Guthrie Posted January 7, 2007 Report Posted January 7, 2007 Surge? that just seems to be another Buschista spin effort --- this time to avoid the word, 'escalation.' I wonder who believes them anymore? Quote “Most middle-class whites have no idea what it feels like to be subjected to police who are routinely suspicious, rude, belligerent, and brutal” - Benjamin Spock MD
Guthrie Posted January 9, 2007 Author Report Posted January 9, 2007 Boston Globe ...Ted Kennedy thinks George W. Bush is dead wrong on a troop surge for Iraq - and while some other Democrats have reacted diffidently, he is determined to force the issue. Today the Massachusetts senator will introduce legislation to prevent the president from increasing US troop levels in Iraq without specific authorization from Congress. And in a speech at the National Press Club one day before the president outlines his new Iraq plans to the nation, Kennedy will take aim at the idea of sending more troops. ... I am hoping this starts a much more frank and public debate about what's going on in Iraq - the quicker we address this, the sooner our boys will be removed from the deadly peril created for them by the Bush administration Quote “Most middle-class whites have no idea what it feels like to be subjected to police who are routinely suspicious, rude, belligerent, and brutal” - Benjamin Spock MD
JerrySeinfeld Posted January 10, 2007 Report Posted January 10, 2007 Boston Globe ...Ted Kennedy thinks George W. Bush is dead wrong on a troop surge for Iraq - and while some other Democrats have reacted diffidently, he is determined to force the issue. Today the Massachusetts senator will introduce legislation to prevent the president from increasing US troop levels in Iraq without specific authorization from Congress. And in a speech at the National Press Club one day before the president outlines his new Iraq plans to the nation, Kennedy will take aim at the idea of sending more troops. ... I am hoping this starts a much more frank and public debate about what's going on in Iraq - the quicker we address this, the sooner our boys will be removed from the deadly peril created for them by the Bush administration Isn't GW Bush Commander in Chief of the United States? Quote
Guthrie Posted January 10, 2007 Author Report Posted January 10, 2007 ...Isn't GW Bush Commander in Chief of the United States? No, he is not. He IS Commander in Chief of the armed forces but has no authority to declare war or make treaties. Moreover, he is bound by law and constitution against a number of actions and activities he has already taken/engaged in. America was led to the Conquest of Iraq by way of a very large fraud, perpetrated by the Bush admin. Beyond that, was there a point to your question? Quote “Most middle-class whites have no idea what it feels like to be subjected to police who are routinely suspicious, rude, belligerent, and brutal” - Benjamin Spock MD
M.Dancer Posted January 10, 2007 Report Posted January 10, 2007 It's a great choice the Americans have right now. Leaving Iraq and saving the handfuls of lives of their troops ....or leaving Iraq and condemning the lives of tens of thousands ..... Neither the right or the left want to admit it. But if the Americans leave now Iraq will make Rwanda look pleasant. The republicans because it would be an admission of failure and the Democrats because of the politics, fatigue in Iraq is their only winning hand right now. If the US pulls out and the predicted genocide and regional war ensue, both sides will no doubt prevaricate over the blood on their hands. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Guthrie Posted January 10, 2007 Author Report Posted January 10, 2007 It's a great choice the Americans have right now. Leaving Iraq and saving the handfuls of lives of their troops ....or leaving Iraq and condemning the lives of tens of thousands ........ First, I object to the dismissive and insulting claim of, "handfuls of lives" --- especially when not one of those tens of thousands of Americans lives destroyed by this war need have suffered such loss Second, peddling fear about what might happen to Iraq in a pull-out is hypothetical nonsense - the truth is, there is nothing worse for Iraqis than what is happening right now - it can only get better Quote “Most middle-class whites have no idea what it feels like to be subjected to police who are routinely suspicious, rude, belligerent, and brutal” - Benjamin Spock MD
Leafless Posted January 10, 2007 Report Posted January 10, 2007 I am hoping this starts a much more frank and public debate about what's going on in Iraq - the quicker we address this, the sooner our boys will be removed from the deadly peril created for them by the Bush administration Have you already forgotten or perhaps never have known, what U.S. interest ARE and including what Canadian interest are, which are primarily a healthy U.S. Quote
