Let's take a look at some of these trendy thread titles...

[sirs]

<<Simple then......DEFUND the war.  That is the SOLE RESPONSIBILITY & FUNTION congress had regarding warring.  Anything less demonstrates that they don't, IF the position is that "they care and want them outta there ASAP">>

I agree with that.  But they don't have the balls.  

Then we're left with explanatory rationales
1) they DON'T think it's a good idea or the right thing to do, compared to what they claim to the hard core leftists
2) they DON'T care about the troops, compared to what they claim to everyone else

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, which could it be?

[Michael Tee]

Then we're left with explanatory rationales
1) they DON'T think it's a good idea or the right thing to do, compared to what they claim to the hard core leftists
2) they DON'T care about the troops, compared to what they claim to everyone else

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, which could it be?

########################################################

Neither.  It's this:

1. They KNOW it's a good idea but don't have the balls to put their money where their mouth is.

2.  They do care about the troops but they care even more about getting themselves re-elected.

[sirs]

Then we're left with explanatory rationales
1) they DON'T think it's a good idea or the right thing to do, compared to what they claim to the hard core leftists
2) they DON'T care about the troops, compared to what they claim to everyone else

########################################################

Neither.  It's this:
1.  They KNOW it's a good idea but don't have the balls to put their money where their mouth is.
2.  They do care about the troops but they care even more about getting themselves re-elected.

Welp, sounds like your #2 and my #2 are pretty much the same.  I think we have a concensus, #2 it is

[Michael Tee]

But that's the beauty of an all-volunteer army - -  apart from their immediate families, and in some cases not even them, nobody else gives a shit whether they live or die.  These guys are truly expendable.  To the ruling class, they're "only a pawn in their game," to slightly paraphrase Bob Dylan.

[Amianthus]

Obviously, I'm right and you're wrong.

Yep, 99% is good enough for me.

Yeah.

It's just such a shame that your first statement is part of the 1%.

[Michael Tee]

<<It's just such a shame that your first statement is part of the 1%.>>

Obviously, you got that wrong too.

[Amianthus]

Obviously, you got that wrong too.

And, just as obviously, you hit that 1% again.

[Plane]

But that's the beauty of an all-volunteer army - -  apart from their immediate families, and in some cases not even them, nobody else gives a shit whether they live or die.  These guys are truly expendable.  To the ruling class, they're "only a pawn in their game," to slightly paraphrase Bob Dylan.

Is this true for the Jahiadists ? Are they disposeable?

Do the people of the US really want the war to continue ?

[_JS]

So A) you concede it's largely just a small segment of Iraq vs the continued implication it's a far ranging civil war, and B) you haven't denied that indeed these majorities are pleased we took out Saddam and support our effort to bring about Democracy.  Again, no one is advocating we stay there indefinately, the sooner we get out the better, which would likely be the same posotion of the majority of the Iraqi population, WHEN they're ready.  And only THEY will know when they're ready.

A small segment in land area? Sure. A small segment in population and importance? Of course not, unfortunately the sectarian violence includes Baghdad Sirs and you know that. We don't need to turn a decent discussion into semantics. Clearly this "small segment" is extremely important for the Sunni population. Moreover, it only takes a "small segment" to cause a great deal of misery. The majority of the population in Northern Ireland never took up arms and never endorsed killing anyone. That did not make the Troubles any less violent and any less horrific.

Why?  You asked where the "other side" was critical of the Post-Saddam military intervention.  You'd have to ask the military and Bush why they weren't better prepared.  Maybe Pooch, Bt, or Captstrickland if he takes a gander at this post.  I could only speculate.

Well, thanks for being honest. I'm not trying to be partisan and nasty here. I really want to know why the advice of some of the top military brass and sometimes just general conventional wisdom was ignored. I wonder if Bush and Rumsfeld were guilty of insulating themselves too much. Did they become absorbed in their own views of reality to the exclusion of what was really going on in the field? Was it a form of Groupthink? They would not be the first leaders to fall prey to that (from the right, middle, or left).

Because a stable democratically run country, in the heart of militant Islam will divert much of their (Radical militants) resources, personel, training, arms, and bodies, from perpetuating and planning more global acts of terrorism, not to mention having to find even more new areas to train and organize.  Both Iran & Syria will constantly have to look over their backs anytime they are desiring to launch terrorist sponsored attacks aimed at Israel, and Israeli friendly regimes.  this kinda falls along the common sense line Js, so why you're asking "why" is a little puzzling, when you yourself have acknolweded their efforts to destabilize the area, fund and arm terrorists, with the possible hope of filling in the void, if such a democracy is defeated.

I disagree. Common sense dictates that Iran does what is best for Iran. Having a Shi'a run majority government in a fledgling "democracy" in Iraq has to be what is best for Iran. It makes absolutely no sense at all for Iran to counter Shi'a interests in Iraq when they have the opportunity for another Shi'a nation to be in charge of an oil rich neighboring country with a seat on OPEC.

