Political Threads

[Timebuilder]

You also say Bush waited too long.........You would have preferred a surprise attack on Iraq?

If you are thinking that I mean a "surprise attack", a la Pearl Harbor, I'm not even sure that's possible with current technology.

What I meant was we took far too long to seek "cooperation" from other nations. They may have been content to see all of those resolutions go by unenforced becuase their natkions are not seem by radical Islam as "the great satan". Clearly, WE are the major nation that was in their site where WMD was concerned, along with nations who are our trade partners in that region like Suadi Arabia and Kuwait.

We already had a cessation of hostilities based on promises made by Sadaam, promises that were violated over MANY years. We didn't need ANYONE'S permission to resume thos hostilities if the provisions of the peace were being viloated, particularly so flagrantly.

1.It has not been "proven" that 9/11 and Sadaam were connected.
2.It was also never "proven" Sadaam posed an imminent threat to us.

Neither of these thing had to be "proven" to resume hostilities quickly to ensure compliance with the terms of the agreement.

Show us and the world you were right all along Mr. Bush?

It was the lack of proof, by the agreed to mechanism of enforcement, that made the action necessary. We don't have to prove that something existed at all. We had to assure ourselves, and the world, that the treaty provisions were being followed, and, with the history of behavior established by the regime we could not assure ourselves of compliance without going in.

Justify the lives that were lost. The $$ being spent.

The most evil man since Idi Amin is out of power and on the run. An entire nation is moving toward freedom, what may be the first nation in a region ruled by dictators. I could go on and on, but the value is VERY clear to me.

Show the 7% unemployed in this country they lost their job for a reason!

Passisonate, but not accurate. We lost jobs due to an economic recession compounded by fears from 9-11. Not the war.

He and his administration seem to think they can just go out, attack anyone they want, and not have to be accountable for it.

That's wonderful rhetoric, but it is not true. Otherwise we no doubt would have attacked France. Seriously, see my explanation above.

More later. Busy day.

 

[mar]

Are we whipping that horse again?

I ain't gonna re-hash the whole Iraq thing.

The so-called Bush Doctrine of Pre-emptive War completely undermines everything NATO sought to bring to modern politics: Stability and Consensus.

First of all, Greyhound, you give Bush too much credit. That man just stands up and speaks (oh so well). The real movers and shakers of this government are the one who actually wrote the Bush Doctrine waaayyyy back in 1990. This egg has been over-incubated and look at the freak it hatched.

At any rate, Timebuilder, you as well give Saddam too much credit: "The most evil man since Idi Amin..."

Please.

Saddam was (I believe he's dead with Osama and the govt knows it but won't admit either because then it would be "mission accomplished", time to go home.) nothing more than two-bit thug.

Comparing him to Hitler was just another stretch to help rally the allies, a la WWII. Talk about an insult to those who truly fight the good fight.

Saddam was a sociopath, no doubt about it, but in terms of sheer evil how about Pinochet? Col Pol Pot? Milosovic?

Those three alone were responsible for millions! of deaths and disappearances.

I will never understand the *blind* defense of what I consider to be the *most* unconstitutional act probably in the history of this nation.

This administration answers to no one; is rogue; deserves to be thrown out for abuse of power.

 

[Swass]

You are incredible

 

[Timebuilder]

Saddam was a sociopath, no doubt about it, but in terms of sheer evil how about Pinochet? Col Pol Pot? Milosovic?

How about them? I think all three could have been dealt with sooner and better.

Now, we are dealing with Sadaam and his supporters. We can muse over whether or not Sadaam or Osama are dead, but terrorism doesn't start or stop with them, per se. It is a continuing battle. All that 9-11 did was finally wake up the American people to the nature of terrorism, and showed us that it doesn't just happen on the west bank. It can, and has, happened right here.

Where was I? Ah.

Were are supposed to be a country of tolerance and respect for others.

