War in Iraq

[Haut Medoc]

Re: War in Iraq

"QC"..Great posts....Both of them...I can't agree more....JK

 

[stan_deezy]

Re: War in Iraq

Originally posted by Quietcat:<br /> <br />Rolmops, I am perfectly comfortable saying that the US version of Democracy is morally superior to many other styles of Gov't AND better for the people that ultimately benefit from it.

You actually meant to say BRITISH VERSION didn't you?<br />

 

[Haut Medoc]

Re: War in Iraq

No, I think he meant the U.S. version.....But you guys are trying, I'll give ya that..... ....JK

 

[stan_deezy]

Re: War in Iraq

LOL <br /><br />Thats why the House of Commons, London, England, is known as the Mother of Parliaments <br /><br />Still, I love the USA, especially like learning about your history..............because there's not much of it and it's mostly been wars

 

[Haut Medoc]

Re: War in Iraq

Stan, We have the senate (House of Lords) & the House of Representatives (House of Commons) I'm just happy we don't have any "Hundred Year Wars" or "Thirty Year Wars" under our belt yet....Or any wars over "flowers". ..We here in the colonys love you guys ....You are our stongest & best allies..I will always hope it stays that way... ...JK

 

[Skinnywater]

Re: War in Iraq

Should we do nothing?<br />

Just my opinion mind you.<br />What we should do and what we have domestic and international support for is at a cross-road. <br />There is a lot of political support in Washington to increase troop strength in Iraq. And while the people may be leary of the adminisrations plan it may trust an honest assessment from our greatest military leaders concerning these three objectives;<br />The mission to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden.<br />The mission to bring terrorism to its knees.<br />The mission to rid the world of Saddam's WMD's.<br />Clearly defined military action regarding these objectives would do a lot in helping matters in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afganistan and Pakistan.<br />I feel confident that those leaders will remind us that it will take a lot more scorched earth to get a surrender from our enemys.<br /><br />Otherwise bring our boys home. I will not support spoon-feeding democracy to people that won't stand to fight for it harder than we do.<br />After all we have it, they need it, right?<br /><br /> So txswinner, I'm curious what you think about all I've said in your thread.

 

[Haut Medoc]

Re: War in Iraq

Skinny, they do....They just need to have a real chance to figure it out! Anyone (almost) will be a communist or (pick it) with a boot on your neck & a gun to your head..Babies need to be spoon fed, but will grow into adults with the proper nurturing....JK

 

[mattttt25]

Re: War in Iraq

time will tell for both campaigns. i am interested in how my kids will read and learn about this when they are older.<br /><br />here's a little story, take it for it's worth. my vice president at work is from afghanistan. he fled the country to canada back during the soviet invasion. his family was very political and most were murdered. he made it out. anyway, he's worked in the states for approx 20 yrs. very intelligent and successful. he travels to afanghanistan every year if possible. he returned from a 2 week visit about a month ago. he said things are bad, very bad. small signs of progress and rebuilding, but most of the country is still in shambles. violent bickering btwn multiple parties. people dying at alarming rates. it was sad hearing him tell his opinions formed from first hand knowledge.

 

[rolmops]

Re: War in Iraq

There is nothing wrong with a democratically form of government....for those whose traditions and religion thought them how to think,question and choose for themselves.<br />Islamic religion and tribal society teaches to repeat by rote,to not question.It teaches to accept fate, never to choose freely.Islam at its very inception was a religion that was imposed upon conquered masses ruled by foreigners.(they bought foreign slave soldiers to control their "own" population.-mamluks-)<br />A culture that is ruled by religion and tribal tradition in which only a very few leaders were taught to think and the rest taught to follow,has no use for democracy.It will at best cynically use it to please the eye of an outsider.Then its own power structure will take over again.<br />In my opinion we must first change the power structure of islamic religion in order to open that part of the world to democracy.In trying to do so we may cause a billion people to get angry at our judeo christion world view.<br />Free flow of information and windows into other societies(internet)is currently hammering away at this closed islamic society and we are experiencing the reaction to, what traditional islam sees as an attack at its very core.<br />Gentlemen,we are in for a very rough ride and we are riding a tiger.

