood it. Confirmed in part by Family who partisipated.

Many of our problems in Iraq can be laid directly on Frances door step for interfering with the 4th Id. deploying out of Turkey. Coupled with a 3 Month delay screwing arround with the UN.

There was never any indication that the Bush Administration was going to stay in Iraq for "Nation Building". I view it as a consiquence of Sec. of State Powell often repeated declaritations of an obligation to fix what we break. While used by the opposition to the war as a way to create the impression of Failure out of Victory.

In principle, I have no problem with trying to bring Democracy to others. I only find it distressing how so many who demand every human right in the world have such vile contempt for trying to bring it to others.Especially the preachers of Multiculturalism. If Multiculturalism were even valid, then by rights, bringing Democracy to Iraq should have been a cake walk. Well so much for that Ideology's validity. It really only points out, clearly in my view, what is in store for us if we continue down that path.

I really have no problem with Hugh's premmis that the House of Islam will prevent itself from killing each other. Even if it is done Room by Room. I am just of the opinion that our being in Iraq is what has festered the divide to the extent that it has currently become. While Iran is currently to strong to let them burn down their house without setting the rest of the block on fire.

I see little choise but to tacticly side with one side of Islams House in order to rid the other side of un-wanted tenants.

Just like our Troops currently deployed, we have 2 options. We can clean up the House room by room, floor by floor. Or we can just drop a 1,000 pounder on it. Both options have a price to pay. One leaves a chance to keep your Car intact to drive to the Store while the other makes you a Dirt Farmer that has to walk.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at March 18, 2007 1:24 PM

"At this point, with the various Iranian agents going back and forth, it is clear that the American troops are hostages. Or rather, it is clear that American policy is being held hostage to Iran, which could retaliate against those troops that are in the midst of 27 million Muslims, and are in no condition to conduct a war against Iran from Iraqi soil. And this is something Iran knows very well."

Right on target! Has anyone ever heard of the Boxer Rebellion! The trouble we have in Iraq is simple:

If we attack Iran expect a partial or full and open revolt of Shia population against U.S. forces. We are in a terrible defensive position to deal with a large inserection. Right now we are using this new surge plan which involves partols of small groups of U.S. troops along with Iraqi "friends". How much do you trust those Iraqi friends esp. if they are Shia and we attack Iran.

My feeling is the first stages of the revolt would be a disaster. We would lose men, equipment, and whole areas. Once we got a handle of situation we could win back those areas at a high cost. It would rank as one the worst military debacles in American history.

Now if we stop the patrols and go into a fort and concentrated mode in Iraq then we would lose much less if we attacked Iran. We would have to seperate ourselves from the Iraqi military completely BUT that would defeat the whole purpose of the Bush plan in the first place so we would be back a square one. Thus this silly Bush plan holds us hostage and prevents us from attacking Iran unless we wish to anger the majority.

There is only one possible victory we can still gain in Iraq:

Declare victory in Iraq. Pull out of Western and Southern Iraq. Keep troops in a New Kurdistan and make deals with the Kurds. They are not our friends BUT they can be paid off for now and they hate everyone in the area. We can use these areas to harass Iran and the rest of the old Iraq when we find jihadis. Use quick lightning attacks, kill who we want to kill and get back to the northern bases. Also arm the Kurds to launch expansons into Sunni and Shia areas. This will also allow us to take out the nukes in Iran without fear of being attacked from the rear by the natives.

No other plan I can think of can allow us to keep troops in the area AND attack Iran. Even this plan has its problems because Kurds are also muslims BUT their ethnic hatreds seem at least for now to outweigh their religious hatreds. Thus use them as long as they want to play the game.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at March 18, 2007 5:35 PM

Also any plan that calls for reducing U.S. Forces in the area would also mean we need a new Energy push on the scale of the "Manhatten Project". We need to start building nuclear power plants, get coal coversion to oil up and running, push hard into hydrogen and new energy fields (not the green crap), energy conversion etc. It will be a combination of things at the beginning to tide us over until we can get off the middle east OPEC oil. We are held hostage to hostile people who hello are killing our people.

