The new direction in IRAQ

[swordfishME]

George W. Bush, Supreme Ruler and Defender of the Universe (in his own mind) is going to introduce a new plan on Wednesday to deal with the escalating violence in Iraq. It reportedly includes sending more troops over there and better funding for the war. I wanted to get an head start on this and see what every one thinks about sending more troops there; I am not worried about the money because sooner or later we will recover the money from all of the oil we are stealing from them. Your thoughts and views.

FYI: Let’s pretend that we are all grown rational adults who are capable of expressing their divergent opinions without sinking to the level of stubborn children when they don’t get their way.

 

[HUNGHUGE11X7]

A General I heard on NPR a few days ago said it better than I could. We would not be sending more troops but more targets.
The more pro-active we become the more they will rebel and they don't fight fair.
over 80% of the people of IRAQ want the military occupation to end we are only exacerbating the civil war that has been coming for some time over there due to differing religious ideologies.
I won't be so arrogant as to say we started it but without a doubt our occupation there is feeding the civil war.

I was all for going into Afghanistan and dethroning Hussein however that was the catalyst needed to begin the civil war. Going into IRAQ I thought was futile from the very start.
According to the new commanding General in IRAQ (Petraeus) it will take us 2-3 yrs to do what we need to do to secure IRAQ. I am sorry but I am not willing as 75% of other Americans are not willing to waste Billions of dollars that we DO NOT have and thousands of lives of our soldiers.

I fear but I also hope if BUSH plans to go ahead with this plan of American massacre that the voice of the people will not allow him to do this. I think his days of convincing us to eat bullshit after bullshit is over. It was over for me after that facade of an election in 2000.
The only good thing about him winning then was that historically every president elected in a '0 year has been assassinated.

I pray the new congress will have the balls to stop King George dead in his tracks.


:banana:
HORSE

 

[HazelGod]

The newly elected Congress widely acknowledges that the Democratic majority was achieved through the widespread public dissatisfaction with foreign policy across the political spectrum.

I hope this translates into them having much heftier cojones than the previous Congresses under the current reign...er...administration.

Escalation of the Iraq conflict in terms of both lives and money would be a move in the wrong direction. Ours is intended to be a government of the people, and I believe the people spoke their minds quite clearly last November.

 

[D_Humper E Bogart]

Why don't Iraqis have a say in the fate of their country? (so says the British man who's country has no foreign power of it's own).

 

[swordfishME]

Why don't Iraqis have a say in the fate of their country? (so says the British man who's country has no foreign power of it's own).

The highlighted text is a very good point. The UK was once the power where 'the sun never set', now it is the power where sometimes the sun barely rises (in a manner of speaking). I wish my govt would learn a lesson from this: One day there will be another superpower and no one will care about what the US thinks or does (it may not be today, tommorow or in the next hundred years but the time is coming).

 

[DC_DEEP]

Ah, the threats didn't work. The "shock & awe" campaign neither shocked nor awed. The Iraqi "free election" results caught the US government completely by surprise.

The only acceptable course of action would be to say: "We set the stage, you had a free election. Now we must go. You must have your government and security in place and functioning within one year. We will begin troop pullouts in 10 months, and will be completely off Iraqi soil within that one year. After that, you are on your own."

 

[Shelby]

I think the Iraqi people should have another vote - a straight up referendum - do they want the U.S. in or out.

And the U.S. should abide by the outcome.

 

[DC_DEEP]

I think the Iraqi people should have another vote - a straight up referendum - do they want the U.S. in or out.

And the U.S. should abide by the outcome.

I'm not sure I would take anyone's word that such a referendum would be honest.

We should take the continued violence as the referendum. They want us out. If they actually did want our continued presence there, the majority would quash the continuing rebellion.

We should put a no-nonsense, non-negotiable exit strategy into action now. Bush said our mission was to *ahem* depose Saddam and give Iraqis the opportunity for a free election. This one time, he can say "mission accomplished." Those who have been elected by the Iraqi people must be told we have given them all they need to make things happen there. They have been given training and assistance. We don't need to continue babysitting. We have overstayed our welcome.