I have to call this a red herring. To what are you referring? Is the fulfillment of the requirement of the peace agreement of the Gulf War not in alignment with American values? In other words, if you are taken to court, ordered to pay a judgement, and you fail to do so, can you not expect the judicial system to act to bring all legal remedies to bear on you for your failure to pay?

This is precisely what has hapened in Iraq. They violated the cease fire agreement, and made it impossible to accurately determine the true nature of their previously verified WMD program. UN sanctions did not bring compliance. WE had to make certain, as the party who had been intimately involved in the Gulf War, that total compliance was made a reality.

Anti- American sentimism is rising because we have a president that basically told the world the U.S can do whatever it pleases without having to justify it beforehand.

I challenge this characterization of our actions. We spent several YEARS trying it "the UN way". Rather than send a message to the world that we can "do whatever (we) please", the message should be read as this: if you make an agreement as an element of a peace treaty, then you must honor it, or we will make cetain that you do so. If you harbor terrorists, as there is ample evidence that Iraq has done, you are at risk for our dedicated anti-terrorist actions.

American sovereignty will always trump UN authority. When that ceases to be true, there will no longer be a United States of America. We will join the cadre of second tier nations, embrace socialism and anti-capitalist doctrine, and become another formerly great nation.

Last time I checked, violence only produced more violence.

Check WWII. We ended that violence by superior force and dedication. If we inspire others to violence, we must also inspire ourselves to be victorious over this evil. Plain and simple, if we are in the right, and I think the evidence is ample that we are, then we must strive to overcome our adversaries.

Singing "Kum bay ya" isn't going to produce the desired result. These radical Muslims have dedicated themselves to our destruction. They are not interested in peace, so we must give them more of what they ARE interested in than they can give to us.

You think the Guy who lost his house and entire family because of a bombing raid in Iraq isn't going to want revenge?

I hope so. When he signs up for that 101 class, we will have a GPS guided bomb for him, hopefully with the name of one of the 9-11 victims writen right on the front end. Special delivery.

I'm not saying we should have baked Sadaam a cake or passed out friedship bracelets, but Bush should have waited for U.n approval. He took matters into his own hands.

When did being a member of the UN, a founding member, no less, become a situation of being beholden to the UN for "permission" to carry out US foreign policy? Did that pass congress, or did I just miss that? No, we don't have to wait for approval from anyone. We haven't given up all rights yet, not when I last looked.

And he didn't "take matters into his own hands". Congress approved the use of force.

Part of the world actually sided with Sadaam.

That's a good thing. Now we know where that part stands, and we can watch them a little closer. Just think about what "siding with Sadaam" might mean, then tell me that doesn't sound just a little bit cockeyed.

We are still the good guys, or have you not noticed that?

The demise of a great nation!

We will see our demise when we give up or sovereignty, refuse to fight terror, and pander to the second rate nations that have never been our equal.

Truthfully: you sound as though you are not a supporter of this country. You don't see the reason for keeping our own council for our national interests, you prefer that the UN make our security decisions, and you fail to see the rationale for our actions.

I have to tell you, that makes my jaw drop a little, that you can not see the value in what we are doing.

The government should be concerned about protecting us from the real threats this country has.

Let me get this straight. Because you aren't receiving a daily briefing, you are sure that chasing illegals with mops at Wal Mart is all that our government is doing to protect us?

Are you really saying that????

We are now armed with deficits, unemployment, world instability and I just can't imagine what another four more years of this will bring.

I am tempted to explain our economic condition to you, but I am certain by now that you are filtering your information so that an additional explanation may do no good to further this discussion.

I will tell you that terrorists no longer plan and act with the same impunity that they once did. The economy is impoving despite the gloom and doom crowd. And I am very thankful that we have a president who is willing to make the difficult choices, and rise to the occaision when history calls.

Thank you for giving me the oportunity to address your concerns.

We are in good hands.

 

[flywithastick]

Re: Are we whipping that horse again?

The so-called Bush Doctrine of Pre-emptive War completely undermines everything NATO sought to bring to modern politics: Stability and Consensus.

NATO and it's policies became obsolete with the fall of the USSR.