We also may have to seize venezuela which btw a invasion of that nation would have better prospects then the Iraqi nightmare due to religion and similar culture.

Yes I know the UN would scream and bitch....

so what? Let them pass a resolution condeming us!

Its paper!

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at March 18, 2007 6:00 PM

I'm glad that you weren't around in WWII Hugh. The Iranians are not invincible. Our troops are not hostages to Iran and at the moment we're being nice to the hirabah. When the gloves come off Teheran loses any of their troops this side of Qod. I say this as a veteran of 'Nam who has seen us win while at the same time being accused of losing. The only ones who are weak are the ones sitting on the periphery crying about how weak we are.

Posted by: Mike H. at March 18, 2007 10:30 PM

"I'm glad that you weren't around in WWII Hugh. The Iranians are not invincible. Our troops are not hostages to Iran."
-- from a posting above

Do you actually read what I write, and attempt to understand it? Or do you choose to deliberately ignore that, because it makes too much unanswerable sense and doesn't fit your fixed views, which you prefer not to re-examine, because it would be too much trouble?

I don't think the Iranians are "invincible." If I did, then I wouldn't have written hundreds of posts about the need to deal with Iran's nuclear project, the need to weaken Iran in all kinds of ways that should be obvious but apparently are not. If I thought Iran was "invincible" I would be like Lt. Gen. William Odom (ret'd.), about whom I wrote "A Tribute to Lt. Gen. William Odom" which you can find in the "Articles" above. It is precisely because I think Iran can be handled, and that I offer suggestions as to how to do that, and indeed to exploit Iran's worries by getting out of Iraq, so that it iwll be Irna that will now have to worry about its agents or proxies or co-religionists in Iraq, and worry too about the aid given by Sunni states to the Sunnis in Iraq.

Everything I have written has been about the need to attack Iran's nuclear project, or to use an independent Kurdistan as a way, among other things, of appealing to Iranian Kurds and not only weakening the Islamic Republic through such appeal, but also by having unrest among the Kurds possibly encourge similar unrest among the other minorities -- Azeris, Baluchis, and the Arabs of oil-bearing Khuzistan -- who with those Iranian Kurds constitute about 50% of the population.

As for your statement that "our troops are not hostage to Iran" -- I beg to differ. Of course they are. They are spread out. They are fully occupied with dealing with not one enemy, but all kinds of enemies -- Sunnis both of Al-Qaeda and of secular Baathis kinds, Shi'a of Mogtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army, and Shi'a militia attached to other Shi'a groups or parties, and of course the local criminal gangs as well, that might take pleasure, and make profits carrying out assignments from others, by killing Americans. And then there are the direct agents of Iran.

You can swaggeringly tell us that the soldiers are not "hostages to Iran" but do you really think the Pentagon isn't calculating carefully what might happen to American soldiers in Iraq if Iran is attacked -- and for all I know, the Pentagon may even be holding not itself alone back, but also Israel which may be willing to inflict as much damage as it can on Iran's nuclear project if the Americans believe themselves unable to do so.

Furthermore, not only does the American presence offer sitting ducks (and what if all those helicopters and planes suddenly become vulnerable to Iranian-supplied missiles, perhaps even fired by Iranian agents rather than entrusted to Iraqi allies?), but the continued spending of money on Iraq, the lavishing of American billions, is money that is in very large part spent on goods and services in Iran (as stories in the weekend papers reveal), and that therefore, the continued lavishing of such aid on Iraq makes the notion of an effective boycott of Iran, in order to get it to stop its nuclear project, almost pointless.

At this point, one has to choose: withdrawal from Iraq (which guarantees a "victory" in the sense that it will guarantee a weakening of the Camp of Islam) and an attack on Iran made possible, or no withdrawal, continued involvement in Tarbaby Iraq, and at the same time, no attack on Iran to stop its nuclear project while there is still time.

You think otherwise. You claim to believe that having those American troops all over Diyala and Baghdad, all over the streets, and in those smaller units living side-by-side with completely untrustworthy Iraqi soldiers, unstrustworthy whether they are Shi'a Arabs or Sunni Arabs (the Kurdish pesh merga is a different matter, but even they can be infiltrated by Kurds who are more Muslim than nationalist, of the Mullah Krekar variety). And at the same time, ever more powerful and effective I.U.D.'s and missiles that manage to bring down helicopters and even, here and there, planes -- see the fate of Major Gilbert, torn to pieces so savagely, tie American troops down.

