Beyond Quagmire

[Psychoblues]

Interesting, sadly interesting.


“The war in Iraq isn't over yet, but -- surge or no surge -- the United States has already lost. That's the grim consensus of a panel of experts assembled by Rolling Stone to assess the future of Iraq. "Even if we had a million men to go in, it's too late now," says retired four-star Gen. Tony McPeak, who served on the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War. "Humpty Dumpty can't be put back together again."

Those on the panel -- including diplomats, counterterror analysts and a former top military commander -- agree that President Bush's attempt to secure Baghdad will only succeed in dragging out the conflict, creating something far beyond any Vietnam-style "quagmire." The surge won't bring an end to the sectarian cleansing that has ravaged Iraq, as the newly empowered Shiite majority seeks to settle scores built up during centuries of oppressive rule by the Sunni minority. It will do nothing to defuse the powder keg that an independence-minded Kurdistan, in Iraq's northern provinces, poses to the governments of Turkey, Syria and Iran, which have long brutalized their own Kurdish separatists. And it will only worsen the global war on terror.

"Our invasion and occupation has created a cauldron that will continue to draw in the players in the Middle East for the foreseeable future," says Michael Scheuer, who led the CIA's hunt for Osama bin Laden. "By taking out Saddam, we have allowed the jihad to move 1,000 kilometers west, where it can project its power, its organizers, its theology into Turkey -- and from Turkey into Europe."


More: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...im_truth/print


Maybe some of what is being “discovered” (I say that with tongue in cheek)at this late date in the War On Iraq should have been considered before the invasion, don’t you think?

[Dilloduck]

Interesting, sadly interesting.


“The war in Iraq isn't over yet, but -- surge or no surge -- the United States has already lost. That's the grim consensus of a panel of experts assembled by Rolling Stone to assess the future of Iraq. "Even if we had a million men to go in, it's too late now," says retired four-star Gen. Tony McPeak, who served on the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War. "Humpty Dumpty can't be put back together again."

Those on the panel -- including diplomats, counterterror analysts and a former top military commander -- agree that President Bush's attempt to secure Baghdad will only succeed in dragging out the conflict, creating something far beyond any Vietnam-style "quagmire." The surge won't bring an end to the sectarian cleansing that has ravaged Iraq, as the newly empowered Shiite majority seeks to settle scores built up during centuries of oppressive rule by the Sunni minority. It will do nothing to defuse the powder keg that an independence-minded Kurdistan, in Iraq's northern provinces, poses to the governments of Turkey, Syria and Iran, which have long brutalized their own Kurdish separatists. And it will only worsen the global war on terror.

"Our invasion and occupation has created a cauldron that will continue to draw in the players in the Middle East for the foreseeable future," says Michael Scheuer, who led the CIA's hunt for Osama bin Laden. "By taking out Saddam, we have allowed the jihad to move 1,000 kilometers west, where it can project its power, its organizers, its theology into Turkey -- and from Turkey into Europe."


More: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...im_truth/print


Maybe some of what is being “discovered” (I say that with tongue in cheek)at this late date in the War On Iraq should have been considered before the invasion, don’t you think?

Na---I think releasing the muslims back to thier natural self-destructive ways has em spending more time watching thier backs and less time to organize a unified effort against Israel and the west. They hate each other more than Americans these days.

[Sitarro]

Interesting, sadly interesting.


“The war in Iraq isn't over yet, but -- surge or no surge -- the United States has already lost. That's the grim consensus of a panel of experts assembled by Rolling Stone to assess the future of Iraq. "Even if we had a million men to go in, it's too late now," says retired four-star Gen. Tony McPeak, who served on the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War. "Humpty Dumpty can't be put back together again."

Those on the panel -- including diplomats, counterterror analysts and a former top military commander -- agree that President Bush's attempt to secure Baghdad will only succeed in dragging out the conflict, creating something far beyond any Vietnam-style "quagmire." The surge won't bring an end to the sectarian cleansing that has ravaged Iraq, as the newly empowered Shiite majority seeks to settle scores built up during centuries of oppressive rule by the Sunni minority. It will do nothing to defuse the powder keg that an independence-minded Kurdistan, in Iraq's northern provinces, poses to the governments of Turkey, Syria and Iran, which have long brutalized their own Kurdish separatists. And it will only worsen the global war on terror.