Saddam was (I believe he's dead with Osama and the govt knows it but won't admit either because then it would be "mission accomplished", time to go home.)

I'm pretty sure Osama is under many tons of rocks in Eastern Afghanistan. SH - who knows. may well be dead too. But keeping this a secret would be good strategy. If we find them, the emphasis or motivation to do what needs to be done with the Religeon of Peace would evaporate, in typical shortsighted American style.

Saddam was a sociopath, no doubt about it, but in terms of sheer evil how about Pinochet? Col Pol Pot? Milosovic?

Pol Pot is the only one worthy of mention. The others aren't in the same league. BTW - what's with the left's facination with Pinochet? Listen to Natl Publik Radio or Pacifika ad that's all you hear...

Those three alone were responsible for millions! of deaths and disappearances.

Yea - Pol Pot 995,000. The others - the balance. How about Africa? Way more killed there than anything close to Pinochet - several orders of magnitude more. An Milosovic wasn't a psychopath killer - he just wanted his country back.

I will never understand the *blind* defense of what I consider to be the *most* unconstitutional act probably in the history of this nation.

Oh come on, Mar. You're loosing credibility fast with this. Clinton and his selling off nuclear secrets to the chi-coms should have had him brought up on treason charges. Bush's policies and actions, at worst, are still initiatives intended to preserve the country and our way of life.

This administration answers to no one; is rogue; deserves to be thrown out for abuse of power.

well, lets see if the rest of the population agree next fall.

 

[mar]

The Left's fascination with Pinochet?

That's pretty easy to answer. Salvador Allende was an *elected* socialist.

That displeased the U.S.

The U.S. backed a coup d'etat lead by Pinochet who subsequently suspended the Chilean constitution.

That's all fact.

What Leftist wouldn't be outraged.

So the Soviets are gone and NATO is obsolete. Does that mean the CIA is obsolete as well or haven't we found a use for that organization?

What is so obsolete about the tenet: An attack on one shall be considered an attack on all?

Partnership was designed into that organization.

Pre-emptive War on the other hand has made the bold face statement: You with us or against us. We're going in with or without you.....

...and oh by the way can you help us pick up the pieces.

Talk about a loss of credibility. (Thanks for implying I still have some).

One last thing: This war *is* unconstitutional. Just because the congress decided to keep the Constitution in a glass case instead of dusting it off and actually reading what it says, doesn't mean that this President or any member of Congress is working within the established parameters of exactly *WHO* gets to declare war.

Only Congress! As our elected representatives.

But they balked!

I'll say it one more time. The administration has wiped it's feet on everything it means to be American and this cowardly Congress has done nothing more than turn a blind eye.

I'm out.

 

[Timebuilder]

You with us or against us. We're going in with or without you.....

I thought that bold statement was made before we went in, and in a speech.

And our invitation is to help rebuild Iraq into a functional democracy. "Picking up the pieces" is a characterization that suggests we "broke" Iraq.

Iraq was "broken" before we went in.

So, how about those Trilateralists?

 

[greyhound]

Last post from me...I promise

Alright everyone, we know we aren't going to change anyone's mind by now don't we?
Not that we were really trying.
But I'll just finish by saying that "I hope in 2004, the voters will remember what these last few years have been like and they will vote for what they think is best for our great country."

Have a good night everyone!

 

[Timebuilder]

I have to agree with that, Greyhound.

The past four years have been some of the most challenging in our history. Instead of turning tail and running, we have met those challenges head-on. Thanks to our efforts, we have an ecomony that refuses to play dead, even in the face of terrorism and globalization. We have taken a proactive role in our defense thanks to a horrible and graphic example of what our enemies intend for us. We have seen things that have convinced many that evil does exist, and that we must struggle against it to maintain our freedom. We have seen that our country and our leaders are up to the challenges, and that we will survive.

God bless America.

 

[bart]

I am all for the United States becoming the most unpredictable country in the world. I believe that we should invade France just to make Europe think. Become so unpredictable that all the world will want to do is appease us the way cowards here want to do with the rest of the world.