It's crazy. It's absolute madness.

Posted by: Hugh at March 18, 2007 11:07 PM

I am just amazed that one one has commented on the crux of the problem we are up in arms about here ! The main point is that we have a large base, complete with huge airfields, and perfectly defended and defensible forever, even if we have to withdraw from the rest to Iraq for a while, and Bush gave us the only justification that the world would accept for us establishing that great base - a miracle! We have a mighty base behind enemy lines - right in the middle of an area of humanity that follows a bible that commands Muslims everywhere, clearly, to destroy our way of life, even our family structure, completely and as quickly as possible -- so how very insane it sounds now to hear these words, " Oh the hell with it ! Let pull out our Trojan horse from the enemies most important center, and go home and wait to see what they will do next! What they will do next? Like we don't know what they will do next? I do not believe in faith-based wishful thinking when it comes to survival - we will stay there - mark my words!

Posted by: crux at March 18, 2007 11:51 PM

You want to know the quickest way to crush Al Queda In Iraq? Pull the U.S. troops out an let the Shiite Militia's slaughter them. Which they will gleefully do. It would be a Shiite blood bath of Sunni's.

What has puzzled me is that Al Queda knows that to, so why are they trying to drive us out and give a green light for the Shiite's to slaughter them? The only answer I could come up with is that THEY KNOW WHAT A BLOCK HEAD GEORGE W BUSH IS! They know he will not pull out. He will keep the U.S. troops trapped in this civil-religious war , take on thousands of deaths and wounded, spend billions of dollars each and every week and...................PROTECT AL QUEDA
FROM THE SHIITES!!!!!

Yes that has what the Bush Administration policy has boiled down to. Protect Al Queda from the Shiites. So far from the Al Queda terrorist " winning " if we pull out, Al Queda would be slaughtered if we pulled out. So Bush is sacrificing thousands of lives and spending billions of dollars to ensure Al Queda is not slaughtered.

Terrorist would win if we pulled out. The Shiite ones, Mutada Al Sadr and his allies , who we put into power! Regardless if we stay or go the terrorist will win. It is just a matter of Al Queda or Shiite terrorist.

Make no doubt about it, if we pull out Al Queda in Iraq is doomed. We have become Al Queda's last line of defense and best hope for survival in Iraq. At the hands of the Shiites they are dead meat. But Al Queda knows Bush will not abandon them and leave them to the meat grinder of the Shiites oh no , not Bush , they can count on him.

----Nossy

Posted by: Nostrodamus at March 18, 2007 11:53 PM

"I am just amazed that one one has commented on the crux of the problem we are up in arms about here ! The main point is that we have a large base, complete with huge airfields, and perfectly defended and defensible forever, even if we have to withdraw from the rest to Iraq for a while, and Bush gave us the only justification that the world would accept for us establishing that great base - a miracle! We have a mighty base behind enemy lines..."
-- from a posting just above

Where is that base? Did you mean the airfield at Balad? Did you mean the Green Zone? Did you mean Iraq itself, as one great big base, "complete with huge airfileds, and perfectly defended and defensible forever"? Is that what you mean? How is that that base, Iraq, or some part of it -- tell us exactly what you meant -- is described by you as "perfectly defended and defenesible forever"? Against what? I have a relative who was waiting to believe and the shelling was so intense at Balad that he left only several days later. Are you sure that even the Green Zone is "perfectly defended and defensible forever" when there have been killings right inside it?

And at what cost is this base to be maintained? Are we allowed to stay only because enough Iraqis see that we are doing the fighting for them? Are we allowed to stay only because we have been lavishing so much money, so many projects on Iraq, that they want us there to keep distributing those tens of billions? Or are you suggesting that the people in Iraq (not the "Iraqi people") are happy to have us, grateful to us, genuinely friendly? Is that what you think? And even if a few meet those criteria, how many such people, offering unfeigned friendship for the Infidel Americans, with no desire to get something out of them, do you think are in the Iraqi population?

And what is the cost? If we are "perfectly defended" then why is has there been such a worry about the increasing power of new kinds of I.U.D.s, and constant discussion of how to modify Humvees and tanks? If we are "perfectly defended" then why is it that there is great alarm over the shooting down of helicopters in the last few weeks? If we are "perfectly defended" then why do we spend so much time defending ourselves, and why have we now spent, in past, present, and future committed costs, about $750 billion (low estimate) and $1 trillion(high estimate), even if the war stops tomorrow?

There is no need for a base in Iraq, in any case. A base in Iraq is a constant nightmare, subject to attack, as are its supply lines, which are very long indeed. They can't go to Iran. They can't go through the western desert to Syria. They can only go north, through Kurdistan to Turkey, and tha means snaking through Anbar Province to get to Kurdistan, or south, all the way to Kuwait.

But why is a base needed? There will not be a land invasion of any Muslim state, and there shouldn't be. That lesson, at least, has been learned. There are bombers, there are missiles. They can be launched from ships in the Gulf, or ships far from the Gulf. They can be launched even from bases far far away. That is how to keep military control, or at least keep Muslim forces off-balance militarily, and sometimes favoring this side, and sometimes that. There is no need for a base. The costs of defending it, despite what you say, are exceedingly high. It was madness of the American government to make all those naive plans about American bases all over Iraq -- just as mad as that notion of building a $595 billion dollar embassy.

Say, which reminds me. Is that $595 billion dollar embassy still being built, or has that nonsense been stopped in time?

Posted by: Hugh at March 19, 2007 12:31 AM

"I am just amazed that one one has commented on the crux of the problem we are up in arms about here ! The main point is that we have a large base, complete with huge airfields, and perfectly defended and defensible forever, even if we have to withdraw from the rest to Iraq for a while, and Bush gave us the only justification that the world would accept for us establishing that great base - a miracle! We have a mighty base behind enemy lines..."
-- from a posting just above

Where is that base? Did you mean the airfield at Balad? Did you mean the Green Zone?
WHY, YES, AT LEAST THE GREEN ZONE - BUT THERE IS A CERTAIN SACRIFICE IN WAR, THAT IS A GIVEN. However, the tiny attacks inside the Green zone are nothing of consequence when viewed in comparison of the benefits of what is a certainly going to be a dangerous future. Ostensibly, we are in Iraq to build up a democratic country for the sake of stability in the region - that is worth a try! It never had more than a 50% chance of success, but even a complete failure will leave us there where we really need to be - the Rumsfeld idea of a free floating military force was never anything but a dreamy idea to soften public opinion towards our permanent presence there - surely he never even believed it himself for he never defined it - certainly not to the extent that we would not require a solid and secure land base there - and that is what we have, in spades! The Green Zone is defendable forever right now, and we are in the only place we could be in with enough population and workers to defend our national interest on every level - we at Jihad Watch, of all people on the planet, should know that the enemy is incredibly insidious and dangerous beyond calculation! Our Base there is worth a trillion dollars and five times that much! The idea that a free floating baseless army would do us any good is just, well, Rumsfeldian - think about the logistics of getting an army there in time to save what civilization remains there, and, our fortunes and interests are firmly tied to and dependant upon keeping that thin veneer of civilization alive - we can't do that with your Buck Rogers idea of a baseless army that can be transported in a flash Gorden moment - talk about 'wishful thinking!'

Posted by: crux at March 19, 2007 1:42 AM

CRUX,

You are in "lah lah land" with the comments you made and still did not directly answer with supportable evidence the questions raised by HUGH.

Good luck at your next debate!

Posted by: kwg1 at March 19, 2007 5:58 AM

dear kwg1, my only point here is the impossibility of transporting significant troops fast enough by any imaginable troop transport system, and gettin permission to cross all those international boarders. We need a base close to where trouble is bound to happen - it is just plain self evident - if you believe the gov. has a stargate ready, why, who am I to try to talk you out of it?

Posted by: crux at March 19, 2007 11:05 AM

Let's see if we can't bring this debate back to some level of reality.

