Metal Reviews

After bush anounced the new plan for Iraq, what was you folks opinion of it?

i think that a 20% increase in forces wont do anything and is far from "a surge". And the plan of spreading them in mini bases around the capital will result in a month will probably result in a month of bloodshed on par with vietnam, followed by a pull out of all of those bases.


wait, all the military comanders were just replaced by New cronies. They will probably keep in the mini bases .

I think Keith Olbermann said it best the other night:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16583889/from/ET

Doesn't get any more accurate than that.

Something needs to be done on a large scale in Iraq, I think bush is on the right track by strengthening (sp?) the forces there but it won't be enough. I'd like to see international forces step in as well. The "it's Americas mess, let them handle it" point has been proven and now an ally of ours needs help. It's been a long time since the invasion and it's in everybodys interest to see that country stabilized.

I just don't want to see it plunge into a full out civil war where the most brutal leader will rise to power and all will have been for nothing.

Yes, something needs to be done. They need to sterilise and deport every Iraqi, demolish every small hovel, and transform the bigger ones into hotels with reasonable prices for capitalistic tourists.

Apart from that, I don't see any other option.

I really don't think this minimal a troop increase will help. I think its time to consider ending the Iraqi state; things can't continue like this. One Shiite state, one Sunni state might help, though of course, it would need a lot of careful planning.

Bush is talking about attacking Iran and Syria now. He's not talking about fixing things in Iraq.

And I don't see how the military could handle that simultaneously without a draft.

Wow, I can't even begin to imagine what kind of mind would think an invasion of Iran would be anything but a catastrophe, unless it is the kind of mind that just enjoys seeing thousands of people die (not suggesting anyone has argued this in the thread, just that I have seen several people do so elsewhere)

I'm not sure how dividing Iraq into Sunni and Shia states would be placed into practice, as I think (although am not sure) that is not a clear enough territorial divide- ie you couldn't draw religiously homogenous borders without forcing millions of people to move house.

I guess the standard Euro-leftist suggestion is simply to say GET OUT, GET THE FUCK OUT NOW!!!!!111 although I don't feel qualified to say that without having seen the situation on the ground there myself. I honestly don't believe anyone but Iraqi citizens know for sure whether coalition troops are making their lives better or worse.

Talk about taking a quote out of context. He said that he would attack Iranian and Syrian connections in Iraq that were contributing to the chaos.

yeah, but without the diplomacy with iran and syria it will probably degrade to full conflict

How anyone can think that sending more troops to Iraq will help is beyond me. Fridge is a lot more right than people want to admit -Bush may well be an insane, Bible-thumping Armageddon-bringer.

Then again, he might just be a bit of a prat. I honestly believe that America can't win this war. Exactly the same thing happened in Vietnam, and eventually they'll pull out, tail between their legs. By then, however, both Bush and Blair will be out of office, and be leaving the mess for (hopefully) Ming Campbell and whichever's the best of the Americano hopefuls (what's this Barack Obama guy like?) to clean up.

Dividing Iraq, from what we've seen so far, is going to make Israel/Palestine look like childplay. There's no easy solution, at all. Getting out now may b the best solution, but part of me really wants to see both sides (our lot as well) being weakened to the point of forcing peace. Then again, enter the Chinese, and Koreans... Interesting times...

I can perfectly well see Iran and Syria being invaded next, at least there's some justification for it. Perhaps by then, both Brits and Americans will be so fed up with the loss of life that we'll refuse to send anyone else, thus insuring the rise of radical Islam and our ultimate enslavement (if you believe Stuck Mojo, anyhow... ). Or maybe things will go on as before, since Islam's been pretty fucking radical since Saladin's days, and any modern attempt at a crusade has about the same moral justification as it did back then?

Um, what the fuck? It's been a coalition since the start, and whilst the US may hog all the news, British and other soldiers are still dying. There Will Be No Stability. This isn't Ireland, stepping out won't mean the insurgents suddenly go political. This is jihad.

what is the size of the armies sent by the other countries?

Idk, i think stepping out would end the anti-american violence by iraqi's. when one faction comes out on top and dominates, Jihad will become freedom fighting.

I wish the Crusades never happened...

I wish that our world leaders actually learned about the Crusades.

Hmmm it appears that we have rather inadvertantly created more than one war. Three, potentially four, by my calculations! Afghanistan, Iraq and maybe Somalia, and then of course there is the slightly vaguer "war on terror", although that seems to bear little relation to any of the other three.

I'm talking about the European Union, I know British forces are there as well but there isn't really a whole lot of anything else.

uhm... thanks alot for totally ignoring your neighbours - we actaully have 450 soldiers down there, and these are no regular soldiers, they have superpowers (they are so good they don't even need proper equipment), that's why Bush is so happy about our prime minister - else it would seem rather pointless to waste time on him and say how happy he is to have him as a partner, right?

What the fuck, am I supposed to include every damn nation with soldiers in Iraq? All I wanted to express was that the effort needs to be more international, more countries should be involved starting with the European Union.

Sheesh.

Yes, but I fail to see what difference a few more, say, Frenchmen would make, other than in terms of making the Iraqis think the whole world is against them, and thus fight even more desperately? C'est possible...

And Charles, many wars = world war III?