Some other ideas:

Turn our Navy loose for 6 month tours as pirates letting them keep all the foreign flag booty they can capture.

Roll into every Middle East capital and have agents provacateur completely subvert the religion of Islam (by having so-called clerics issue fatwahs calling for mass self immolations and providing free gasoline and matches).

Make Mike Tyson our UN diplomat and have him start fistfights with diplomats in the halls of the UN. How much fun would it be to watch him scamble over the desks to get at the French Delegation? and bite off the ear of some third world despots henchman?

It may not ever happen, but it is fun to think about once in awhile.

 

[Freight Dog]

I am all for the United States becoming the most unpredictable country in the world. I believe that we should invade France just to make Europe think. Become so unpredictable that all the world will want to do is appease us the way cowards here want to do with the rest of the world.

Some other ideas:

Turn our Navy loose for 6 month tours as pirates letting them keep all the foreign flag booty they can capture.

Roll into every Middle East capital and have agents provacateur completely subvert the religion of Islam (by having so-called clerics issue fatwahs calling for mass self immolations and providing free gasoline and matches).

Make Mike Tyson our UN diplomat and have him start fistfights with diplomats in the halls of the UN. How much fun would it be to watch him scamble over the desks to get at the French Delegation? and bite off the ear of some third world despots henchman?

It may not ever happen, but it is fun to think about once in awhile.

ROFLMAO!!!!!

But let's face reality. This Republican will not vote for Bush next year. No way in hell.

Let's take a look at some facts here:

The first Gulf War was fought after the U.N. Security Council gave authorization to use military force to kick Iraq out of Kuwait. The war ended when Iraq signed U.N.-drafted document with conditions stipulated therein.

We were attacked on 9/11/01 by Muslim fundamentalists. The world sided with us. Everyone backed us going into Afghanistan to root out Al-Qaeda and Taliban. I was all up for it.

North Korea has been talking smack since before Operation Iraqi Freedom and they've come out and openly threatened us with nukes. We conveniently chose to ignore them for the most part and told their neighbors, you deal with this idiot. Nevermind that he openly threatened us with WMD.

Instead, our President has his guns aimed at Iraq. He's claiming how Iraq has WMD's, how Iraq is the next breeding ground for terrorists. Initially, I supported the effort because I truly believed that Saddam had WMD's, but I still thought North Korea was, and still is a much bigger threat than Iraq ever was. However, my biggest fear was exactly what happened - no WMD's, people were initially glad that Saddam is gone, but now they want us out, and our troops are there with no exit strategy. I worried that Saddam could accomplish what Al-Qaeda failed - mass discredit of the U.S. worldwide by indeed having destroyed his WMD's fully knowing Bush wouldn't buy it and would invade anyway.

Here we are today: We're bogged down in Iraq fighting a "hearts and minds" war (Vietnam ring a bell?), no WMD's found, the entire world's support eroded in one year, the entire world now telling us to f**k off, despite Bush's claims that this was not aimed at Muslims - how do you prove otherwise and stop the terrorist attacks? 60% of the Army is deployed (Clinton f**ked that one way up by miitary cutbacks), and North Korea is still threatening us with nukes.

Living in Hawaii, I very well may be in range of North Korean missiles, somehow I didn't think Saddam was as much of a threat as North Korea, yet I believed my Republican president.

Now... how can I believe him? If he wants to keep terrorism away from our shores like he says... why not simply deny visas to Middle Easterners or make it be so cumbersome for them to come to this country. Racial profiling? Sure... they're the predominant terrorist group.

So right now, I still question these things:

1) How come we've gone from being the most popular country in the world to one of the most unpopular and hated countries?

2) Why are we in Iraq when there are no WMD's, people dont want us there? I don't buy the "fighting terrorism" argument. That's like leaving standing water outside in the bushes and saying we're fighting mosquitos.