If we were to remove our Combat Forces from Iraq.

What impediment does one see to prevent the Iranians from making a left hook arround Basra trashing everything along the western shore of the Persian Gulf?

What western interest could possibly be served by leaving that Door wide open?

It would be sure folly to put anything past a Country who has a known History of sending thousands of Children across a Battle Field to clear it of Mines.

It is one thing to let the House of Islam fight itself. It is quite another to set conditions where one side actually win.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at March 19, 2007 2:31 PM

flowerknife_us

"What impediment does one see to prevent the Iranians from making a left hook arround Basra trashing everything along the western shore of the Persian Gulf?"

Are you talking about the same Iranians who used mass wave attacks? Please the Iranian army would bog down. The Jordians would come in on the side of the sunni brothers and not the mention hords of sunni jihadist taking on hords of shia jihadist. It would be a stalemate and a blood bath. Good for us.

"What western interest could possibly be served by leaving that Door wide open?"

I suppose you mean oil right. Well if we had leadership right now we would be moving on to things like nuclear power, coal conversion to oil, and energy conservation. Also we would use the money we now use defend the persian gulf and oil lanes around the world to develop the energies of the future. Also I would not rule out a invasion of Venezuela and involvement in places like southern Sudan which could supplement our oil shortages until we got online. As for the world wide economy! Thats easy let the French and Chinese figure it out. It is time they stepped to the plate.

"It would be sure folly to put anything past a Country who has a known History of sending thousands of Children across a Battle Field to clear it of Mines."

Once again I said what makes you think they would win? Any nation that resorts to that is not that bright to begin with.

"It is one thing to let the House of Islam fight itself. It is quite another to set conditions where one side actually win."

They are not going to win. Also please note nobody is talking about not getting involved. We will bomb the Iranian nuke sites and use air power to weaken them. We will take out their navy etc. Also we will keep a small army in Kurdistan to aide and arm the Kurds to harass the Iranians in the north. Remember the Iran is not unified. You have lots of Arab shia who don't get along with the Persian shia so we can cause a civil war within Iran. Both sides suck but who cares as long as they fighting each other it is good.

The goal is to weaken Iran and the Arabians so they have to focus on their own problems and not spend money on the world wide jihad against non-muslims. Remember Mecca is in play here...

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at March 19, 2007 2:50 PM

crux

"my only point here is the impossibility of transporting significant troops fast enough by any imaginable troop transport system, and gettin permission to cross all those international boarders. We need a base close to where trouble is bound to happen - it is just plain self evident - if you believe the gov. has a stargate ready, why, who am I to try to talk you out of it?"

We will still have bases in Turkey and we still have the U.S. Navy. Also modern technology within the next 5-10 years will supprise you. No stargates but a tactical laser (space based) is a good possibility. We also have long range bombers. We can also pay off and arm the Kurds to kill offending arab or persian of the day we want dead. This idea we need 100,000s of troops wondering around the streets of Iraqi cities is silly.

Of course I will still be open to perhaps a few bases in Kurdistan so thus we could keep troops in the old Iraq. We coould use them to create mischef in the house of Islam.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at March 19, 2007 3:01 PM

The very idea that an Iran that has to worry about the many minorities that make up 50% of its population, that somehow, in the midst of economic sanctions and great unhappiness with the government, is going to be able to "swoop down" or "around" or something, unimpeded by, among other things, the mountain ranges, and the marshy Shatt-al-Arab, and apparently permanenty and magically out of range of all Sunnis who might wish to stop them, including the fabulously rich Saudis and the people of Kuwait and the Emirates, who have weapons of all kinds, and are not about to roll over, nor to suddenly convert to Shi'a Islam. Furthermore, the poster seems to think that if the Americans leave Iraq, they leave the entire Middle East and the Indian Ocean and the Turkish bases and the Mediterranean and, for that matter, have not a single plane in the sky that can fly from bases in Italy or Bulgaria or Germany, and possibly even those ICBM's back in America will suddenly stop functioning.

