Guest bengalrick Posted June 27, 2005 Report Share Posted June 27, 2005 [url="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-1670492,00.html"]click here[/url] [quote][b]A new Marshall plan for Iraq[/b] Ibrahim al-Jaafari Europe was saved by generosity and vision  the same is needed in the Middle East LAST WEEK I was at Blair House in the centre of Washington DC. In this house is the table on which George Marshall in June 1947 signed the plan to pump today’s equivalent of $500 billion into the impoverished economies of Europe as an investment against future conflict. The plan was controversial but nobody would now deny its far-sightedness. Nazism gave way to a lasting democracy, economic devastation was replaced by slow but sure progress towards economic regeneration. Consider Germany of 1945 and Germany of today: which would you rather have as your neighbour? The Middle East, including Iraq, is as much of a neighbour to Europe as Germany is to Britain. The Middle East has as much strategic significance as Europe in 1945, and has potential both for exporting violence and terror to the West or, alternatively, developing its human and natural resources to the point where it can imitate Europe’s economic success. Last week I went to Brussels with an Iraqi delegation for a conference with foreign ministers of more than 80 countries. All have agreed to help Iraq towards a better future. On Friday I met President Bush; today I will meet Tony Blair. Both have decisively chosen to back freedom and democracy in Iraq. [b]They are right to have done so. It is not just a matter of principle, but of the security of their own countries.[/b] Terrorism knows no boundaries; it strikes all over the world. Democracy, transparency and justice in the Middle East will dry up the wellsprings of hatred and terrorism and bring security to Europe and America. [b]Terrorists are criminals and must be tried as such. But dealing with the spread of terrorism in the Middle East is more complex  as it thrives on ignorance, hate ideologies and political failures of modern states. [/b] Arabs are better educated in technical sciences, engineering and languages, than in contemporary political and social sciences. Political education in the Middle East is usually indoctrination. By contrast, Iraq’s recent electoral experience enlightened millions. [b]It showed that education is to vote a government into power and then watch it grapple with the issues that confront people in their daily lives, and see whether it succeeds or fails, and listen to it explain its policies honestly and frankly. A free press leaves people able to discriminate between propaganda, rumours and lies and the unvarnished reporting of facts.[/b] [b]Perhaps those elections can be an education also for peoples of Western democracies. They can see that, like them, Iraqis want to choose their own leaders, and are entirely capable of running fair elections and respecting the result. They can also see that there is nothing to fear if those peoples choose to vote for an Islamic party.[/b] I am not only the first democratically elected leader of an Arab country. I am also the first prime minister in the Middle East to come from a religious, Islamic opposition movement  at the head of a diverse ethnic and political alliance. Embracing diversity within human society is not just a political necessity, it is rooted in my faith. [b]Islam teaches that there is no compulsion in religion and that freedom of choice is divinely granted; it is dictators who need to cater to fanatics in order to stay in power. [/b] Saddam Hussein is a case in point. He passed laws to limit religious freedom and degraded women’s lives. I will reverse Saddam’s legacy and welcome Iraq’s diversity. I welcome the strong contribution that women can make in its workplace and political life, where they make up one third of our National Assembly  more than most Western democracies. Marshall said: “Our policy is not directed against any country or doctrine but against hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos.†Today is the time for a new international Marshall plan towards Iraq and the broader Middle East  directed not for or against any policy but against ignorance, tyranny, hatred and anarchy. Marshall repaired the decaying infrastructure of Germany after six years of war and 12 years of Nazi rule. In Iraq we have had nearly 40 years of fascist rule and have been in practice at war for half that time. I have seen throughout Iraq the marks of economic collapse and depredation this has left. Iraq today has few English speakers, it has hundreds of thousands of ex-soldiers trained for nothing but war, and its universities  which once enjoyed a worldwide reputation  now lag behind those in the rest of the region. It has debts totalling hundreds of billions of dollars and there has been no investment in its infrastructure for more than 20 years. [b]Three generations of Iraqis have grown up under a dictatorship, learning to take orders but not take initiatives or responsibility, and educated in religious and political hatred and isolationism. My people are a strong people: their will survived. The marks of Saddam’s brutal and divisive rule, however, will take time to heal. Many of my people, as well as soldiers from the multinational force, are still being killed by terrorism.[/b] The way will not always be easy. I am confident, though, that the prosperous democracies of the world will be as far-sighted today as Marshall was in 1947. Much blood had to be shed, and money spent, before peace was achieved in Europe. In Iraq the fight for democracy has cost hundreds of thousands of lives. In the long run, however, it can secure centuries of peace and prosperity. Iraq’s fight against terrorist networks and training camps, and the poverty and ignorance that supply them, has become the world’s fight for the security of humanity. The author is the Prime Minister of Iraq[/quote] i have many things to say about this and the state of this country (mainly this board, b/c i don't talk much politics outside of this board..) many around here are talking about how we aren't winning the war and how this was a huge mistake... before i go into my spill, i want everyone to realize that its hard to not see that right now... i mean, we see more soldiers/iraqis dying every day and (like all news) the bad stuff is what sells, so thats pretty much all we hear about the war... i read some right wing blogs, so i am exposed to it more than say smoov, but it is still few and far between... it is hard to stand up for a war, when all you can hear is my president is a liar, loser, we are in an unjust war, the wrong war... you get the picture... its hard to continue to say "we are winning imo" when you just got done hearing about another 3 soldiers who were blown up... in other words, i am not blaming you for believing that... i hope that my honesty in saying this doesn't backfire though, b/c i do that so you will hear me out... instead of blabbing on w/ the same shit and possibly have a good debate... alright, now to the point of my rambling... the real reason that i truely don't think we are losing the war right now has nothing to do w/ how many terrorists we catch or kill or how many of our great soldiers we have lost... it has (in part) to do w/ what the PM of iraq is saying... the main reason, imo, is b/c the elections went off already... also the consitution is being written as we speak and that is what we are riding on... forget whether you agree w/ us going or not, and look at the difference for the world, if we win or lose... if we win, worse case scenario is that we have turned an enemy into a friendly nation... let along what it could do for the rest of the middle east... if we lose, all hell will break lose and we are doomed to another "1970's"... the way i see it, is these are our only ways we can lose: 1. the constitution is not written... 2. the election after the consitution doesn't go on as planned 3. the anti-war folks win (like vietnam) and we pull out too early, and we leave a real mess we win when they are in total control of their country, and have their own rule of law, voted in by their own people... it is very easy to look at the news and see the soldiers that are being killed, but we have to realize that that is not how we will win/lose the war... we won't know if we won until about 10 years from now... if they become a booming economy and can continue to vote for who they want to... the only thing that can beat us now, is ourselves and our desenting citizens... we need to stay strong and realize the ramifications of whether we win or lose... HUGE difference... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whodey319 Posted June 28, 2005 Report Share Posted June 28, 2005 why no response to this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STRAYCAT Posted June 28, 2005 Report Share Posted June 28, 2005 People may not agree with what is going on but they need to look at the big picture. The seed is being planted just like after WWII. If for some chance that area can become stable and people can be free like us then it is worth it. Hate to think what things would be like if we backed down and let the naysayers have their way. Might be talking german right now or even russian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted June 28, 2005 Report Share Posted June 28, 2005 I watched Rumsfeld on Meet the Press this weekend, and I couldn't help but juxtapose Rumsfeld, with his duplicitous talk, with Robert MacNamara, who offered up similar piles of horsepoop during the mid-60s. I respect your sincerity, as far as that goes, Rick. But, to suggest that the antiwar crowd would bear (even partial) responsibility, if we lost this war, is not only a tired old nostrum (see Vietnam, see post-WWI Germany), it's an insult to your own intelligence. You are smarter than that. The troops, once again, have been put into an untenable set of circumstances. If our current leadership had, to use a nice military euphemism, "its shit in one sock," we would be in better shape on the ground there, independant of the fact that many of us think this is an illegal and unjust war. The list of blunders is a long one, and there is no need to repeat them in detail here. Be careful what you wish for, says the parable. "Bring 'em on," says Bush. This is what you get if you run a country through the wringer for 25 years; we've cynically played the "divide and conquer" routine in the Middle East during Republican and Democratic admins, and as a result we have done a lot of harm. Now sadly, some of that harm is being returned to our troops. Place the blame where it belongs, and not on those who do not support this raw exercise of power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlackJesus Posted June 28, 2005 Report Share Posted June 28, 2005 [quote]the way i see it, is these are our only ways we can lose: 1. the constitution is not written... 2. the election after the consitution doesn't go on as planned 3. the anti-war folks win (like vietnam) and we pull out too early, and we leave a real mess[/quote] [i][b]you forgot 4. Iraq becomes a new basecamp for Al Qaeda 5. There is partitioning of Iraq into 3 counries with the sects of the Kurds and Sunnis declaring independence and thus civil war 6. Iran gets a pupet leader there and basically then has control of over half the worlds oil under radical islamic clerics 7. As soon as we leave shit goes to all hell.... like it will 8. The pro war folks (those making $ of dead young boys and girls) continue the bullshit until their coffers are full 9. having diverted attention to Iraq, Al Qaeda is able to attack the US possibly nuclear 10. the pissing off of the rest of the world hurts us in the war on terror, places stop helping us for the next decade terrorists train and then attack us with nuclear or biological weapons....[/b][/i] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Carson Show Posted June 28, 2005 Report Share Posted June 28, 2005 [quote name='bengalrick' date='Jun 27 2005, 03:47 PM'][url="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-1670492,00.html"]click here[/url] i have many things to say about this and the state of this country (mainly this board, b/c i don't talk much politics outside of this board..) many around here are talking about how we aren't winning the war and how this was a huge mistake... before i go into my spill, i want everyone to realize that its hard to not see that right now... i mean, we see more soldiers/iraqis dying every day and (like all news) the bad stuff is what sells, so thats pretty much all we hear about the war... i read some right wing blogs, so i am exposed to it more than say smoov, but it is still few and far between... it is hard to stand up for a war, when all you can hear is my president is a liar, loser, we are in an unjust war, the wrong war... you get the picture... its hard to continue to say "we are winning imo" when you just got done hearing about another 3 soldiers who were blown up... in other words, i am not blaming you for believing that... i hope that my honesty in saying this doesn't backfire though, b/c i do that so you will hear me out... instead of blabbing on w/ the same shit and possibly have a good debate... alright, now to the point of my rambling... the real reason that i truely don't think we are losing the war right now has nothing to do w/ how many terrorists we catch or kill or how many of our great soldiers we have lost... it has (in part) to do w/ what the PM of iraq is saying... the main reason, imo, is b/c the elections went off already... also the consitution is being written as we speak and that is what we are riding on... forget whether you agree w/ us going or not, and look at the difference for the world, if we win or lose... if we win, worse case scenario is that we have turned an enemy into a friendly nation... let along what it could do for the rest of the middle east... if we lose, all hell will break lose and we are doomed to another "1970's"... the way i see it, is these are our only ways we can lose: 1. the constitution is not written... 2. the election after the consitution doesn't go on as planned 3. the anti-war folks win (like vietnam) and we pull out too early, and we leave a real mess we win when they are in total control of their country, and have their own rule of law, voted in by their own people... it is very easy to look at the news and see the soldiers that are being killed, but we have to realize that that is not how we will win/lose the war... we won't know if we won until about 10 years from now... if they become a booming economy and can continue to vote for who they want to... the only thing that can beat us now, is ourselves and our desenting citizens... we need to stay strong and realize the ramifications of whether we win or lose... HUGE difference... [right][post="107910"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/41.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/41.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/41.gif[/img] great post it upsets me to hear when american citizens are against the war and our resolve bush went to war to protect us from terrorists and WMD i dont want to sit around and wait for nations to get WMD and attack us we need to be one step ahead of our enemies and premptive attack them to stop the US from becoming like israel where suicide bombers are blowing up thousands of innocent people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jza10304 Posted June 28, 2005 Report Share Posted June 28, 2005 [quote name='Homer_Rice' date='Jun 27 2005, 10:47 PM']I watched Rumsfeld on Meet the Press this weekend, and I couldn't help but juxtapose Rumsfeld, with his duplicitous talk, with Robert MacNamara, who offered up similar piles of horsepoop during the mid-60s. I respect your sincerity, as far as that goes, Rick. But, to suggest that the antiwar crowd would bear (even partial) responsibility, if we lost this war, is not only a tired old nostrum (see Vietnam, see post-WWI Germany), it's an insult to your own intelligence. You are smarter than that. The troops, once again, have been put into an untenable set of circumstances. If our current leadership had, to use a nice military euphemism, "its shit in one sock," we would be in better shape on the ground there, independant of the fact that many of us think this is an illegal and unjust war. The list of blunders is a long one, and there is no need to repeat them in detail here. Be careful what you wish for, says the parable. "Bring 'em on," says Bush. This is what you get if you run a country through the wringer for 25 years; we've cynically played the "divide and conquer" routine in the Middle East during Republican and Democratic admins, and as a result we have done a lot of harm. Now sadly, some of that harm is being returned to our troops. Place the blame where it belongs, and not on those who do not support this raw exercise of power. [right][post="108040"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/41.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/41.