 

[PW2]

Re: War in Iraq

You all know my opinion of this war from the start, so I won't rehash it here.<br /><br />But this president campaigned on the notion that we would absolutely not use the military for "nation building". Good idea. Not very well executed.<br /><br />As far as the "elections" in Iraq, I absolutely agree they are pretty much a CNN event. Not to specifically compare this to Viet Nam, as I know there are significant differences, but certainly the US is capable, with enough forces, of sustaining any government we choose to sustain. We could sustain the South Vietnamese gov't, and we can sustain the Iraqi gov't.<br /><br />The real question is what will emerge when we leave.<br /><br />We could not win in VietNam with a limited war, and we won't be able to win in Iraq. It may be that Iraqis like Chalabi will emerge, but it is going to take a ruthless, strong, you pick the adjective, leader to keep that country under control (can anyone say Saddam-like?)<br /><br />So what to do now? "Staying the course" seems guaranteed to not work. Pick a guy to lead, put enough power behind them to get the job done...covertly or however do the political stuff to find out who is with us and who is agin us, and destroy political enemies (Right up this administration's alley)...And put in whatever it takes to get the job done. Or declare victory after the next Iraqi election, and get the heck out, and see what fills the vacuum.<br /><br />This won't be politically palatable to the home folks, but at this point, it is the only thing that will work

 

[rolmops]

Re: War in Iraq

Plywoody you sound like a very jaded liberal.I think you are right.

 

[Vlad D Impeller]

Re: War in Iraq

Which is better war in Iraq or war in America?<br /><br />It seems that some here would prefer the latter

 

[rodbolt]

Re: War in Iraq

the US has an incredibly long and dismall list of regime building and toppling democratically elected govts. seems we still aint got it right. its all well documented, some was done in the intrest of oil and some in the intrest of communism and some for both. none have worked, name on country with a regime the US installed that has prospered. Englnds track record aint much better if any better.<br /><br /> quietcat<br /> your version of venezuela is only what you see on the telly<br /> the real one is much worse . while I am not pro chavez bubba W is a floon in the south americas. he is making a bad situation worse and its not just W it was the the clinton admin too, however a lot of the policy makers in the VE debacle are still policy makers.<br /> I have a bit of first hand knowledge of the venezuela thing and get more with each visit.<br /> how many times have you been to VE and chatted with folks in the huts ?

 

[QC]

Re: War in Iraq

Originally posted by rodbolt:<br /> quietcat<br /> your version of venezuela is only what you see on the telly

I never submitted a version . . . I don't know enough, only enough to know that Hugo and Castro aren't to be commended and revered.<br /><br />All, please don't interpret my comments as some indication that the US is or always has been correct. I know we have made mistakes, many of them. I also know that we have created some of our own problems by past mistakes, so what? Hindsight is 20/20 . . . I think the question was: What do you think about Bush's job concerning the war in Iraq? That is what I am commenting on, the present. I presently think we need to be in the Middle East in some capacity. We definitely have interests there and we also have threats there. It's that simple to me.

 

[JasonJ]

Re: War in Iraq

tx, I am not giving him an excuse, I am just stating the reality. Yes, ultimately he is responsible, and we can blame him all day long, but he is only as good as his administration, and he is only as good as those who chose to keep him in the position of power. Whats the point of griping about it anyway, we are there, we need to finish, and we need to get out, and soon. <br /><br />If we were really fighting the war on terrorism, we would be doing strategic strikes on terrorist camps throughout the world. We would be sending the message that if you are a terrorist, we will kill you in your kitchen. I have yet to see that we are doing this. All we are doing is spinning our wheels in one place when we should be actively taking it to their doors throughout the world. We are sending the message that if you are a terrorist, you are fine as long as you stay out of Iraq. We have our resources spread too thin, and it is inefficient and needless. What is the point of all this geewiz technology that could whipe out a terrorist camp with one plane if we are going to just burn lives and equipment. We need to get them to a certain level, and let them figure it out. If they truely want freedom, they will make it happen. Otherwise, they will just end up back in a Saddam like situation.<br /><br />I don't know if we are there for oil or to give Bush some great legacy or to "take the war to them" or to stabilize the region by giving freedom to Iraq or whatever. I just know we could be doing this very differently and be much more effective with it.