What utter nonsense people will utter because they remain loyalists to a policy that squanders men's lives and money, and makes no sense even it is own declared terms -- makes the very opposite of sense. For god's sake, the Sunnis of Iraq want the Americans out so they can deal with the Shi'a. And more and more Shi'a are coming to believe the Americans should go so that they can, unhindered, deal with the Sunnis. Are they both right, or both wrong? Does anyone know? I don't know. I don't care. I know that the Sunnis in Iraq have powerful friends outside of Iraq who will do everything they can to help them with men, money, and materiel, and the Shi'a in Iraq ditto. And that's just fine.

This scare-scenario of Iranians swooping down and simply rolling over all the Sunni Arab countries, without any intevention by any of the twenty-two members of the Arab League, no Sunni volunteers from Egypt, or Syria, or North Africa, no Sunni money from Saudi Arabia or the Emirates or Kuwait, no vast stores of military equipment -- well, go ahead and make up your scare scenarios and post them here.

But why should anyone believe you and ignore all the evidence that suggests its merely an overheated imagination at work. Why?

Posted by: Hugh at March 19, 2007 3:03 PM

Hugh, there is no other place in the Muslim Zone that we can comfortably spread out and fortify and stock a base thoroughly enough to ensure success in any mission there - you should be able to see how we are straighted in those places where they suffer us to stay - as for the wonderful and "friendly" airports elsewhere, well, recent history should tend to discourage faith in that direction! As for the great scientific wonderment's that will make a base that we can virtually own, and control exactly as we need to, I just don't believe it - it is too bad, but look at Iraq, we are doomed for the next 50 years to have to depend on BOOTS ON THE GROUND - I love Si-Fi, it give me a wonderful escape from reality - but if I really let myself disappear in those warm, fuzzy pages, I would soon die of imaginary security.

Posted by: crux at March 19, 2007 4:10 PM

I'm sure that Jordan, Syria, and Egypt will pull massive reasourses from the Israeli front.

I'm sure Kuwait would last more than 2 days.

I'm sure the Saudi Royal family will rush to the front lines.

I'm sure the Shi'a in southern Iraq will prevent the Iranians from passing through areas they control.

I'm sure the Iranians won't shoot Silkworm Missiles at every Ship in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea.

No doubt we will launch ICBMs with Conventional warheads.

Of course the Enviromentalists will just let us. build all the Coal Conversion Plants and Nuclear power Stations without impediment of any kind.

No doubt the next Administration will "fix" our "broken" Military. Just like the previous one who de-funded 40% of what we used to have.

No problems Invading Venesuala either.

Both rebuttals boil down to the same thing. The United States becomming involved. With alot of people walking in the mean time.

So I'll concede and look at the bright side. We can all stand to lose a little weight.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at March 19, 2007 4:40 PM

flowerknife_us - well, I'm glad you are happy, but I haft ta say to you n Hugh that that's quite a stretch.

Posted by: crux at March 19, 2007 4:59 PM

flowerknife_us, ...not that i'm serious..,

Posted by: crux at March 19, 2007 5:15 PM

flowerknife_us

"I'm sure the Iranians won't shoot Silkworm Missiles at every Ship in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea."

They will do the same thing even if we troops in Iraq. Your point is?

"No doubt we will launch ICBMs with Conventional warheads."

We have a Navy sir. We have cruise missiles. We have the B-2 etc. We still have military bases in Turkey etc. We have plenty of forces to send Iran back to the stone age without being in Iraq.

"Of course the Enviromentalists will just let us. build all the Coal Conversion Plants and Nuclear power Stations without impediment of any kind."

So negative. They have no choice. You have two choices. You can spend billions trying to make uncivilizied people get along or you can spend billions changing the rules of game and making America enegy independent of the uncivilized people. Yes the enviromentalist will complain but a major by product of nuclear power is hydrogen so I feel you can make that fly. Also new nuclear technologies the pebble-bead method is far safer then they use to be. You go to the American people and win the argument. You tell them everytime they fill their car up with arabian oil you will pay with the blood of your children. The votes will come. Most real Americans hate the Arabians....most blame them for 9-11. Deep down they know.

"No doubt the next Administration will "fix" our "broken" Military. Just like the previous one who de-funded 40% of what we used to have."