3) Why couldn't the same policy be applied towards Iraq which was SUSPECTED of having some WMD's vs. North Korea who is openly hostile to us flaunting theirs? Is it oil perhaps? If so... is it worth the life of my loved one and other American lives? If so... why hasn't that been cited as the reason for war?

 

[Timebuilder]

North Korea has been talking smack since before Operation Iraqi Freedom and they've come out and openly threatened us with nukes. We conveniently chose to ignore them for the most part and told their neighbors, you deal with this idiot. Nevermind that he openly threatened us with WMD.

While we may be frustrated by the North Korean problem, we have to keep ourselves and the war on terror in perspective. There are many possible fronts where action might be warranted, and we are wise to choose carefully which fronts should be acted upon. The Koreans have a unique relationship with China, and our best bet is to work diplomatically through them, since they don't want a nuclear war in their backyard. We need to keep our powder dry there, for now.

Instead, our President has his guns aimed at Iraq. He's claiming how Iraq has WMD's,

Actually, he is the second president to receive intellignece reports that Iraq had WMD's, and he waited and courted the UN for several months trying to garner support while Sadaam was able to hide (it's a BIG desert out there) or move the WMD that he had on hand. We gave him so much warning that for someone to claim that they were never there is as laughable as someone claiming Sadaam himself was never there, just becuase we haven't found HIM , either. The inspectors in 1998 had documented the WMD's, so we can be sure that they DID indeed exist.

how Iraq is the next breeding ground for terrorists.

I don't think any reasonable person could argue against Iraq having been a place that terrorists liked to gather. We found, for example, training camps with airliner mock-ups used to train terroists to take over planes. You aren't going to tell me that they were training Iraqi FA's for beverage service, are you?

However, my biggest fear was exactly what happened - no WMD's,

This was not my biggest fear. My biggest fear is that Sadaam, left to his own devices, would become one of the world's principal suppliers of chemical and bio weapons to terrorist organizations around the world. Now, the weapons programs have been disrupted and the existing weapons hidden. The ease of production and distribution has been ruined, and these WMD's are no longer easily available for sale to the most interested party.

people were initially glad that Saddam is gone, but now they want us out, and our troops are there with no exit strategy.

Of course they want us out. WE want us out. But this will not hapen until the time is right and a stable replacement government is in place. Our exit strategy will be determined by how well the Iraqi people themselves rise to the occaision of suppressing the insurgency threat in places like Falluja.

We're bogged down in Iraq fighting a "hearts and minds" war (Vietnam ring a bell?), no WMD's found, the entire world's support eroded in one year, the entire world now telling us to f**k off, despite Bush's claims that this was not aimed at Muslims - how do you prove otherwise and stop the terrorist attacks? 60% of the Army is deployed (Clinton f**ked that one way up by miitary cutbacks), and North Korea is still threatening us with nukes.

We are not "bogged down" in my judgement, and I remember Viet Nam.

The world's support? We still have the same multinational coalition with some new countries on hand. If you mean the French are still pi$$ed, I'm not bothered at all by that.

The world knows that the greatest portion of our efforts is aimed at terrorists, and everyone knows that the predominant terror groups are radical muslims. This is diferent from saying that we are not at war with Islam, which we are not.

60% of the Army deployed? What is the alternative? We do what we have to do, when and where we have to do it. North Korea will be dealt with. Have some faith.

Living in Hawaii, I very well may be in range of North Korean missiles, somehow I didn't think Saddam was as much of a threat as North Korea, yet I believed my Republican president.

Korea is a much different problem than Iraq, and it will have to be handled in a much diferent manner. You can be thankful you HAD a republican president, or the WMD programs would still be alive and well IN Iraq, and still under the control of Sadaam, and getting developed and perfected every day while President Gore sent notes to the UN asking what he should do!!

Racial profiling? Sure... they're the predominant terrorist group.

Do you think that we are not watching them? (wink)

1) How come we've gone from being the most popular country in the world to one of the most unpopular and hated countries?