Riverwind Posted January 10, 2007 Report Posted January 10, 2007 It's a great choice the Americans have right now. Leaving Iraq and saving theIf the US pulls out and the predicted genocide and regional war ensue, both sides will no doubt prevaricate over the blood on their hands.I think it is naive to assume that the US can do anything to stop a genocidal war. Iraq is paralyzed as long as US troops are in Iraq because the political culture is so obsessed about the occupation. Leaving is the only way to free Iraq from this paralysis. If a genocide occurs then the only people to blame are the people who had a chance to rebuild their country with US help but chose not to.I find it ironic that the typical surge supporter talks eloquently about the need to protect the Iraqi people from themselves yet would not hesitate to cut welfare benefits to their fellow citizens because 'welfare bums should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps' Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
M.Dancer Posted January 10, 2007 Report Posted January 10, 2007 It's a great choice the Americans have right now. Leaving Iraq and saving the handfuls of lives of their troops ....or leaving Iraq and condemning the lives of tens of thousands ..... ... First, I object to the dismissive and insulting claim of, "handfuls of lives" --- especially when not one of those tens of thousands of Americans lives destroyed by this war need have suffered such loss Second, peddling fear about what might happen to Iraq in a pull-out is hypothetical nonsense - the truth is, there is nothing worse for Iraqis than what is happening right now - it can only get better Okays Woody, lets try this again.... Hypothetical nonsense. Hypothetical nonsense is assuming that when the US pulls out "it will only get better"....hypothetical nonsense is thinking that the iraq on iraq violence will somehow lessen, when the only thing holding it back and preventing all out civil war is the US strengthening the Iraqi army. The handfuls of lives is a comparison to the dumpster full of Iraqi that are killed by iraqi every month. 3000 Americans have been killed in 3 years compared to 3000 plus iraqis civilians in July. As I said, the prevarication will be evenly sided Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
M.Dancer Posted January 10, 2007 Report Posted January 10, 2007 a)I think it is naive to assume that the US can do anything to stop a genocidal war.b)If a genocide occurs then the only people to blame are the people who had a chance to rebuild their country with US help but chose not to. c)I find it ironic that the typical surge supporter talks eloquently about the need to protect the Iraqi people from themselves yet would not hesitate to cut welfare benefits to their fellow citizens because 'welfare bums should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps' a)Is a genocidal war taking place now? No. The US presence is preventing it I would say if there is genocide or civil war, there is plenty of blame. The US for precipating the war. The Ba'athists for continuing the war depite all hope being lost for the dictatorship, Iran for arming and training the shi'ite militias. SA for funing the sunni..... c)What? Is this apro pos to someother thread or is it just a typical drive by shooting? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Riverwind Posted January 10, 2007 Report Posted January 10, 2007 Is a genocidal war taking place now? No. The US presence is preventing itThe US troops don't leave Bagdad. Most of the country is not under their control. Even in Bagdad they keep the peace only because the giving the Sunnis and the Shia something to attack other than each other.I would say if there is genocide or civil war, there is plenty of blame. The US for precipating the war. The Ba'athists for continuing the war depite all hope being lost for the dictatorship, Iran for arming and training the shi'ite militias. SA for funing the sunni.....Iraq does not have a society capable of supporting a democracy at this time. One way or another it will end up as one or more dictatorships. US troops are simply postponing the inevitable. Look at what happened in Russia - much less chaos but the same kinds of problems with a society that has no cultural commitment to democracy. c)What? Is this apro pos to someother thread or is it just a typical drive by shooting?A drive by shooting. Nothing more to see hear folks, move along... Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
M.Dancer Posted January 10, 2007 Report Posted January 10, 2007 Is a genocidal war taking place now? No. The US presence is preventing itThe US troops don't leave Bagdad. Most of the country is not under their control. Even in Bagdad they keep the peace only because the giving the Sunnis and the Shia something to attack other than each other. That's not quite or even remotely true. They are of course in Baghada and Baghada province as well as in Anbar. here..take a peak at this map. Some parts of Iraq are relatively peaceful, maily because there are relatively free of ethinic strife. http://icasualties.org/oif/Province.aspx Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Black Dog Posted January 10, 2007 Report Posted January 10, 2007 here..take a peak at this map. Some parts of Iraq are relatively peaceful, maily because there are relatively free of ethinic strife. That's because they are relatively free of different ethnicities. The Kurds in the north and Shiites in teh south don't really have anyone else to beat up. Anyway, speaking to the escalation plan: what is it, exactly, that these extra troops are going to do that 180,000 others couldn't do before? Quote