Maybe so but at some point one stupid method is no excuse to for defending another stupid method. Yes Clinton sucked but so does G.W. The reason we are in this mess is 16 years of Clintons and Bushes.

"Both rebuttals boil down to the same thing. The United States becoming involved. With alot of people walking in the mean time."

No one is disputing that! Not Hugh! Not me! No one! What we are saying is there many ways to win the Islamo-Western War better then roaming around the streets of Iraq, trying to get uncivilized people to love each other much less us, and trying to install a democracy with a people who do not accept anything higher then Islam and whose loyality is to anything other then a secular Iraq.

We will be involved but in a different way with different goals.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at March 19, 2007 5:17 PM

No one is disputing that! Not Hugh! Not me! No one! What we are saying is there many ways to win the Islamo-Western War better then roaming around the streets of Iraq, trying to get uncivilized people to love each other much less us, and trying to install a democracy with a people who do not accept anything higher then Islam and whose loyalty is to anything other then a secular Iraq.

We will be involved but in a different way with different goals. Posted by: greatcometof1577 OH COME ON NOW ! YOU DO NOT REALLY BELIEVE THAT OUR MAIN REASON FOR BEING THERE IS TO GET SAVAGES TO LOVE ONE ANOTHER DO YOU? If we were doing that in Earnest, there would be a LOT more dead GI"s - you can be sure! And surely you do not believe that the MAIN reason we are there is to win some [craziest of all notions] 'western Islamo war do you? Search your intellect and you will find that Bush is at least as intelligent as we are - think about all the possible excuses you would need to come up with to be able to really defend American and protect her 'interests' - now you under-stand the Bush mind-set, welcome aboard!

Posted by: crux at March 19, 2007 7:04 PM

crux

"We will be involved but in a different way with different goals. Posted by: greatcometof1577 OH COME ON NOW ! YOU DO NOT REALLY BELIEVE THAT OUR MAIN REASON FOR BEING THERE IS TO GET SAVAGES TO LOVE ONE ANOTHER DO YOU? If we were doing that in Earnest, there would be a LOT more dead GI"s - you can be sure! And surely you do not believe that the MAIN reason we are there is to win some [craziest of all notions] 'western Islamo war do you? Search your intellect and you will find that Bush is at least as intelligent as we are - think about all the possible excuses you would need to come up with to be able to really defend American and protect her 'interests' - now you under-stand the Bush mind-set, welcome aboard!"

Here is a good synopsis of the current military plan in Iraq by the current general:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1291624.ece

Sir Bush is an idiot. We are in the Western-Islamo World War.

To win thsi war it will take...

(1) Energy Independence of the Middle East and Muslim countries in general
(2) Stopping or restricting all Muslim immigration
(3) Use divides and splits within the house of Islam to weaken them
(4) Support all non-Muslim groups (with military and money support) that are fighting Islamist forces in places like Sudan (many others)
(5) Support all secular Muslims (see Secular Islam Summit)
(6) Use direct military engagement when the house of Islam threatens us such as the Iranian nuclear program. Attack it and get out. Use hit and run in places like Western Pakistan to keep the forces of Islam always weak. Only occupy land when the majority of population is not Muslim such as in Southern Sudan.

Now tell me what has Bush done from numbers 1 to 6 that makes you think he gets what is going on? Iraq falls under number 3. It can be solved due to the natural split within the country.

What are these so called American “interests” we are defending by being in Iraq sir. We can take out the Iranian nukes from afar and we don’t troops in Iraq to do that. I have already explained the Iranian military is not good at conventional warfare. In fact I would hope the Iraqi civil war would then spread to Iran and Syria. So by leaving Iraq we tie up three hostile Muslim nations and many jihads (both Shia and Sunni) and keep all of the Arabian states from putting money into international jihads and instead use the money to protect themselves. No more mosque building in far off lands because their own asses will be on the line. My god the thought of the Shia taking Mecca will be enough to keep them busy for years.

You need to think outside of the box a little more….you know like Americans are suppose to do.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at March 19, 2007 7:58 PM

I never suggested that we roam the streets of Iraq.

You give air and stand-off Weapons more credit than they are due.