"Our invasion and occupation has created a cauldron that will continue to draw in the players in the Middle East for the foreseeable future," says Michael Scheuer, who led the CIA's hunt for Osama bin Laden. "By taking out Saddam, we have allowed the jihad to move 1,000 kilometers west, where it can project its power, its organizers, its theology into Turkey -- and from Turkey into Europe."


More: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...im_truth/print


Maybe some of what is being “discovered” (I say that with tongue in cheek)at this late date in the War On Iraq should have been considered before the invasion, don’t you think?

Rolling Stone magazine, sure that's not shit, not shit at all.... :stop me please, I may throw up...

[CockySOB]

I always go to Rolling Stone or MTV for my news....

[Hobbit]

If you think it's unwinnable, then stop pussyfooting around with our troops lives. You're either in it to win or you should advocate leaving right the hell now. There is no middle ground. Anything else is just lining your ivory tower with blood.

[Hugh Lincoln]

I thought you meant the character on Family Guy.

[Psychoblues]

Look, zorro, you are a puke so don't pretend about the "throw up" shit you espouse, OK?

Rolling Stone magazine, sure that's not shit, not shit at all.... :stop me please, I may throw up...

The Rolling Stone Magazine is absolutely credible on these political issues. If you think not then show your proof or shut the fuck up. You babble and blurb but the facts of the article remain intact. You got otherwise? Post it or shut the fuck up. The Generals, high powered civilians and others that contributed to this article state the facts as they see them. You got differences? State them or shut the fuck up!!!!!!!

Or were you just fuckin' with everybody?

[Insein]

I thought you meant the character on Family Guy.

LOL thats exactly what i was thinking. Giggity.

[Insein]

Look, zorro, you are a puke so don't pretend about the "throw up" shit you espouse, OK?




The Rolling Stone Magazine is absolutely credible on these political issues. If you think not then show your proof or shut the fuck up. You babble and blurb but the facts of the article remain intact. You got otherwise? Post it or shut the fuck up. The Generals, high powered civilians and others that contributed to this article state the facts as they see them. You got differences? State them or shut the fuck up!!!!!!!

Or were you just fuckin' with everybody?

Rolling Stone on politics is about as credible as Sports Illustrated on Global warming.

[manu1959]

Look, zorro, you are a puke so don't pretend about the "throw up" shit you espouse, OK?

The Rolling Stone Magazine is absolutely credible on these political issues. If you think not then show your proof or shut the fuck up. You babble and blurb but the facts of the article remain intact. You got otherwise? Post it or shut the fuck up. The Generals, high powered civilians and others that contributed to this article state the facts as they see them. You got differences? State them or shut the fuck up!!!!!!!

Or were you just fuckin' with everybody?

why are you so rude?

[Psychoblues]

Because I am Psychoblues. What are you? manu1959? What is that? Are you an (u)nidentifiable "man" that was born in 1959? or what else might your handle mean?

why are you so rude?

I give "rude" when I receive "rude". Otherwise I am as capable as anyone to discuss on any plane that is approproiate.

[Insein]

Because I am Psychoblues. What are you? manu1959? What is that? Are you an (u)nidentifiable "man" that was born in 1959? or what else might your handle mean?




I give "rude" when I receive "rude". Otherwise I am as capable as anyone to discuss on any plane that is approproiate.

Or he could be a Manchester United fan. Way to continue being a dick on queue.

[CockySOB]

I give "rude" when I receive "rude". Otherwise I am as capable as anyone to discuss on any plane that is approproiate.

(wish I had an icon rolling on the flooring, laughing so hard it cries! - shattered? got one?)

[Psychoblues]

You ain't shit if you ain't just a little sweetie, 'lil rebel!!!!!!

(wish I had an icon rolling on the flooring, laughing so hard it cries! - shattered? got one?)

Tongue from hell, that's all I can say for you. But,,,,,,,,,well,,,,,,,,tongue from hellllll!!!!!!, I can't think of anything else to say about you!!!!!!

[Black Lance]

First, in terms of political content rolling stone is a far-left rag.

That being said, I think that whoever rolling stone assembled to do this study (note how no names = no accountability) is probably correct. The Iraqi people have obviously chosen the path of civil war, winner takes all, and it isn't the business of the United States to force democracy on other nations at the point of a gun.