Riverwind Posted January 10, 2007 Report Posted January 10, 2007 That's not quite or even remotely true. They are of course in Baghada and Baghada province as well as in Anbar.I am not sure what taking causualities has to do with 'having control'. Civil order in most places is maintained by Iraqi militia groups that don't report to Bagdad. Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
M.Dancer Posted January 10, 2007 Report Posted January 10, 2007 Anyway, speaking to the escalation plan: what is it, exactly, that these extra troops are going to do that 180,000 others couldn't do before? Fuskered if I know. 20K is a drop in the bucket to what would be needed. What's the current troop level? 140K? perhaps 280,000 or more likey the 400K that was originally askled for. What is needed quite frankly is a iron fist that imposes pax romana on the tribes whereby a period of enforced peace can allow tempers to cool enough so that they can start talking. What is needed is a force that can hunt down the bombers who's sole purpose is to ferment discord by terrorist acts designed to cause the most outrage. I don't think 20,000 or 160,000 is enough. I tink the long term plan is to cut and run from their mistakes and let iraqis pay the price and if iraq turns into a shia controled theocracy....too bad. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Riverwind Posted January 10, 2007 Report Posted January 10, 2007 I don't think 20,000 or 160,000 is enough. I tink the long term plan is to cut and run from their mistakes and let iraqis pay the price and if iraq turns into a shia controled theocracy....too bad.Why would a shia theocracy be any worse than a sunni thugocracy? Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
Black Dog Posted January 10, 2007 Report Posted January 10, 2007 Fuskered if I know. 20K is a drop in the bucket to what would be needed. What's the current troop level? 140K? perhaps 280,000 or more likey the 400K that was originally askled for. I think that the size of the force is, at thi spoint, irrelevant. Humpty Dumpty is off the wall. What is needed quite frankly is a iron fist that imposes pax romana on the tribes whereby a period of enforced peace can allow tempers to cool enough so that they can start talking. What would that entail? it practice, it would most certainly involve a fair amount of indiscriminate slaughter: something that's hardly conducive to the broader goals of the "War on Terror" in which Iraq, we're told, is the central battlefront. What is needed is a force that can hunt down the bombers who's sole purpose is to ferment discord by terrorist acts designed to cause the most outrage. Nevermind the bombers: how about the death squads? You know, the one's who wear police and Army uniforms and use American-issued weapons? I think the idea that more troops is better is v. simplistic (hence its appeal). More troops on the ground cannot, at this point, fix the central problem in Iraq which is that civil society, at its most basic level, broke down after the fall of Saddam. Under Saddam, bad as he was, there was at least a sense that Iraqis were Iraqis first. The relative stability and prosperity of the Baath era (particularily pre Gulf War) had as much to do with promoting that as Saddam's iron fist. But once the water stopped flowing and the power went out-in other words, once the basic systems that enable survival, and thus social cohesion, fell apart-Iraqis turned to tribal and ethnic identities out of a sense of self-preservation. Which creates a bit of a feedback loop. If the state cannot priotect its citizens or provide them with the basic neccesities of life, the people will find someone who they think can, such as the sectarian militias. That strengthens the militias and enables them to continue to kill and create more instability. More troops can me mor eintensive operations against militias and insurgent cellls, but if they can't make the water run, then their prescence is for nowt. RW Why would a shia theocracy be any worse than a sunni thugocracy? Given the choice, I'd rather have Saddam than the Taliban. Quote
Riverwind Posted January 10, 2007 Report Posted January 10, 2007 Why would a shia theocracy be any worse than a sunni thugocracy?Given the choice, I'd rather have Saddam than the Taliban. I was thinking from the perspective of the average Iraqi - not a western perspective. Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
JerrySeinfeld Posted January 11, 2007 Report Posted January 11, 2007 ... Isn't GW Bush Commander in Chief of the United States? No, he is not. He IS Commander in Chief of the armed forces but has no authority to declare war or make treaties. Moreover, he is bound by law and constitution against a number of actions and activities he has already taken/engaged in. America was led to the Conquest of Iraq by way of a very large fraud, perpetrated by the Bush admin. Beyond that, was there a point to your question? I think you're off on that. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 11, 2007 Report Posted January 11, 2007 No, he is not. He IS Commander in Chief of the armed forces but has no authority to declare war or make treaties. Moreover, he is bound by law and constitution against a number of actions and activities he has already taken/engaged in. America was led to the Conquest of Iraq by way of a very large fraud, perpetrated by the Bush admin. No, the "Conquest of Iraq" was the continuation of UK/US foreign policy for Iraq going back to 1991: 1) Gulf War 2) No-fly zones 3) UN sanctions 4) Iraq Liberation Act (US Congress - October 1998) 5) Operation Desert Fox - December 1998 (Military attacks for "WMD" inspection violations / kill Saddam) ...all before President Bush was ever elected. 