More troops

[robertbank]

Musketeer

"selling the very components for the WMD programs to Iraq."

First time I have heard this one. Given there weren't any WMD in Iraq, a fact even Bush now admits to, Where did you get this information from?

Maybe these countries were sure there wasn't any because they hadn't sold any material to Iraq.

Take Care

Bob

 

[OBIWAN]

"ABC is not mainstream media?"

Yes they are...which is why the correspondent was making up all kinds of wild excuses why the troops morale is still high

My point was...the troops believe what they actually see in Iraq

They are not forced to rely on some very biased reporting

"Bush has run up your national debt to unbelieveable levels"

From what I have seen the total military spending including Iraq is still a smaller percent of our national budget than it was in the Cold War

But keep watching ABC

 

[robertbank]

"From what I have seen the total military spending including Iraq is still a smaller percent of our national budget than it was in the Cold War"

Bush has more than doubled your National Debt in the time he has been in office, a third of which is owed to Red China, the country that has been financing your Iraq War. Remember his claim he was going to Balance his budget?

Hey we hit the wall back in the early 80's. It is going to take us about 150 years to pay back our debt at current rate of paydown and ours only stands at $500 odd Billion. First step is to balance the budget then you have to run surpluses. Ready for less Government services and more taxes?

"But keep watching ABC"

Who bothers with ABC? I want NEWS not tabloid editorials. I try to catch BBC and CBC at least with them I get news and know it has a left wing slant.

We put up with 10 years of Chretien and his GD Liberals up here and you got 8 years of Bush. Seems like both our countries got the short end of the stick one from the left and one from the right.

Take Care

Bob

 

[Doug.38PR]

Nope...but we can abandon them to be wiped out by the next faction to take over

There are a lot of good people over there that trusted us not to cut and run (this time) like last time

They deserve better!

There are a lot of good people over there that trusted us not to cut and run

I don't mean any disrespect you, but slogans like this that get thrown around by Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Limbaugh, Hannity are easy to say for armchair warriors who have never shouldered a rifle in their life must less seen combat. It's easy for them to move men around on a map like they are playing Risk or Axis & Allies and tell everyone how much good "we" (what do they mean, "we"?) are doing for the world.

Good people are suffering all over the world. Good people are suffering in China, good people are suffering in Mexico, good people are suffering in all of Africa and South America, good people are suffering in eastern Europe.

Policing the world is not our job. We can't keep men over there from now until the end of time. Why don't we send men to half of the third world countries in Africa? Why don't we send men to China? Why don't we send men to the rest of the Mid East? In many cases we have, we have troops spread out all over the world. Clinton sent troops to Somalia, Hati, Kosivo in the name of helping those people (and, like an armchair warrior in Washington told us how much good "we" are doing). Didn't do any good. Just made more people mad at us for getting in their corner and messing with their affairs. I also find it interesting that, so called, conservatives who 10 years ago were condemning President Clinton for taking above said actions are now praising Presideint Bush for doing the same things. (if a Democrat does it it's bad, but if a Republican does it it's okay?)

As far as Iraq goes, it is their problem, let them handle it however they can. We can't send our men to die to police other countries. None of this has anything to do with hunting down terrorists.

 

[threegun]

The biggest thing to come from the new surge is the change in tactics being authorized including the ability to kill an insurgent caught planting an IED without going through a 7 point check list. They are finally taking one of the gloves off our guys. Watch and see how we kick the snot out of them now.

I voted for the increase and whatever else our guys need to win this war. Failure in Iraq means fighting a never ending war on terror. Success in Iraq secures the beginning of the end of the war on terror. We cannot afford to lose.

 

[Alex_L]

I do not think it's useful to discuss now why US should or should not invade Iraq. It was done.
In the current situation there is no luxury to just run off. Iraq will split to three fighting countries. All moderate Arab regimes will fall like a card house. Things can go much worse then just cutting off oil supply.

 

[robertbank]

Alex_L

Well I doubt the rest of the middle east will collapse as you envision. Bush might well be forced to talk to Syria and Iran and that won't be all bad either.

Churchill wanted the Kurds to have their own country and it is becoming more likely that is going to happen. Turkey won't be happy about that but oh well. Things will settle out and as long as the folks in power want money than you can be sure they will be selling oil on the open market.

Personally if the end result of all of this is a lack of desire to unleash the dogs of war than maybe there will some good come out of it all yet.

Meanwhile back in Afghanistan where it all started....

Take Care

Bob

 

[Red Grant]

War is to kill the enemy and destroy property,

The purpose of War should be to attempt to optimize the perceived interest of a nation, that is perceived to be unable to be accomplished through diplomatic and/or commercial means.

The act of killing the enemy and destroying property [hopefully the antagonist's] is merely one of the means utilized to accomplish the purpose of the War.

We should have decimated Iraq....

So you think we didn't?

...took their oil, and left them off to kill each other.

