It's official: US declares defeat in Iraq

[ribonucleic]

Well, if your new general in command uses his first news conference to say he can not prevail militarily and will need to negotiate with the armed forces opposing him, what else can you call it?


<< Military force alone is "not sufficient" to end the violence in Iraq and political talks must eventually include some militant groups now opposing the U.S.-backed government, the new commander of U.S. forces in Iraq said Thursday. >>

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070308/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

[Dos Equis]

I think it is safe to say you will never write headlines for a news organization.  Where do we declare defeat in this story? 

[ribonucleic]

Where do we declare defeat in this story? 

The part where the general in command says he can not prevail militarily and must enter talks with the forces attacking him. 

Call it a "negotiated peace settlement" if it will make you feel better.

But in other circumstances, that's known as "arranging the terms of surrender".

[OzmO]

I'm finally back to playing no-limit hold'em again after a 6 week moratorium so i can use a hold'me analogy:


Iraq is a situation right now where we either go all in or fold.  There is not calling.

We either send 200k more troops their and get freakiing ruthlessly brutal like saddam was or we need to pack up and leave.

Otherwise, start the negotiations with these militant groups.

[Dos Equis]

The part where the general in command says he can not prevail militarily and must enter talks with the forces attacking him. 

Call it a "negotiated peace settlement" if it will make you feel better.

But in other circumstances, that's known as "arranging the terms of surrender".

Well thanks for letting me know that a general's comment that talks and military force are necessary to come to a final resolution.  How enlightening.     Of course, this is not a declaration of defeat, but I know you don't want the facts to get in the way or anything. 

[ribonucleic]

Well thanks for letting me know that a general's comment that talks and military force are necessary to come to a final resolution.

Are you implying that the greatest nation that ever was or ever could be, who reduced the Japanazis to unconditional surrender, should negotiate with these Islamofascists?

Why don't you support the troops?

Why do you hate America?

[Dos Equis]

Are you implying that the greatest nation that ever was or ever could be, who reduced the Japanazis to unconditional surrender, should negotiate with these Islamofascists?

Why don't you support the troops?

Why do you hate America?

YAWN.   

[240 is Back]

what would we do with 200k troops?

We'd kill all the people who are going to killing each other for 10 years anyway.

we're just speed up the extinction of every pissed off male in the place.

[OzmO]

what would we do with 200k troops?

We'd kill all the people who are going to killing each other for 10 years anyway.

we're just speed up the extinction of every pissed off male in the place.

Right now we cannot have a military presence in many areas.  200K more troops would allow this.  It would cost a trillion dollars, but who cares? 

BUSH doesn't care to waste 400 billion and 3000 American lives when he so irresponsibly sacrificed them with a tinker toy neo-con war plan.

then we hire any ex-saddam enforcers and go after them.

We either do this or get out or start negotiating with Terrorists.

[240 is Back]

Right now we cannot have a military presence in many areas.  200K more troops would allow this.  It would cost a trillion dollars, but who cares? 

BUSH doesn't care to waste 400 billion and 3000 American lives when he so irresponsibly sacrificed them with a tinker toy neo-con war plan.

then we hire any ex-saddam enforcers and go after them.

We either do this or get out or start negotiating with Terrorists.

my point was, what will these men do?  Either kill all bad guys, or keep streets safe while bad guys act good for a few years.  Inevitably, you have to kill every one, or you leave and they're back like roaches.  You could put in 300k troops if you want.  All they can do is kill large numbers, or keep peace temporarily. 

[Tre]

I read it the same way as Ribo - defeat has finally been admitted.

Lack of victory = defeat, period.

[youandme]

a tinker toy neo-con war plan.

Sadly true.

I read it as defeat as well. How do you claim a victory in this war? Or did we not set a goal, just threw some bumper stickers on the tanks that read "get er done"