You are dealing with ideology Sirs and an attempt at having two opposing philosophies. I'm dealing with realpolitik. I can understand why Iran might wish to help the Shi'a who are fighting the Sunni in the Sunni triangle, but it makes no sense for Iran to oppose her own self interests. That takes quite a leap of faith. There is absolutely no reason to believe that a democratic country will not fund and arm terrorists Sirs. We did it for years in Latin America. So even on that point your argument lacks merit.

Asked and answered.  And let's hope they remain on "good relations"  Let's make it even better by supporting Iraq in any way we can, that Iraq requests

Oh they will remain on good relations I'd bet, unless a Sunni is "elected" leader. Remember Sirs, it was not the Iranians or the Syrians who publicly warned President Bush that they would arm insurgents in Iraq - it was the Saudi Arabians. I'm sure that they will (are) because they see defending the Sunni as a religious priority as well as containing Iran's influence.

I'm beginning to wonder if that is the reason our government is discussing Iran so much as well. Perhaps democracy is not exactly what we wanted it to be after all?

[sirs]

So A) you concede it's largely just a small segment of Iraq vs the continued implication it's a far ranging civil war, and B) you haven't denied that indeed these majorities are pleased we took out Saddam and support our effort to bring about Democracy.  Again, no one is advocating we stay there indefinately, the sooner we get out the better, which would likely be the same posotion of the majority of the Iraqi population, WHEN they're ready.  And only THEY will know when they're ready.

A small segment in land area? Sure. A small segment in population and importance? Of course not, unfortunately the sectarian violence includes Baghdad Sirs and you know that.

Of course I know that.  The point being that (with bagdhad included) we're still only talking about a small segment of Iraq, vs the continued innuendo that all of Iraq is ablaze in civil war, when that's no where near the case

Why?  You asked where the "other side" was critical of the Post-Saddam military intervention.  You'd have to ask the military and Bush why they weren't better prepared.  Maybe Pooch, Bt, or Captstrickland if he takes a gander at this post.  I could only speculate.

Well, thanks for being honest. I'm not trying to be partisan and nasty here. I really want to know why the advice of some of the top military brass and sometimes just general conventional wisdom was ignored. I wonder if Bush and Rumsfeld were guilty of insulating themselves too much.

And again, yet another simple and completely plausible scenario ignored......that the plans put forth by the Pentagon and the military WERE the ones that Bush & Rumsfeld steadfastly went with.  This effort to make it all about how stubborn Bush & Rumsfeld were, while ignoring all other plausible ideas, tends to make me speculate that your partisasnhip is playing a signiificant roll in your assessements.  And forgive me if I'm wrong, but this current critique of Bush & Rumsfeld really has nothing to do with your question on analysis of tactics used.  Sounds much more like simple Bush bashing.  But as I said, perhaps I'm wrong.

Common sense dictates that Iran does what is best for Iran. Having a Shi'a run majority government in a fledgling "democracy" in Iraq has to be what is best for Iran. It makes absolutely no sense at all for Iran to counter Shi'a interests in Iraq when they have the opportunity for another Shi'a nation to be in charge of an oil rich neighboring country with a seat on OPEC.

You're missing the concept I referenced in the paragraph you disagreed with.......control.  I agree that Iran will do what's best for Iran.  I do believe potential control of a Shia majority oil rich country is of MUCH greater interest than simply having a Shia neighbor, especially one that has a democratically run government, not necessarily going to perform acts that Iran would like.  Thus the continued efforts to ruin said democracy, to allow for a power void they could more easily fill to their better interests

I'm beginning to wonder if that is the reason our government is discussing Iran so much as well. Perhaps democracy is not exactly what we wanted it to be after all?

Not sure where you're going with that, so I'll just let it go

[Michael Tee]

<<Is this true for the Jahiadists ? Are they disposeable?>>

Their leaders sure as hell think so.  I don't think any of the leadership believes for one minute those guys are headed for Paradise and 72 virgins.  That's the biggest crock a shit I ever heard since I heard George W. Bush pretend that Iraq was a threat to the U.S.A.  Nobody gives a shit if those guys live or die, not even themselves.

<<Do the people of the US really want the war to continue ?>>

What do the polls say?  Seems to be pretty evenly divided, right? with the trend moving towards the "pull out now" end of the spectrum, but a long way from there now.  I think there's a few more "magic numbers" to hit before the trend starts to become signficant.  5,000 is a milestone number, but personally I thnk 10,000 will be the breaking point.  The funny thing is, no matter what the number, you will always find the mindless cheerleader types who want to pretend that everything is going just fine and the tide is finally turning.  

The other factor that could make a difference would be a breakdown in troop discipline such as happened in the final years of the Viet Nam War, when orders started to get disobeyed and officers started to get fragged.  That's a function of troop morale, a sense of hopelessness, a kind of despair, the knowledge that they're being sent to die in a pointless endeavour from which the ruling classes that sent them there have totally insulated themselves and their families.   In an all-volunteer army, that moment of truth is a long time coming, basically because most of them are morons or near-morons.   But I think sooner or later even the morons come to know when they're being shat on, and they don't like it any more than the rest of us would.