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/41.gif[/img] Homer, what happened in Germany after WWI..........(foreshadowing????) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted June 28, 2005 Report Share Posted June 28, 2005 [quote]I watched Rumsfeld on Meet the Press this weekend, and I couldn't help but juxtapose Rumsfeld, with his duplicitous talk, with Robert MacNamara, who offered up similar piles of horsepoop during the mid-60s.[/quote] rummie is very blunt, and i could understand, for someone that doesn't agree w/ him, could not like him... i personally want to hear things bluntly, so i appreciate him... [quote]I respect your sincerity, as far as that goes, Rick. But, to suggest that the antiwar crowd would bear (even partial) responsibility, if we lost this war, is not only a tired old nostrum (see Vietnam, see post-WWI Germany), it's an insult to your own intelligence. You are smarter than that.[/quote] you make it sound like i'm telling you to put an american flag on your antenna, start talking good about bush, and become a republican... i'm not even saying "support the war one hundred percent"... i'm saying quit talking shit about everyone that has anything to do w/ bush... you act like if we lose, and you supported it, we are going to look at you and say "it was your fault"... this is not about whos fault it was (we know that the fault/credit will come on people like me and who i support reguardless)... i just want a break and i am trying to be totally honest w/ the anti-war crowd, while trying to explain to people that agree w/ me, why we can continue to support our president... our main enemy (or at least, the enemy that does the most damage) right now is the democrats that are against the war... that is a fact, b/c we lose if democrats win... they are trying to tell us how bad of a country we are, and how "unjust" this war is... if they win, AMERICA loses... i hope you sleep well knowing that... one thing is a fact, and i don't understand how someone can call me stupid, when this is true: either result of the war, you and i will have to live w/... your stance puts the US in a horrible position... [quote]The troops, once again, have been put into an untenable set of circumstances. If our current leadership had, to use a nice military euphemism, "its shit in one sock," we would be in better shape on the ground there, independant of the fact that many of us think this is an illegal and unjust war. The list of blunders is a long one, and there is no need to repeat them in detail here.[/quote] please don't... we rebuke them everytime, and i'd hate to close this thread down too [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//3.gif[/img] just say, the WMD's weren't big enough for you to consider them WMD's and the murderer that used to run the country doesn't count either... reguardless of what he did, ONE thing bush said wasn't good enough for me... [quote]Be careful what you wish for, says the parable. "Bring 'em on," says Bush. This is what you get if you run a country through the wringer for 25 years; we've cynically played the "divide and conquer" routine in the Middle East during Republican and Democratic admins, and as a result we have done a lot of harm. Now sadly, some of that harm is being returned to our troops.[/quote] the harm was brought to our homeland on 9/11... which is more justified, ignoring the problem and getting bombed on our land, or being too aggressive and fighting on their land? i have never gotten a damn thing done in life by ignoring a problem... [quote]Place the blame where it belongs, and not on those who do not support this raw exercise of power.[/quote] this isn't about blame... unless your an anti-american person (and i know your not) we all voted (rep and dem) to go to war, and that is that... the blame will be on us as a country... w/in the country, you will blame me... but, you are always putting this into us losing.. what if we win?? answer that for me... what if we win and the seeds are really planted? can you grasp that concept that it is impossible? you never replyed to my main part of the post though... we don;t lose if the terrorists sneak in to a camp and blow their self up and we don't win if we find osama, and kill alot of terrorists... we win if iraq creates a constitution and finishes their last round of voting in december... if the terrorists stop this, we lose... if not, we are winning... it won't stop there, but we will be winning... then we win, when they are totally controlling their police and country in general... if you think we are losing and will lose homer, do you think the constitution process will falter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted June 28, 2005 Report Share Posted June 28, 2005 [quote]4. Iraq becomes a new basecamp for Al Qaeda[/quote] that would be if they can't police their selves... see #3... if we pull out too early, before the iraqis are ready... [quote]5. There is partitioning of Iraq into 3 counries with the sects of the Kurds and Sunnis declaring independence and thus civil war[/quote] civil war, would be if constitution breaks down... [quote]6. Iran gets a pupet leader there and basically then has control of over half the worlds oil under radical islamic clerics[/quote] a real concern... something that we have to take a chance of... being that we are liberating them now and iranians are sending "freedom fighters" into their country to blow it up... i like our chances... this would have to come from voter fraud though, b/c the sunnis are a minority in iraq... [quote]7. As soon as we leave shit goes to all hell.... like it will[/quote] another chance we have to take... i love your optimism [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/30.gif[/img] [quote]8. The pro war folks (those making $ of dead young boys and girls) continue the bullshit until their coffers are full[/quote] i have no clue what your talking about, but remember this... you were once one of us, until you didn't get what you wnted... thats what makes this that much more sad... [quote]9. having diverted attention to Iraq, Al Qaeda is able to attack the US possibly nuclear[/quote] hard to attack, when you can't talk to each other, and are running scared b/c the biggest superpower in the world is chasing you around w/ tanks... again it could happen, but i'd rather face the problem then pussy out and try to ignore it... [quote]10. the pissing off of the rest of the world hurts us in the war on terror, places stop helping us for the next decade terrorists train and then attack us with nuclear or biological weapons....