Bush on iraq...(here we go again.)

badbob,
the IRA was one of the organizations I'm referring to and you're correct, but it wasn't the negotiations themselves that stopped them. It was lack of support for their cause.
I would add about a half-dozen other European terrorist organizations to that list, and the single largest terrorist organization of all time: The KKK.
 
I see your point, slash, but how do we separate terrorists from their support base without "stirring the pot", so to speak?

badbob
 
I'm not sure how you do it, but blowing up their house only to have it be rebuilt by Hezbollah probably isn't the way....

--Shannon
 
Well, that's the trick, isn't it? Not only do we have to seriously engage the hearts-and-minds battle, we also have to back it up with our actions. We have to prove to the Iraqi people that we are less extreme than the other guy, have their best interest at heart, and respect their religion, sovereignty, and personal rights. We have said that from time to time, but our policies haven't borne this out.

I know this answer sounds vague, but that's because it's such a sweeping change in outlook and execution that I couldn't possibly point out all the individual changes necessary.

I can give some examples tho'...
The secret prison network has got to go. American forces don't need to be in the cities unless specifically and publicly requested, and then it's strictly for the duration. The only time an Iraqi should see an American is when the American is building infrastructure. When Al-Jaafari asks us to do something, we do it. House-to-house raids must never have Americans in a direct role.

The average Iraqi is just like any of us; they want to live in peace and prosperity. The main reason we've been failing up to this point is because our words and deeds have been forcing them to choose sides, inverting the bell curve.
The #1 rule of fighting an insurgency is that the victor is determined by the people, not by the combatants.
 
The #1 rule of fighting an insurgency is that the victor is determined by the people, not by the combatants.
Click to expand...

Wow, good line. Be nice if anyone in OUR army knew of that tidbit...

As for building infrastructure, does a couple of mega-bases constitute as infrastructure? If so, the iraqis should be thrilled. Why, it's almost as if the powers that be don't plan on going anywhere for a while, all while denying not going anywhere to high heaven. (but then again, look at japan, don't we still have a base or 3 over there somewhere? I had a buddy who was stationed in korea not too long ago as well. His only advice was to stay away from the women over there...I hate to imagine why.)
 
*sighs* oh gawd@"terrorism" :rolleyes:

McCarthyism is alive and well in the 21st Century, just with a different catch-term (everyone's a terrorist nowadays)

chew on this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGtOFudmHG8

it's easy to pass this guy off as a ranting conspiracy theorist...just as easy as it is to pass off opponents as apologetic coincidence theorists. question is , which side has a better idea of what's really going on, and which side is in denial...
 
GoSlash27 impressive...

Very well said, and you're right. It is important for troops to be tough in battle, but when it's something as fragile as people's trust, it must be earned, it can't be done when the invading force goes from house to house conducting raids and rebuilds a country in an imperialistic fashion. If we really were there to help Iraq stablize we should've let the Iraqi people rebuild their own infrastructure and government without giving American contractors any privilages of going there, simply because they are overbearing competition against Iraqi businessmen who are trying to carve out a living. The Iraqi people should've been given the choice of what economy and government they want without having it forced on them.


Epyon
 
Thanks for the kudos guys, but (there's always a but) it's not gonna happen.
Neither party is going to do what it takes to win this war because our own domestic politics are interfering too much. If the Dems manage to gain a majority they're going to cut and run. That's what their supporters want.
If the Republicans maintain control they're going to muddle along just as they are now.
So although I believe it is entirely possible to win this war (simple, even)....I don't think we're going to. Just as the center isn't holding over there, it isn't holding here.
The proper course of action as I see it is a fine compromise solution between the two parties....but compromise is simply not possible in this political climate.
 
Very well said GoSlash27...

The proper course of action as I see it is a fine compromise solution between the two parties....but compromise is simply not possible in this political climate.
Click to expand...

Everyone likes heroes to be uncompromising and brave. Problem is, that doesn't entirely work with politics, to many Americans, compromise is a sign of cowardice. That's why the Dems and Repubs have been at it getting nothing done. Neither wants to find a middle ground, each is always pushing for their agenda. Having a two party ruled nation is not good, nothing really gets balanced especially for the fact that the two will always team up to fight off the other third parties.


Epyon
 
There is something very sinister to my mind in this Mesopotamian entanglement. Week after week, month after month for a longtime we shall have a continuance of this miserable, wasteful, sporadic warfare - Winston Churchill, 1920
Click to expand...
Quote:
The #1 rule of fighting an insurgency is that the victor is determined by the people, not by the combatants.

