Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by Gisella, Nov 8, 2006.
Is it true?
Hopefully the strategy now in Iraque really changes...
Want to see the new plan now...:33: :shrug:
Now he'll be a lobbyist?
Robert Gates ex- CIA chief new Secretary of Defense...
I thought Bush said, Ronald Dumsfeld and Dick Cheney were there to stay the course ? The only thing getting Cheney out would be a failure of his bionic heart.
I wish death to no one just a simple: go away...:biggrin1:
There will be no plan! Iraq is broken and there is nothing that can fix it, save for a civil war. The democrats are not stupid, and they will not cut the funding like in Vietnam, we are there for the long haul... 2008 here we come!
Than the matter is how soon US is going to withdraw from Iraq to then Civil war go to full scale and the 'winner' will get the power and control over it?
But still by witdrawing there must be a responsability to have a plan...and about the civilian people amoung the ethicities that is already fighting that will be viciously massacred again in more and more numbers by the ones who wants all power and dictates everybody again??? It can be much worse than under Sadam or similar but changing leaders names..
Than in my mind as much politics went completly wrong about that...The US military and coalition allies must at least come up with a decent plan to not hunt them and shame them as the best in the world whom were there and did not even left decent weapons and treinment to Iraq soldiers protect the people.. many coalition soldiers gave their lives there but many more civilians died all over the place and still counting both sides.
Than I remember the NBC or other talking about the millions or billions $$$$ gave to corrupt Iraq oficials placed there by US interin gov. to buy weapons and etc to Iraq. It was simple handle to new appointed officials poorly choosen, that than just took the money to themselves and etc...
There is no way any one serious administrator are going to allow acess to so much amount of money that belongs to Iraq people, to buy defense weapons and handle the full some of it to new employee and trust he will do what he is told... even when interim administrator have as his closest friends the best weapons makers and dealers...he told new employee go shop for it... it does not make any good sense to me.
I do not believe any soldier is going to leave a friend soldier without weapons and many other skills to protect and fight for their people...but I think a burocrat and a bad administrator would.
Bush Names Gates to Replace Rumsfeld
Clearly a preemptive strike.
I wasn't wishing that on anyone, just that Cheney is there to stay with Bush until Jan 2008. Rumsfeld, he's cutting and running on his job. It's too late to do much about Iraq, it's a matter of whether we are there or not as whatever happens, unfolds. It's unfortunate that he won't be there to "own" what evolves for the remainder and duration of "W II, the sequel" as it pertains to what he says it is.
As this moves forward, the US has to pull out of there and let these people determine their own fate. This revolution was not born out of what America's was, it was a coupe pure and simple and an ensuing civil war. America's Revolution was a unified overthrow of colonization, Iraq lacks this unification. Bush knew it, Cheney did and so did Rumsfeld. They had to have known that this would result. Revolutions are born within the citizens of that nation, not external interests. Civil unrest and civil wars are also born out of those same citizens. What 3rd party interests we have still remain unsatiated in this process. Iraq had free elections, Iranian backed candidates won handily, that was counter to Bush's "axis of evil". The premise behind the Bush sponsored coupe, was that the pro US backed candidates would somehow wind up in power and that all of Iraq would fall in line and go forward. The groups that comprise Iraq are willing to fight to the death rather than relinquish and completely submit to a US backed government and move forward on a more peaceful democratic voting process to shape who is in control. B-C-R knew this, or at least the probability for success or more appropriately the probability for it's failure. It would be interesting to know at the time the decisions were made, whether there was a better chance of winning the lottery than there was at pulling this off ?
There are many other factors that impede a withdrawal too, Israeli-Palestinian conflicts, the fact that Iran is pursuing nukes, just to name a couple. By still being in Iraq, that is the footwork that is/has already been done to influence those other issues in America's best interest, B-C-R also understand this too, to maintain this foothold in the middle east requires a sacrifice, which is why Bush "stays the course" in Iraq. Another question/issue, how long would it take Russia and others to move in and capitalize on a US withdrawal ? Amazing/Incredible, we've predominantly done all the footwork in this, while others loiter, waiting to cash in on the US created opportunity.