1 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Guthrie Posted January 11, 2007 Author Report Posted January 11, 2007 Jerry - re: I think you're off on that. I stand ready to take a lesson but I believe I am right. bush_cheney2004 - re: 1) Gulf War2) No-fly zones 3) UN sanctions 4) Iraq Liberation Act (US Congress - October 1998) 5) Operation Desert Fox - December 1998 (Military attacks for "WMD" inspection violations / kill Saddam) #1 - Gulf War??? if this is a continuation of that, why didn't Schwartzkopf stay and finish --- back when there might have actually been flowers and cheers -- additionally - here I have no proof, but the rumors I heard come from two separate sources and suggest members of one or two US special forces teams had Saddam Hussein in sights, clear shot -- if true, why were the orders, 'stand down.' #2 - no fly zone - sorry, to me, this one is a denial of war - if this works, there's not much chance of Saddam sending off a squadron of radio controlled crop dusters unnoticed, eh? so, at least, that threat was neutralized --- #3 - UN sanctions ??? if a continuation, why did the US renege on a promise to seek a UN vote to support an invasion. If the, 'Conquest of Iraq,' was to demonstrate loyalty to the UN, why did he turn his back and prevent the US delegation from proposing that vote which, 'looked like,' was going against Bush. #4 - even the Mormon Sen Smith from Oregon says he was misled about this military action from the beginning, he has not got it in his heart to believe the administration about this war nor can he support his votes previously in it's favor #5 - ????? whos' feverished brain pooped this out? Quote “Most middle-class whites have no idea what it feels like to be subjected to police who are routinely suspicious, rude, belligerent, and brutal” - Benjamin Spock MD
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 11, 2007 Report Posted January 11, 2007 #1 - Gulf War??? if this is a continuation of that, why didn't Schwartzkopf stay and finish --- back when there might have actually been flowers and cheers -- additionally - here I have no proof, but the rumors I heard come from two separate sources and suggest members of one or two US special forces teams had Saddam Hussein in sights, clear shot -- if true, why were the orders, 'stand down.' #2 - no fly zone - sorry, to me, this one is a denial of war - if this works, there's not much chance of Saddam sending off a squadron of radio controlled crop dusters unnoticed, eh? so, at least, that threat was neutralized --- #3 - UN sanctions ??? if a continuation, why did the US renege on a promise to seek a UN vote to support an invasion. If the, 'Conquest of Iraq,' was to demonstrate loyalty to the UN, why did he turn his back and prevent the US delegation from proposing that vote which, 'looked like,' was going against Bush. #4 - even the Mormon Sen Smith from Oregon says he was misled about this military action from the beginning, he has not got it in his heart to believe the administration about this war nor can he support his votes previously in it's favor #5 - ????? whos' feverished brain pooped this out? Parsing the obvious continuity of military action and purpose in Iraq will not make the policy go away. President Clinton's WMD speech before launching Desert Fox in December 1998 reads much like President Bush: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/199...ts/clinton.html The US Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act prior to Desert Fox, prior to Bush's election, and prior to 9/11: The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) [1] (codified in a note to 22 USCS § 2151) is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act The "regime" has certainly been changed. 1 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Guthrie Posted January 11, 2007 Author Report Posted January 11, 2007 so, mission accomplished? - then let's bring our boys home and have a national day of celebration. Quote “Most middle-class whites have no idea what it feels like to be subjected to police who are routinely suspicious, rude, belligerent, and brutal” - Benjamin Spock MD
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 11, 2007 Report Posted January 11, 2007 so, mission accomplished? - then let's bring our boys home and have a national day of celebration. But we don't "bring our boys home"...not from Germany, not from Japan, not from Korea, and not from the Gulf. Every day is a day of national celebration. Freedom ain't free. 1 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
M.Dancer Posted January 11, 2007 Report Posted January 11, 2007 Given the choice, I'd rather have Saddam than the Taliban. Same here. While I think democracy is a great thing, pretending that the establisment of democracy there as a fall back from the WMD raison d'etre was wrong. There was too much totalitarian baggage to think everyone would accept a democratic solution. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.