 

[Principessa]

I don't know if I can discuss "that man" or "this war" in a rational adult fashion. Whenever the topic comes up I end up screeching like a howler monkey. But here goes . . . IMHO sending more troops will not help end the war.
If I had my druthers we would pull every single solitary soldier out of Iraq and Iran along with all of our equipment.

Also, I would like to see that drunk cheerleader impeached.

I would like to see our National Guard & Reserve Military work as Airport Security rather than the arrogant non-English speaking wenches that always think my Revlon ceramic curling iron & my asthma inhaler are incendiary devices at Newark, PIA; JFK.

Grrrrrrr. Okay, that was a rant but I didn't shriek; which is a plus.



njqt466

 

[JustAsking]

There seem to be a large number of very smart, informed, and experience people, many in the military who think that the days of an effective "surge" in troop strength are long gone.

We had a narrow window, right after toppling the regime, to bring about military, political, religious, and infrastructure stability. It had to have been all done at once in order to be effective. Rumsfeld either ignored, underfunded, or completely micromanaged every aspect of this and did it so badly that it was hopeless (e.g. denying the State Dept in any role for nation building).

More troops will not only be ineffective, but they will probably be inflammatory to the situation.

The big winner in all of this is Iran. That is the irony of the situation.

 

[SilverSoldier]

Absolutely, positively against sending more troops/spending more money.

If there is no real danger to US soil, then we should never be involved. A shortage of oil is not a danger to US soil.

We are not the "Big Brother" of the world, nor should we ever be. I believe in democracy, but it's in obvious short supply in this world, and if there are whole societies who must have government other than democracy, then let them have it. Meanwhile, we should be responsible for our own country, not for every one else's.

That is my take on the subject.

 

[JustAsking]

...
Also, I would like to see that drunk cheerleader impeached.

I would like to see our National Guard & Reserve Military work as Airport Security rather than the arrogant non-English speaking wenches that always think my Revlon ceramic curling iron & my asthma inhaler are incendiary devices at Newark, PIA; JFK.

Grrrrrrr. Okay, that was a rant but I didn't shriek; which is a plus.



njqt466

An excellent post all around. Appropriately shrill, as is warranted by the situation, but not full of undue shrieking. I would give it a 93 out of 100. Although I agree with the TSA criticism, I have a real aversion to seeing gun-toting military personel in a public place. It somehow makes me think we are one crazy general away from a palace coup. There is this thing called Posse Comitatus that I am wholeheartedly in favor of, you see.

That being said, your posts are cogent and very entertaining as well. Critical comments about the "drunk cheerleader" are always welcome in my circle.

 

[deleted15807]

It's obvious King George and Darth Cheney do not want to officially lose the war on their watch and admit defeat even as it stares them in the face. So many more will die and many more billions of dollars will be spent on vanity. Simple vanity.

 

[blackbottom2]

Iraqi Children

you wanted a villain
so you got him
you wanted to create a monster
so you did
life is not a Hollywood movie
and the desert was not a backdrop
of a studio ​

Armed forces were not the extras
(They are now suffering from the desert storm syndrome)
there were no props and cuts
Baghdad was not a movie set
Where the real bombs were dropped
Did you ever go back to see if the splinter
Of bomb had licked the life of a civilian
or a child.
what do you care you just wanted to show
your military superiority
so you did. ​

A little country smaller than your toe has
Kicked you so hard that you have to invite the whole world To attack her. ​

Was it an experiment of a new weapon? ​

Baghdad is a not laboratory. Baghdad is a history.
The economic embargo is the biggest racist notion.
I have ever seen in the modern history.
Iraqi children are drinking milk and eating food
Laced with your arsenic.
You have sown a crop of hatred and I am afraid
When it is going to be the harvest time.​

​

a poem by ifti naseem and it reflects my feelings at the minute

 

[blackbottom2]

There is feeling in the Uk that G. W Bush and his family are crooked

The Bush family are in many contractual deals with the Bin laden family and we all know who the head of the Bin laden family is

Secondly the votes at his initial election were counted and recounted untill he got in

Thirdly the situation in Iraq was an opportunity that was looked upon as a war his father did not finish

Makes me feel that GW bush family is working inbetween public and private interests so that at the end of his appointment he can slip back into the private role and reap lots of money. Its been done before i.e Ronald Reagans acceptance of a million dollars speaking fee from the Japanese company, fujisanki comms, after leaving office, and large book publishing advances for the Clintons. these sorts of deals are so common place that they become acceptable.

Iraq and Afghanistan were just pawns where the propoganda machines have been working overtime

Thankfully a lot of the American public are beginning to see through him and realising that the stakes GW is playing with are much higher and with much more greed than any of the others.

I say long live all our fellow American citizens and the sooner they get rid of this crooked monster the better for them and everybody else

I hope i havent said too much cos I dont want a knock at the door and transported to Guantanomo bay via Syria or Mossad- I hope they have big dicks and like playing

 

[Principessa]

Hi Just Asking,

I didn't know about the Posse Comitatus before. You're right my suggestion is in conflict with that law, but so many laws have been broken already what's just one more...j/k. :tongue:

I'm not thrilled with the idea of our airports looking like a military installation either, but I trust the military to know what a bomb looks like. Also never underestimate my love of a man in uniform. At this point, I also prefer to give them any excuse to come home even if it's as lame as checking my luggage.

Side Note: About 10 years ago I did a semester in Italy. Initially I remember being shocked and a bit scared to see guards with uzi's guarding banks in the larger cities. Soon I became used to it. Oddly I actually found it comforting. I knew if I were in their eyesight I wasn't going to be mugged by gypsies as others in my group had been.

I don't want to live in a police state. But I am also sick and tired of taking off my shoes, placing my purell in a zip lock bag, and my hermetically sealed shampoo in my checked luggage. It pisses me off that I can no longer bring a sealed bottle of water or soda through a security checkpoint. I used to love to travel both domestically and internationally. Now...the terrorists have won.

~~~**~~~**~~~**~~~**~~~**~~~**~~~**~~~**~~~**~~~**

An excellent post all around. Appropriately shrill, as is warranted by the situation, but not full of undue shrieking.

I would give it a 93 out of 100. Although I agree with the TSA criticism,
I have a real aversion to seeing gun-toting military personel in a public place. It somehow makes me think we are one crazy general away from
a palace coup. There is this thing called Posse Comitatus that I am wholeheartedly in favor of, you see.

That being said, your posts are cogent and very entertaining as well. Critical comments about the "drunk cheerleader" are always welcome
in my circle.

 

[D_Humper E Bogart]

Now...the terrorists have won.

I reckoned that as soon as we started fighting and acting down their level. Team evil would dream of our civvie kill ratio and our torture techniques.

Not to say they are innocent themselves!

It's the choice between dying of AIDS or terminal cancer methinks.

 

[Shelby]

Here's a novel interpretation.

I wonder if anyone here would be able to discuss its merits and/or faults without resorting to boring ad hominem attacks.
​

 

[Matthew]

The attempt to blame 9/11 on the American left is disingenuous at best. While it may be true that Al-qaeda mobilizes some of its following through contempt for perceived "western" values such as gay and women's rights, secular lifestyles, etc., if you actually read statements Bin Laden has made about Al-Qaeda's motivations for terrorism, it has much more to do with American/Western troop presence in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Middle East, support for Israel's oppression of the Palestinians, etc. If De Souza is truly concerned with offending what he describes as average, moderate Muslims, he would focus on ameliorating those problems first. I absolutely believe that interventionism, imperialism, neo-colonialism, whatever you want to call it, IS responsible for the majority of the resentment felt against America among that population.

The bottom line is that Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were responsible for the 9/11 attacks, period. But if anyone wants to start playing the blame game, it was during the Reagan regime that Bin Laden and his compatriots were trained and funded by the U.S. to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. It's DeSouza's own far right that is infinitely more responsible for birthing that monster.

The suggestion that conservative Americans and conservative Muslims unite against the American left is jaw-dropping. He claims that the American left hates Bush more than Bin Laden, but despite his protestations to the contrary, it is clear from this article that that is a mirror reflection of his own feelings: the "enemy within," meaning American liberals, are equally (if not more) dangerous compared to Al-Qaeda and the like in his eyes. Now THERE'S an extreme "Anti-American" point of view. I'd be interested to know who here thinks it's a good idea to unite with "moderate Muslims" to battle the American left.

 

[Shelby]

Well done Matthew. You made a lot of good points without resorting to name calling.