Thanks for the explanations, 99.
Hey Gisella, your other post had me re-visiting about withdrawal from Iraq, my initial post & stance was that we had to withdraw, but then I started thinking about the arguments for "staying the course" and you indicated the humanistic side of the equation by mentioning that others would eventually be slaughtered under new "regimes" for lack of a better term at this point. I don't know so much that this keeps GWB up at night with worry or concern ? And that's a harsh thing to think about our President of the USA. But I do feel those he chose to put in place to carry out this mission in that regard, Cheney and Rumsfeld, are that way themselves. Just observing Rumsfeld in any congressional inquiries, he's always taken questioning and gone off on a tangent of his strategy and put it in terms of objectives, as if the bodies and lives thrown at the mission were as cheap as simply issuing soldiers another box of ammunition or similar. How do you perceive those two ?
Looks like ol' stay-the-course GWB cut-and-ran from his SECDEF. Rocket boy was on TV today saying Rumsfeld's departure had nothing to do with politics. Shades of Colin Powell.
Rumsfeld's firing...er...resignation...sure sounds like a face saving pre-lude to a change in exit strategies from Iraq.
I'm not optimistic about Bob Gates, based on his previous record. However, the 110th Congress doesn't take office until January, and I'm willing to give him the next two months to announce and implement a plan to improve things. If he can turn the situation around in that time, I'll eat my crow and not complain. (I enjoy being right, but I'll gladly be wrong if it means saving lives.)
Doesnt this all just seem all too convenient?
I dont trust it.
Wow..you re-visited your position, cool! ( now I understand why I had a feel went a bit 2 directions ...but sometimes I dont understand things clearly in english..)
I dont have much facts knowlege about their politics to perceive them right at all :redface: ...but as a military daughter I learned with my father and grandpas and I understood that are 2 kinds of militar person the ones who go to battle field and others stay administration...both are needed both are military but 1 of them are really soldier and give their physical life, they died...they are trooped together and go mission together in action...I trust those soldiers in action and many times the administrative military away from battle is out of touch and became burocrats etc...they are more politician than soldiers more 'office building' people than soldier...I hope that now they all come out with a good plan..
And about the slaughtered some say is inevitable because of issues among the 3 ethinecities there will fight for power and etc...and that is common in that region those issues to be resolved in heavy bloody shed and conflicts...Iraqs must resolve their own issues but when coalition forces leave they at least have to give same infrastructure Iraq people had with Sadam (roads, hospitals, power, military, police and etc) that the war destroyed (if the insurgents do not blow them away keeping messing up lives of common civilian people.).. even if politicians can sleep at night I hope many citizens would not when there is a mess. Where it reads "We The People" even if 1/2 of "We The People" did not agree going to the war in the 1st place politicians and gov. Administration did things in the name of US people...well, in my understanding US people must be in touch what is really happening as their representants using their 'name' all over the world, taking moral responsability for it not 'just' paying the bill and military paying with their lives . Because as much desagrement about different issues at home they 'can not' just decide to war in others people homes anyways and keep doing it with bad strategy, is worse.
Ps: Which US President in the past said beautifuly that gov must fear the people and not the other way around - or something like that?
Rumsfeld?? Why are we talking about Rumsfeld.... does he have a big dick?
There won't be any changes in Iraq, remember Viet Nam went through 4 administrations 2 Republican 2 Democrat... and there was much more anti war sentiment then then now, It was a Republican who got is in Viet Nam (Eisenhower, 2 Democrats escalated it (Kennedy, Johnson) and a Republican who got us out (Nixon)). Anyone who believed the pre-election hype about a change in Iraq, is foolish. We're there for the foreseeable future I'm afraid... as far as Rummy goes, glad he's gone, hopefully Gates will do a better job.
It may have been used by a US president (sounds like a Jefferson-ism) but sorry to say it's not a US invention. The principle is rooted in Anglo Saxon Europe.
PS - It was used a line in an episode of V for Vendetta.:tongue: