i was at a party last night and the Irau thing came up, it was strange becuase the 4 people that were talking were from 4 different stances, yet the conversation was very calm, after a while i threw this question out, "best case, what do you think can happen" basically, some very intelegent people did not have an answer. i know what i would like to see but i dont see it happening. i compaired it to what the US had to deal with involving Japan in WWII, an enemy that would not give up, know matter how beaten it was, willing to have it whole country and people wipped of the face of the earth before it would give up (sad part is that in movie and with our kid, we think this is a great attitude, and it is to a point, but sometimes it is better to back of, and live another day). the answer the US came up with, was a bomb so powerful that it got there attention, but not until we dropped 2 of them.

second question is, why didnt a highly trained snipper, just take Sadam out and we ease into Iraq.

my best take on it is that conventional war far is a thing of the past, a show of force just dosent cut it anymore, especially against a person or country such as Iraq that does not car about their people or even there own children and family.

i normally dont get to political but this $2 a gallon and the news that show no end in site and my own brain telling me there is not a exit plan that will work, has me thinking more and more about this situation. (the $2 a gallon dosent bother near as much as the no end in site issue)

 

Lets just tell the world we have an invasion of killer bees and fireant's that are a threat to our national security. We will have to pull all of our troops out of Iraq to deal with this insect problem of course.

Now the 3 factions in Iraq are going to have to make some hard choices. Maybe we can tell em about our civil war cause the difference in beliefs between these factions can only be overcome by reason or blood. We had to choose blood in our civil war. I think "Reason" went to visit some small island in the pacific.

 

Seems the problem most people that want an exit plan are the people that want the war to end tomorrow. This is due to our society that wants emediate result. From the info they get, (web, 24 hour news) to the food we eat, ( fast food, micro popcorn) to the wars we fight ( in and out and win). This is tactical thinking, and most people think this way. Clinton was a tactical thinker, drop a couple bombs on al-qiada for the USS cole bombing. Blow up some radar sights for Suddam violating the no fly rule. Tactical thinking is hit and run thinking. Somalia was another.
For war you have to use stategic thinking. Stategic thinking requires long term think that will include and is built on many tactics. Stategic thinking requires many tactical plans, and depending on how thing are progressing or not progressing toward your strategic end, the tactical plans may have to be changed or updated. This is what makes war fliud. It would be nice if the enemy always reacted the way we plan , but they have there own tactics that change constantly to be sucessful.
Now with this in mind, our President is a strategic thinker as are most of his advisers, millitary of other. Bush has layed out what his strategic end to this war will be, freedom and democracy for Iraq.
Bush has many tactical plans to reach his end strategy, but knows these tactical plans will change as the enemy react to them. Now, if he anounced every tactical plan as if it were the absolute plan, people would bitch when it fails. ( as they do now) This is why to the average civilian it looks like we are going day to day in our plan of attack in Iraq, because they are unable to see beyond the tactical plans presented on the news and that play out each day. These tactical plans appear the be and in some instances are changed day to day, but that is how a strategic plan works. The tactical plans have to be adjusted regularly and sometimes dailey to react to the enemy.
Now, think if Bush layed out a big exit plan for Iraq. Then the tactical plans to reach this goal change as they would, and he did not meet the end exit plan as he layed out. People would have a big hairy fit, the press would be all over him as well as the liberals. (As what is happening now, because of their tactical thinking and reporting) Instead, Bush, the strategic thinking fella he is will not anounce this yet because he knows their are to many tactical plans to be carried out, and change before the strategic end can be reach. These tactical plans and the changes are what will altimately determine the time table for the end of his stategic plan.
So besides the day to day fighting tactics that occur, his next big tactical plan will be the self governing of Iraq. Depending on the results of this tactic, I believe you will see the anouncement of the more detailed end to his strategic plan, and when it comes, remember, that could always change too, depending on how the end tactics result.


Sled...

 

The war was over a long time and the current situation is a political one. We are acting as peacekeepers to keep a country from falling into a civil war. We went into war with a good heart but with little knowledge of the hearts and minds of the Iraqi culture. Iraq has s-h-i-t-e muslums, Sunni muslums and the Kurds which means 3 different belief systems. At least one of those belief systems has a goal of global dominance and that is the fly in our ointment. Iraq's neighbors also have ties to these belief systems and may get involved if we leave. Remember the Iraq/Iran war? You can take my word that these folks will fight the US as long as it takes and with whatever they can get their hands on. These terrorists spend very little compared to the financial expenditure of the United States and it is only a matter of what we can sustain politically and financially.

 

This is what i dont get.Why get saddam before bin laden?My local news station said the other night that the reason gas is high is because we are burning it faster than they can make it.there has not been a new refinery built in over 15 years,and federal law will not let anyone build a new one.the petroleum is there but the demand is big.I personally call B.S. on that one.

 

And while on the subject,all is fair in love and war.The iraq prisoner scandal is unreal.Making prisoners lay on top of each other naked is torture and abuse,THEY PROBABLY LIKED IT!Abuse is sticking a m-16 in their eye socket and pulling the trigger.What about our prisoners they abuse?We hear more about about abusing iraq prisoners than we hear about our own troops being abused and killed.Why even take prisoners,if they fire on us fire back untill they are all dead.We should back out now.

 

this is the cowboy attitude that allowed reservists to commit crimes against Iraqis, contradictory to the Geneva convention.

What a great way to show Iraqi civilians how much we care... how much we want to help them... why they should trust us...

 

Some law about not being allowed to assasinate leaders.

As for an exit stragedy, really do we need one?

Our goal is to setup up a new Iraq govn't and hand it over to the people. No more ruthless dictatorships, no more WMD build plans. Just a country which can function with the rest of the world and be productive. When the gov't is up and running we pull out with the exception of a few military bases.



BS on what? It's the laws of supply and demand.

We can get the oil easily though prices have gone up, but they oil companies cannot meet the demand. Prices go up.

People in this thread believe the price is based solely on the war:
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=1394786

 

your screen name says it all. which i could look through those rose colored glasses more often.

 

If the President had ordered an assasination on Saddam, in violation of our own laws, he would be impeached. Whether the mission succeeded or failed.

BTW, Saddam was a security FREAK. He had many doubles, and took great steps to conceal his location and ensure his safety from assassination. Not exactly an easy target. VERY risky mission.

Even for a highly trained sniper, attempting to take out a dicatator in a controlled society would be a SUICIDE mission. Odds are good the sniper team would have been caught, tortured and held up for world wide embarrassment for months prior to being put to death. Who is going to volunteer?

A sniper mission traceable to the US would have made the Francis Powers scandal look like an ice cream social. It would have enflamed our enemies and generated world-wide anti US sentiments.

 

It takes years of practice, I could tutor you if you would like to gain the skill also.

But ...... I have been known to not live up the name (like knowing about the law above ) so I may not be deserving of the title anymore.