Because a lot of countries wanted to make money from these terrorist countries, and we are spoiling that for them. We are the only dog on the street that has the ability, the reason (9-11) and the desire to take on this terror threat that we had previously been confortable with as "someone else's problem" when it would happen in the Gaza strip or Hebron. Those 19 hijackers made it our problem, and made it clear that we had better wake up and deal with it before we let it go any further.

2) Why are we in Iraq when there are no WMD's, people dont want us there? I don't buy the "fighting terrorism" argument. That's like leaving standing water outside in the bushes and saying we're fighting mosquitos.

No, it isn't. We are planting a seed out there in the desert, and once people get a taste of freedom, such as going from the one paper that Sadaam's son published (in between raping young schoolgirls) to almost 100 papers that are free to publish what they want. It's only the beginning. The best is yet to come.

3) Why couldn't the same policy be applied towards Iraq which was SUSPECTED of having some WMD's vs. North Korea who is openly hostile to us flaunting theirs? Is it oil perhaps? If so... is it worth the life of my loved one and other American lives? If so... why hasn't that been cited as the reason for war?

Ah, the old "oil" argument. If we are there for oil, why haven't we taken it? Why are we rebuilding schools instead? Could it be that we already have a program underway for dealing with Korea, which has an entirely different dynamic? Could it be that the way we are dealing with Iraq is the right way there, but would not be the apropriate way with North Korea?

I think that is the answer.

Is it worth American lives to defend our freedom? It always has been, and on this Veteran's Day, I am proud that they are my countrymen, doing the job that they signed up to do.

Now, if you want oil, we can have oil. Just talk to the environmentalists first. They'd just as soon kill you as save a duck. We have PLENTY of oil. But that's another discussion.

Thanks for this one.

 

[Freight Dog]

Timebuilder,

Nice post. But let me bring the opposing view. Bear in mind that like you, I am a Republican.

OK, with respect to North Korea... it is North Korea who is exporting the missile technology to rogue nations. I fully back Bush by backing us out of ABM Treaty. North Korea is a nuclear power now. Yet, they have no qualms with selling the missile and nuclear technology to radical Muslim groups. On top of that, they are openly threatening us with their weapons.
We choose to ignore them, yet dealing with them, we'd have the full world support. Yes, Russia and China are kinda fed up with them too. Instead, we chose Iraq, where aside from Britain and a few Eastern European countries, we have no friends.
Our president himself said there was no link to Saddam and 9/11.

I can tell you right now, there is plenty of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, there are plenty of terrorists there. They spout off all kinds of rhetoric against us, and like I said in my previous post, it is like using standing water to get rid of mosquitos.

You say: Our exit strategy will be determined by how well the Iraqi people themselves rise to the occaision of suppressing the insurgency threat in places like Falluja.

What if the problem IS indeed Iraqi people, which it is? You see, this is not the same culture.. this is not even remotely similar culture to ours. They might as well be aliens. How is it that offering to shake their hand is offensive to them? If you search their woman for weapons, you just turned one potential friend into a bitter enemy. What about that it really upset the natives because our soldiers riding on helos had their feet out so the locals who saw the bottoms of their boots took great offense to that? You think they're tolerant of our ignorance of their culture? Hell no. To those people, that's enough of a reason to take an RPG and let it fly in our direction.

Do I think we're watching the Muslims here? Honestly, no I don't. I don't know about you, but I witnessed 3 Middle-Eastern men being waived thru a random gate check, while they searched a 90 year old grandma. Why is that? Political correctness.
Why is it that military is just now apparently starting to respond forcefully to insurgency? How many lives did it take? How many more is it going to take? For what? What do you think is gonna happen when we pull out of there? Israel is right in putting up a fence. We should do the same thing - no Middle Easterner allowed here. Some will argue that it's "un-American" but liberals and their bleeding hearts would just have to get used to it.

Where do I think GWB screwed up? I think he screwed up by invading Iraq. I think he rightfully went to Afghanistan. He should have handled Iraq in the same way he handled Afghanistan - special forces, CIA working with opposition groups backed by air power. Get the guy ousted by his own people. If Iraqi people were indeed that ripe to get rid of Saddam, we should have helped them do it themselves the first time. If we were lucky for them to believe that we were serious now... maybe do it right this time, and let them get rid of Saddam.