How can we take their oil unless we stay there?

or

we create a reasonably pro-U.S. and stable regime in charge?

Not play Founding Father and rebuild that box of kitty litter...

Unless we play Founding Father (in a competent way, that is) and rebuild Iraq:


How are we going to get reasonably reliable and politically trouble-free (and hopefully not too expensive) oil out of Iraq without stretching our military?

and to prevent Al Qaida or some other Anti-U.S. nuts from taking power?

We should quit trying to police the world,... and tend to the problems in this hemisphere like that pelado in Venezuela...

So this hemisphere and Venezuela are not part of the world?

How do we attend to the problem in this hemisphere, and Venezuela without policing?

Opinions are like hineys, we all have one....

Not necessarily, some have no opinions, while some others have more than one.


....but, yes, like hineys, some are more malodorous than others.

 

[Red Grant]

There are a lot of good people over there that trusted us not to cut and run (this time) like last time.

Yes, I think (at least, I hope, want to believe) there are.

We can't force these people at the point of a gun to be a democracy.

In response:

Nope..but we can abandon them to be wiped out by the next faction to take power.

They deserve something better!

I am assuming that you meant, "We can't" or "We shouldn't", instead of "We can".


So what do they deserve? If not democracy?

I found it interesting when I heard a correspondent from (I believe)ABC that was reporting from Fort Bragg

He said that the troops are generally upbeat about our efforts and very supportive of the administration

Maybe because they have been there and do not rely on mainstream media for their reporting.

"ABC is not mainstream media?"

In response:

Yes, they're...which is why the correspondent was making up all kind of wild excuses why the troops morale is still high.

My point was...the troops believe what they actually see in Iraq.

They're not forced to rely on some very biased reporting.

Questions:


1. Do you believe reportings from mainstream media (including ABC) are very biased?



2. If so, then can you differentiate which portions of the reportings are very biased or not in an objective manner, not based on simple conjectures on your part?



3. If the answer to the question 1. is Yes, then are the reportings from the mainstream media the only sources of very biased information?



4. Did you rely on reporting from a mainstream media(namely ABC) to get the story you found interesting and to be the facts?


5. Are there sources from which one can gain not very biased information?

 

[Red Grant]

Success in Iraq secures the beginning of the end of war on terror.

How do you define "success" in Iraq?

I don't think it's useful to discuss now why U.S. should or should not invade Iraq.

I think you meant, "why U.S. should have or should not have invaded Iraq".

not

"why U.S. should invade or should not invade Iraq".


With that out of the way:



Do you think it's not useful to discuss why (and how if yes) U.S. should have or should not have invaded Iraq so that we learn something useful so that some of the mistakes that have been made, that could have been avoided don't have to be made again in the future conflict?

All moderate Arab regimes will fall like a cardhouse.

Any of them friends or allies of U.S. in the region?

 

[threegun]

originally posted by Red Grant
How do you define "success" in Iraq?

When they have a stable government and the violence ends. How would you define success?

 

[Red Grant]

How would you define success?

I would consider the mimimum standard for success as:


When they have at least a reasonably stable, and reasonably Pro-U.S. government (doesn't have to be a democracy) that doesn't get involved in the regional and/or world wide conflict that could drag U.S unnecessarily or contrary to U.S. interests, and without costing an amount of money that U.S. taxpayers as a collective group would find unacceptable and without strengthening the hands of regime(s) whose perceived major/vital interest(s) are contrary to U.S. interests more or less permanently.




Of course, assuming that there will be one Iraqi government.

When they have a stable government,.....

Does a stable Iraqi government necessarily imply a Pro-U.S. government?


Can a stable Iraqi government be allied with other regime(s) whose interests are hostile to U.S. more or less, strengthening their hands in the region?

........and the violence ends.

How would you define the end of violence?


Does the end of violence for a period of time, let's say a year or two qualify as the end of violence?


and if so, then what if the violence resumes after U.S. withdraws from the region, and they end up having the same problem?

 

[tube_ee]

I think we're screwed.

I simply don't see any outcome in Iraq that will be positive for US interests. There will not be a stable, multi-sectarian, pro-American government in Iraq, no matter what we do. And if that's the definition of "victory," then we've already lost.

The Iraqis will work out the shape of their country or countries with bombs and bullets or with ballots, with or without us. Staying there doesn't help that. It just adds another group to the target list, and it happens to be a group that I care a lot about, American GIs.

"If we leave, there will be chaos." There's chaos now, and it's getting worse. The level of violence has never tracked up or down with the American troop presence, because it's being driven by forces we do not control.

"Train the Iraqi army, then leave." Unfortunately, the Iraqi army and poilice forces we've been training are doing a lot of the killing. Think about the number of times you've heard of folks "dressed in Interior Ministry uniforms" doing nasty things to someone. The simplest answer is that they were dressed in Interior Ministry uniforms because they were Interior Ministry troops.