You give Iran less credit than they deserve.

The house of Islam has fought itself for 1400 years, yet they still find the time to kill Infidels as well.

I would like to keep Genocide as the last option after all others have been exhausted.

I'll just agree to disagree on the methods.

Somehow, a blend of all our opinions will bear the fruit we all wish to harvest.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at March 19, 2007 7:59 PM

dearest greatcometof1577, those are six Utopian aims you have got there, but, as you point out, how do you think you are going to put in dent in a 1400 year collective habit cemented in place by oceans of human blood, dried as hard as the red rock they worship? Instead, let us support Bush's sure to work plan no-matter-what of building an impenetratable and permanent base right in the heart of Muslimica, from which America will have the wherewithal to reset dangerous hostilities against us back to the 'safe' setting. We can't change the Muslim world or the muslim soul or culture or religion - doesn't history teach you anything? All we can do in this present era and time, is to build a wonderful military base right in the middle of the Islamic bread basket, right next to all those Oil Wells. Oh Yes! Don't tell me about anymore Windmills though I know they sweep you off your feet !

Posted by: crux at March 19, 2007 11:33 PM

Sir ! you said up there that we should support "secular Muslims" - good heavens Sir, where you born yesterday? There is no such thing as a secular muslim - never has been, never will be ! Perhaps you meant to write, "APOSTATE"

Posted by: crux at March 19, 2007 11:43 PM

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at March 20, 2007 12:17 AM

greatcometof1577, you're alright, my hats off to you.

Posted by: crux at March 20, 2007 1:20 AM

there you have it! The truth about President Bush! The real truth ! He is not 'stupid' and if he had hot moved so decisively and bravely against the Musbots, no one person in 10,000 here would be aware of what a huge threat to civilized human life these twisted followers of the twisted and pro-murder Queeron bible that these antichrists follow! Without Bush, we would be sucking up all that 'war deceit' by the buckets full! God bless our Commander and Chief, the pick of the giant minority and loyal Chief Justices!

Posted by: crux at March 20, 2007 11:08 PM

Damn typos ! here is what it should have said - it should be perfect as it is important: There you have it! The truth about President Bush! The real truth ! He is not 'stupid' and if he had not moved so decisively and bravely against the Musbots, not one person in 10,000 here would be aware of what a huge threat to civilized human life these twisted followers of the twisted and pro-murder Queeron bible that these antichrists obey without a hint of rationality! Without Bush, we would be sucking up all that 'war deceit' by the buckets full! God bless our Commander and Chief, the pick of the giant minority, and loyal Chief Justices! Just try to imagine where we would be if Gore had won! See? I'm right! Think!

Posted by: crux at March 20, 2007 11:15 PM

Despite each of your efforts to describe what should and should not be done in all the prose above, the plain fact is that America is not at war and America will not be able to sustain the "Long War" against the ideologically resolute enemy until and unless America is at war.

Currently only America's military is at war, doing the best it can within the political climate it must operate.

Perhaps a more drastic event will have to occur before a national epiphany occurs providing the sustained focus needed on annihilating the ideology that is actively pursuing the destruction of our civilization.
The reality of this discussion is that none of you know what the higher "pay grades", including our commander-in-chief, face in terms of the weight of exigencies restricting the projection of force against the obvious and presumed threats against us. I don't presume to know either, but I expect that we would be much more aggressive against the apparent Islamist/Jihadist/Waahabi threat if America truly had its arms, not just its hands, in this fight.

Until America's body-weight comes to bear in the "Long War", we will likely continue to make the logical choice of bedding with our enemy's enemy (in one way or another), even if the same would attempt to cut our throats should all our gloves come off.

I also believe it is important to note that while Islam may be a religion of "peace," its literal teachings indicate it is a religion of "peace" only on Islam's terms. To date, this peace is likely to be far more like the peace of its supposed benefactor, where non-muslims face conversion, subjugation, expulsion or death. Indeed, it is the West's post-modern post-Christian relativists, who typically are less supportive of the "Long War" that will suffer the most in this very possible "peace".

Posted by: SerbSpaniard at March 21, 2007 8:59 PM