Instead, GWB opted for ground invasion, nation-building while fighting a growing insurgency by locals. This sounds like Vietnam all over to me. In any case, there really is no exit strategy. We're trying the "Iraqification" but I can already see that backfiring. It's not gonna work.

Our military combined with our political structure and our national conscience cannot fight an insurgency warfare in the Middle East. I remember a few years ago when the movie "Rules of Engagement" came out in the theaters, in the scene where the U.S. Marine commander issues an order to open fire at hostile demonstrators and begins mowing them down, so many people in the theater were like... OHMYGOD!!!! OHMYGOD!!! Mind you, that was a movie, yet that is exactly how we should fight this war. What do you think would happen if that scene was real? Think it's far-fetched? Take into account the current situation where a U.S. Army Lt. Col. is facing court-martial for firing a gun close to Iraqi prisoner to extract information that will save lives of his troops.
Let's face it... we are not ready for this war. American people aren't ready for the kind of war we need to fight in order to be successful. Having said that, we should pull out of there unless our president is willing to take high political risks by fighting this war as it should be fought - at the lowest levels involved - their level. Either that or covert work. He chose neither, and he lost the world support in the process. He also lost my support and my vote as well.

 

[Typhoon1244]

I think [the President] screwed up by invading Iraq. I think he rightfully went to Afghanistan. He should have handled Iraq in the same way he handled Afghanistan - special forces, CIA working with opposition groups backed by air power. Get the guy ousted by his own people. If Iraqi people were indeed that ripe to get rid of Saddam, we should have helped them do it themselves the first time.

Instead, GWB opted for ground invasion, nation-building while fighting a growing insurgency by locals. This sounds like Vietnam all over to me. In any case, there really is no exit strategy. We're trying the "Iraqification" but I can already see that backfiring. It's not gonna work.

Well this is just getting stranger and stranger...Republicans who share my opinions!

Somebody pointed out that we were losing an average of ten soldiers a week during this campaign...which is "not that bad." Consider: that means that we're losing the equivalent of a company (depending on the type of unit) every eight weeks! In a campaign that has no set time frame.

I imagine people probably felt the same way about Vietnam. "Oh we're only losing 'X' guys a week...we lost more than that the first hour of D-Day!" Yeah, but D-Day was one day. How long did Vietnam last?

Soldiers dying bravely in righteous battle is one thing. Soldiers being picked-off a few at a time by a bunch of pissed-off ragheads...?

What the President's doing isn't working. He needs to try something else.

 

[flywithastick]

It's about the oil........ Invade Venesuella!!! I hear they have oil (only about 10-20% of the OPEC reserves).

6 months into this operation in Iraq, and the typical short sighted American mentality is showing prefectly above.

We stand no real long term chance to survive as a nation with this cut-and-run mentality. There's real value in taking this fight with the religeon of peace overseas. It's not in *your* backyard, is it?! I value this strategy.

What about North Korea?! The blow hard critics of the administration/conservatives already seem to think we're stretched too thin. What would you propose doing? Invade? Foolish idea..... the Chi-Coms would turn on us and join with their cousins in a hearbeat. And the Chi-Coms of today are far more superior to those of the early '50s.

"There are costs and risks to a program of action, but they are far less than the long-range risks and costs of comfortable inaction."

--John F. Kennedy

 

[Timebuilder]

North Korea is a nuclear power now. Yet, they have no qualms with selling the missile and nuclear technology to radical Muslim groups. On top of that, they are openly threatening us with their weapons.

I think that we ARE dealing with them, and that discussions happen with our traditional allies and others like the Chinese, on a regular basis.

I think it is incorrect to cite our more "overt" action in Iraq as being exclusionary to North Korea.

How is it that offering to shake their hand is offensive to them?