 

[PW2]

Re: War in Iraq

Ok, I watched a program on C-Span this AM (I know I need to get a life, but it's raining outside, and I might melt...) Anyway, it was a hearing on the UN oil for food scandal, and my new hero Newt Gingich was testifying--and I won't get into all he said, but he did say the leader of Iran is trying to get nuclear weapons (No surprise there) and he (Iranian leader) came out on the record saying Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth.<br /><br />So let's quit fooling around and admit that we conquered Iraq to estabish a base from which we can kick the crap out of Iran and Syria and anyone else that makes threatening gestures that might destabilize the region.<br /><br />Now that is not exactly what Newt proposed, but it is close enough...and in my jaded liberal mind, at least it would make some sense.<br /><br />Certainly more sense than the "Let's fight them over there so we won't have to fight them here" foolishness.

 

[Vlad D Impeller]

Re: War in Iraq

" war over flowers" lol @ JK

 

[demsvmejm]

Re: War in Iraq

At first Jason I thought you were just another led-around-by-the-nose redumblican. But your last post really made sense. Military leaders "over there" have asked for more troops for years, and the bush administration hasn't provided them. Baby bush was advised early on that he needed to send more troops, but he ignored the advisors and military leaders. <br />Aside from the fact that he is a republican, and republicans have no faults (yeah right) why isn't the commander in chief responsible for the bad things, when he is lauded with any positive? If something good happens, the redumblican sheople are all hail bush, this couldn't have happened without his excellent leadership. So when something he initiated goes wrong, why is he not responsible for the failure too? And don't try to tell me he has ever taken any blame, if that's true, prove it. I only hear that it is always someone else's fault, like Libby's, when something goes awry. Baby bush is never at fault according to the red party.<br /><br />And the assertion that bush is hobbled by his administration, get real It is HIS administration, and the whole redumblican party seems to march to the beat of the bush band. Think about it, bush wants, the rest of the party gives it to him. The only check to the whole bush-welfare machine is the democrats. And that is sad.<br /><br />I have never agreed with the war in Iraq. I have always questioned, exactly like Jason's last post, why do we concentrate on only two countries. If we are indeed fighting a war on terror, doesn't Iran fit that "Axis of evil" and therefore qualify for our wrath too? I understand we invaded Afghanistan because of Bin Laden being harbored there. That I suppose was justified. I still say we are in Iraq because of a personal bush vendetta, daddy "didn't finish." Well daddy did what he was allowed to do. At that time we couldn't assassinate a foreign leader so we didn't take Saddam out.

 

[stan_deezy]

Re: War in Iraq

Originally posted by J.kopec:<br /> Stan, We have the senate (House of Lords) & the House of Representatives (House of Commons) I'm just happy we don't have any "Hundred Year Wars" or "Thirty Year Wars" under our belt yet....Or any wars over "flowers". ..We here in the colonys love you guys ....You are our stongest & best allies..I will always hope it stays that way... ...JK

Thanks J.K, the admiration is mutual. Must admit I find myself in agreement with the idea that the US went into Iraq with a very different agenda than was publicised (WMD). I suspect that it was to secure the oilfields, to set up a nice bufferzone between Iran/Syria and some of the moderate Arab countries and finally, to send out a clear message to all who may trespass against us".<br /><br />"wars over flowers" that would be the "War of the Roses" your alluding to? When the country was riven by a very harsh civil war? Ah, but then I don't have to give any history lessons about civil war to Americans do I? I seem to recall you had one of your own. Who won?

 

[Nos4r2]

Re: War in Iraq

What,support for the English parliament there Stan? Aren't you jocks supposed to traditionally despise us sassenachs? <br /><br />But seriously...<br /><br />This war is doing exactly as I thought. It's eating our resources and our armies and countrymen's lives for no apparent gain. There's no apparent end in sight-we CAN'T pull out now or in the forseeable future as the boost to all the islamic fundamentalist cells would be too great. It is not morally or ethically right to send a message that if you blow yourself up indiscriminately killing men,women and children with no involvement in the conflict then you will 'win'.<br /> Again, we are caught in a quandry. How can our armed forces engage an enemy by accepted Rules of Engagement when the enemy doesn't follow ROE in any way shape or form? Even if we comitted extreme genocide and wiped out the entire Iraqi populace the 'war' wouldn't be won.<br /><br />Stuff the Liberal/Democrat/Labour/Conservative/Monster Raving Loony Party agendas now, we're in it and NO-ONE has a way out-not even a realistic longterm one. Maybe, just maybe it's time to have a major rethink of all of our political agendas before our allied countries walk into another mess like this.<br /><br />I think we're at a stalemate here gentlemen.