9 U.S. troops killed north of Baghdad - Page 3

JaJae · 04-25-2007, 07:43 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Not even close to being the same. We created Iraq, Sudan is a cluster where people are being slaughtered by the thousands. Lets not forget isolationism has repeatedly bit us in the ass.

Sudan has a militant regime that has become powerful enough to infest government and slaughters its own people. If we went in and removed them we'd have the same issues we're seeing now in Iraq.

SoFlaJDM · 04-25-2007, 07:48 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Motz not to derail your thread, if you want to move this feel free...

But on the topic of the surge not working did you guys hear about building a wall in baghdad to discourage violence? I think this is an abhorent idea and reminds me of the berlin wall.

a certain 700 mile long fence comes to mind

JaJae · 04-25-2007, 08:09 PM

Originally Posted by SoFlaJDM

a certain 700 mile long fence comes to mind

That's a border between two nations, not a division within a country.

SoFlaJDM · 04-25-2007, 08:43 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

That's a border between two nations, not a division within a country.

neither will work though

extraterrestrial · 04-25-2007, 10:00 PM

US army should withdraw from Iraq immediately because it is nothing more than an invasion force.

6SpeedTA95 · 04-25-2007, 10:48 PM

Originally Posted by SoFlaJDM

a certain 700 mile long fence comes to mind

A border between two nations is nothing close to putting up a wall in the middle of the capital city of a SINGLE nation

6SpeedTA95 · 04-25-2007, 10:49 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Sudan has a militant regime that has become powerful enough to infest government and slaughters its own people. If we went in and removed them we'd have the same issues we're seeing now in Iraq.

If we did it right now yes I agree. But that doesn't mean the US has to take the primary role on Sudan. We could have managed Iraq much differently than we have so far. The problem is that we have done a horrible job in Iraq, we have the ability to do better but for political reasons and stubborness on both sides we have not.

motivez · 04-25-2007, 10:53 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

we have the ability to do better but for political reasons and stubborness on both sides we have not.

Err, what?

We haven't done well because of the Republican failure to hold this Administration accountable and the Bush Administration's failures in planning and vision..

The Democrats have been powerless to affect any changes in policy or strategy until very recently, and although they are still getting their footing, I fail to see where the blame for them comes in (except for voting for it)

smokie700 · 04-26-2007, 04:50 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

Err, what?

We haven't done well because of the Republican failure to hold this Administration accountable and the Bush Administration's failures in planning and vision..

The Democrats have been powerless to affect any changes in policy or strategy until very recently, and although they are still getting their footing, I fail to see where the blame for them comes in (except for voting for it)

I disagree. Taking the running of a war away from the commanders is the problem. Faults lie on both sides but at least the right is trying to win the war.

thomez · 04-26-2007, 06:08 AM

The problem is the belief that the commanders on the ground are capable of "winning" the war. This simply is not the case, it will require a political solution between warring factions in Iraq.

6SpeedTA95 · 04-26-2007, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

Err, what?

We haven't done well because of the Republican failure to hold this Administration accountable and the Bush Administration's failures in planning and vision..

The Democrats have been powerless to affect any changes in policy or strategy until very recently, and although they are still getting their footing, I fail to see where the blame for them comes in (except for voting for it)

There's been total stubbornness on both sides.

grembert · 04-26-2007, 09:56 AM

Originally Posted by thomez

The problem is the belief that the commanders on the ground are capable of "winning" the war. This simply is not the case, it will require a political solution between warring factions in Iraq.

You have summed up my beliefs on this Iraq situation in two sentences.

What puzzles me is why Bush doesn't at least talk about posible political solutions---saying he is urging the Iraqi government to reach out or talk about trying to bring Sunni and Shiite leaders together.Its just military, military, military

Bush says he relies on his commanders in the field but even his present commander says there has to be a political solution, not a military soluton.
Does he not hear that?

By not compromising Bush could play into the hands of the real liberals - calling for an immediate withdrawal - because about 2/3 of the US today think we should get out of the war.

thomez · 04-26-2007, 02:41 PM

I don't think that President Bush is ignoring that a political solution is needed, but in fact he is trying to promote one by the "surge" providing greater security and stability to Baghdad and the Green Zone, which he believes provides the environment in which a political solution can develop. I personally question the success of this line of thinking and believe it is another neocon dream that will not come to fruition... I just don't think that it is enough to make it happen at this point, after so much bloodshed between the Sunni and Shiah; though this may have worked a few years ago before the massive increase in sectarian violence.