Wow, good line. Be nice if anyone in OUR army knew of that tidbit...
Click to expand...
It's not the military, its the Chicken Hawk neocons who knew "better" than the military on how to run a war. In Feb. 2003 Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shineski told Congress that we would need several hundred thousand troops to put an end to the violence. In August that year Rummy replaced him. Even Gen. Franks wanted to go in w/ more troops than Field Marshall Rummy gave him. This war is now as politicized as Vietnam.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. - Geo. Santayana, 1905
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
"So although I believe it is entirely possible to win this war (simple, even)...."

When you guys finish patting yourselves on the back maybe we can get back to the reality of the situation.

Comments like "Didn't we just thoroughly bust this "rationale" (if you can even call it that) a few comments upstream?" are particularly silly and insulting. You did no such thing, except maybe in your own mind.

Meanwhile, the fight continues here, there and around the world.

John
 
Hmmm...

Unjustified wars... this really is a stupid situation. Why exactly is it that a number of generals retired recently? Because Bush's cabinet it totally running the show, hey let's forget about democracy and give Chancellor Bush unlimited power.:barf: :barf: :barf: While we're at it let's lock up every "heathen" that doesn't fear the Lord and force them into gas chambers too. According to Bush, "God told me to go to Iraq" now let's ask the terrorist why he bombed that bus, "Allah told me to blow up those infidels" sounds like the rants of a nutcase to me, considering that they both worship the same "kind and loving" god. A religiously run government makes us no better than the Taliban, too bad that many politicians want to win the religious majority's vote so badly and therefore do what they can to satisfy them, in the long run it's going to just totally destroy the diversity and melting pot that makes America great. To me terrorism has two faces, one is domestic systematic terror run by corrupt governments who openly violate human rights policy when it comes to making war, and pass legislation that openly violates our Constitution, and two consists of foreign nutcases who blow up buildings because our corrupt government always needs a new enemy every few years to keep the People in fear. Conpiracy theory? Maybe, but it's kind of hard to ignore such a correlation. I'm not asking anyone to believe me, it's just a thought I had that I wanted to address. It just seems that 2008 will be a huge mystery until the smoke clears. More recounts? More votes being thrown out?


Epyon
 
"Chancellor Bush "

More of your childishness is it? It's no wonder more and more members are ignoring you.

John
 
more like King Bush, since he completely ignored/violated a certain law enacted in 1978 that prohibits domestic wiretapping without a hearing before Congress. Bushco seems to think it's above the law.
Face it, the guy's as crooked as Nixon was.
 
So ignore him. I may not agree with him 100% but if you find him, his opinions, and his way of expressing them but if I did, guess what i'd do...

I feel like we live in a country where a lot of people don't WANT to hear any other side to things (not to designate Epyon as the official espouser of the 'other side'), that if hypothetically confronted with irrefutable proof that our engagements in the middle east (or even vietnam for this matter) were started on bad grounds and ultimately for poor intentions, they simply wouldn't want to hear it and couldn't be convinced if they did. It feels like people find it better to believe that we're the good guys living in a nation of ideals and hope than to think we've been taken over by tyrants intent on taking us all for a ride.

If ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise.

As for epyon, build a bridge & get over it. If calling bush "chauncelor" is what you've found most offensive about his posts so far...well dang. Might as well move to texas...
 
"Might as well move to texas..."

hah...I resent that. Not all of us are narrow-minded and oblivious. some of us actually think for ourselves.
 
I kiiiiid I kiiiiid. Of the several times I've been in texas, everyone is immensly proud of getting one of 'their folks' in the whitehouse and just about ever single radio station is downright crazy. "Call your representative folks to try and get rid of filibusters in congress!"

I thought it was just something in the water :D
 
hahaha, I hear ya Esquire.

what most folks don't realize (including here in TX) is that Bush isn't from Texas.
He's from Connecticut (as is his ol' man).

Alex Jones is one informed dude; only problem is, he also has a ranting tone. About 95% of what he reports is well documented and true...the other 5% is his rant-laced commentary.

90% of Austin (like NYC) voted for what they perceived to be the lesser of two evils in 2004...Kerry.


problem is, both Bush and Kerry hail from a certain secret society based out of Yale, which regularly appoints people to high places of power and business.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top