"Maliki needs to supress the militias." True, but he can't, and his government would fall as soon as he tried. The militias are the government. New elections won't solve the problem. The last time, the voting patterns were almost entirely sectarian. With group divides even stronger now, how in the heck can anyone think that it'd be better?

We've long past the point where any likely outcome will be worth the cost. If that's "defeatism," so be it. Wishing for an outcome doesn't make it happen. Will alone cannot create victory. There have been plenty of peoples who had the will to win, and lost anyway.

I don't want the US to lose in Iraq. I just think that we have.

--Shannon

 

[badbob]

Link to story: http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Bush_tells_60_Minutes_no_matter_0113.html

RAW STORY
Published: Saturday January 13, 2007
Print This Email This


In an interview set to air on this Sunday's 60 Minutes, President George W. Bush vows to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq "no matter what" the Democratic-controlled Congress tries to do.

"Do you believe as Commander in Chief you have the authority to put the troops in there no matter what the Congress wants to do," 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley asks Bush in the short clip uploaded to the CBS News web site Friday night.

"I think I've got, in this situation, I do, yeah," Bush said.

"Now I fully understand they will," Bush continued, "they could try to stop me from doing it, but, uh, I've made my decision and we're going forward."

In an address to the nation on Wednesday, Bush announced his new plan which calls for an increase in US troops to end ongoing violence in the country, which many believe is either at or approaching "civil war," with Iraqi civilian deaths tripling at the end of 2006, according to one report.

The plan, nicknamed "surge" by the administration but referred to as an "escalation" by most Democrats has drawn fire from both parties, and Congressional members have threatened to cut funding – though not for the troops that are already there.

"Rep. John Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat who oversees military funding, said he will propose tying congressional approval of war funds to shutting the Guantanamo Bay military prison in Cuba," the Associated Press reports. "Other conditions he said he is considering include not extending troop deployments and giving soldiers and Marines more time to train between deployments."

 

[Danzig]

The mark of a dictator....ignore the will and mandate of the people..and ignore the laws as he sees fit.

Don't blame me...I voted for Badnarik.

 

[dfaugh]

Well, we tried this once before...in a little place called "Vietnam"...Didn't work then either...

 

[OBIWAN]

"Bush has more than doubled your National Debt in the time he has been in office"

But what is that percentage of the GDP?

Numbers like that...as well as talking baout the Iraq war get people riled up but they are not presented in any realistic context

It is simple math...making $50,000 a year and being ...say....$100,000 in debt is much worse than making $300,000 a year and being $200,000 in debt

Most of our tax dollars still go to SS, Medicare and a host of other entitlement programs that President Bush didn't create

 

[robertbank]

"Most of our tax dollars still go to SS, Medicare and a host of other entitlement programs that President Bush didn't create"

Yes and there is the rub. In order to balance the budget and start repaying what eventually has to be repaid the cuts come from areas that hurt the middle class the most. Happened here, hapened in New Zealand and it will happen in the US. As I recall, Pres. Bush ran in the first term with promises to balance the budget within three years. Didn't happen, yet it must, before any kind of repayment can start. If you don't get medical, education and social welfare entitlements to use the American phrase you might as well stay home because the budget can't be brought to balance without cuts in those three areas; that and higher taxes. The four kind of go hand in hand. Good luck because it is painful and not popular.

Alternatively you can watch the dollar continue to slide.

Take Care


Bob

 

[Kowboy]

"if you dont like how things are done. move to canada."

I don't like how things are done and unfortunately for you, I'm not moving to Canada, I'm going to excercise my Constitutional rights to free speech to disagree with your juvenile attitude. I, along with the majority, used our right to vote to boot the idiot "stay-the-coursers" out of office last November.

No, moving to Canada would be too easy. I've got an obligation to save my country from the likes of you and your idiot pal, George Bush.

Kowboy

 

[Benonymous]

What enemy?

It's interesting that when the US invaded Iraq, they supposedly went in as liberators and defenders of democracy and freedom. Now the Iraqi people are "the enemy". I don't believe for a second that every sniper and IED maker comes form another country as a "terrorist" or "insurgent". The spin and truth modification that has gone on during this apocalypse is truly staggering. First we had to "topple" Saddam Hussein, who was once a heavily subsidised ally of the USA. He had to go because of the WMD threat. But the weapons inspectors had already determined that there were no WMD's, before the invasion. Then we have "Shock and Awe". What a load of hyped up Hollywood crapola! The remaining few of the Iraqi ruling junta promised a war but not a face to face confrontation. That's what they gave us. Street to street, house to house, and the 15,000 fighters have a BIG stake in the outcome as opposed to a 23 year old from Nebraska. The death and injury toll on both sides has been horrifying and the whole place has been bombed into the stoneage. What a fantastic outcome! All based on non-stop bu[[$hit fom the Republican administration. The people we "liberated" are now the enemy and there's no way to achieve anything other than a withdrawal. You've done a helluva job Bushie!