Because, traditionally, they don't use toilet paper. They eat with one hand and wipe with the other. That's why it is such a great punishment to cut off the hand of a thief. Now, he has to use one hand for both functions.

They will have to adjust to searches. I don't see an alternative.

We should do the same thing - no Middle Easterner allowed here. Some will argue that it's "un-American" but liberals and their bleeding hearts would just have to get used to it.

While it would be effective, all we need to do is to enforce existing immigration laws. I think we need to see more tragedies right here before people will see that searching grandma is not the way to ensure safety.

Mmaybe we need to hire an Israeli security force, and give them cart blanche. That would make our own efforts seem much less scary.

I don't think we are ever "ready" for a war. We have to do it when it becomes necessary, and I think it was, as I explained in my previous post.

War always put us on a learning curve. I'm not worried, since we are a quick study.

What the President's doing isn't working. He needs to try something else.

As I always say: "let's hear the alternative".

What do you suggest as an effective choice?

 

[Typhoon1244]

As I always say: "let's hear the alternative." What do you suggest as an effective choice?

Well you know what, T.B.? I'm not the President. It's not my job to come up with an alternative! If W. isn't smart enough to come up with a resolution for the Iraqi situation without my help, let's remove him from office and find someone who can!

One thing's certain: we can't pull out. The U.S. will have zero credibility in the region if we "cut and run," as flywithastick put it. We're stuck with Iraq, but we've got to get the place under control. Now.

W. isn't getting it done. So the question becomes not "what do you suggest?" but rather "who do you suggest?"

 

[Timebuilder]

Well you know what, T.B.? I'm not the President. It's not my job to come up with an alternative!

While it is not inherently your responsibility to come up with an alternative, neither is it the President's responsibility, unless he decides to change his policy from what is available from the group of reasonable alternatives, whatever they might be.

When does it become someones's responsibility to come up with an alternative in a discussion? When you are "critical of the current approach" is the answer. Such as being a supporter of one of the Democrat candidates, for example. None of them have offered an alternative plan that they would have followed after 9-11, except "I would have worked with the United Nations". What the heck does that mean? We lost a lot of valuable time by doing just that, and Sadaam used that time to move/hide the WMD's.

It is easy to say that you don't like something. It is far more dificult to articulate an alternative plan. If you are willing to be a critic, at least be willing to ofer another solution. If not, you are just throwing stones, and that does not advance your position.

Or our security.

 

[Typhoon1244]

Okay, you want an alternative? Here's an alternative:

The Iraquis are slowly wiping our people out with unconventional guerilla warfare, while our people are using conventional techniques. Adding more troops won't help.

We need to get some special operators in Iraq and cut them loose. The CIA, the Amry, the Navy, and the Air Force have some shadowy people who are very good at fixing problems like what we're seein in Iraq now. Like Freight Dog said, it worked in Afghanistan.

The only way out of this is to fight at their level, not ours. Otherwise, Iraq will continue to be a meat-grinder for U.S. troops for years to come.

There. Now can I be President? Vote for me and I'll give tax deductions for Flightinfo posts.

 

[Timebuilder]

We need to get some special operators in Iraq and cut them loose. The CIA, the Amry, the Navy, and the Air Force have some shadowy people who are very good at fixing problems like what we're seein in Iraq now. Like Freight Dog said, it worked in Afghanistan.

I like that suggestion.

I have to ell you though, it was already being done.

What you see on Fox this afternoon is the result of a lot of hard-won intelligence work. It is very difficult and time consuming work because of the few people we have who can blend in and speak the language. We are taking steps to remedy that right now, but there is a lot of learning that goes into becoming an effective agent in this environmnet. Maybe thirty years from now, we will hear about this process in the media. It is a part of a long term commitment to counter terrorist activity.

A lot of conventional stealth work has been under way also, using technology and more traditional special ops techniques.

Truly, we are getting better and better at this, and it is counter productive to crow about our successes at this time. In fact, it serves us well if we appear to be ONLY the victims of snipers and RPG launchers. Let the enemy focus on these things, and they will not be expecting the rest.