[/quote] b/c of the corruption from the UN, i dont' give a flying fuck if they help us... they are in bed w/ whoever will pay them off... we fix our problems, and when they get attacked by terrorists, we will have to bail them out (like usual) even though we're the worst country on the face of the earth [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/27.gif[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bengal_Smoov Posted June 28, 2005 Report Share Posted June 28, 2005 Good post Rick, It's encouraging that the PM thinks that people are learning a better way run their country. Hopefully the Middle East can learn from Iraq and embrace Democracy, my only wish is that we can pull out of Iraq very soon and leave the country in better shape then it was before we invaded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted June 28, 2005 Report Share Posted June 28, 2005 [quote name='Bengal_Smoov' date='Jun 28 2005, 12:51 PM']Good post Rick, It's encouraging that the PM thinks that people are learning a better way run their country. Hopefully the Middle East can learn from Iraq and embrace Democracy, my only wish is that we can pull out of Iraq very soon and leave the country in better shape then it was before we invaded. [right][post="108219"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] Me too, Im just not convinced it can be soon with all the conflcting reports about how ready the Iraqi's are to do such. Personally I tend to believe the Generals more than the politicans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted June 28, 2005 Report Share Posted June 28, 2005 [quote name='Bengal_Smoov' date='Jun 28 2005, 11:51 AM']Good post Rick, It's encouraging that the PM thinks that people are learning a better way run their country. Hopefully the Middle East can learn from Iraq and embrace Democracy, my only wish is that we can pull out of Iraq very soon and leave the country in better shape then it was before we invaded. [right][post="108219"][/post][/right][/quote] this is EXACTLY what i had in mind, when i posted this... reguardless of your views of the war, you are willing to say "fuck it, lets get it done now"... i knew i liked you for a reason smoov i also hope that we can pull out of iraq very soon... my God, i agree w/ every word... <pinching myself to make sure i'm not dreaming> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted June 28, 2005 Report Share Posted June 28, 2005 [quote name='Jamie_B' date='Jun 28 2005, 11:54 AM']Me too, Im just not convinced it can be soon with all the conflcting reports about how ready the Iraqi's are to do such. Personally [b]I tend to believe the Generals more than the politicans.[/b] [right][post="108221"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] same here.. here is what general casey has to say about the insurgancy: [url="http://www.military.com/Content/Printer_Friendly_Version/1,11491,,00.html?str_filename=dod2%5F062705&passfile=dod2%5F062705&page_url=%2FNewsContent%2F0%2C13319%2Cdod2%5F062705%2C00%2Ehtml"]click here[/url] [quote][b]Momentum in Iraq Favors Democracy, Casey Says[/b] By Jim Garamone American Forces Press Service June 27, 2005 WASHINGTON - The momentum in Iraq has swung toward democracy and against terror, the top American commander in Iraq said today. [b]The insurgents are "not nearly as capable" as they want people to think[/b], Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the commander of Multinational Force Iraq, said on ABC's "Good Morning America" program today. In fact, he said,[b] insurgents represent "one tenth of one percent of the Iraqi population[/b]." Casey said the insurgents have [b]no positive vision for Iraq, and the vast majority of Iraqis reject their attempts to derail democracy. [/b] [b]Even without a vision, the insurgents are media savvy[/b], Casey said. They launch spectacular attacks to capture news headlines and spots on television news. [b]"What the people in the United States are seeing are these car bomb attacks and these suicide attacks, and they are being fed a steady diet of that," he said. "I have no doubt that this affects their perception." [/b] [b]However, Casey said, the reality on the ground is that Iraqis make progress every day. Iraqis have the political will to move toward democracy, he said. "I have to remind folks in the states that the Iraqi (National) Assembly is on pace to produce a constitution by the 15th of August," he said.[/b] [b]Plans call for all Iraqis to vote on the constitution by Oct. 15 and elect a government under that constitution by Dec. 15. [/b][i] (can you say, exit strategy... well, more like a progression strategy... after these two events, only training the police and military is left...)[/i] [b]"We're going to have a tough fight against these insurgents up to the elections, but the political process is and will continue to move forward," the general said. [/b] Casey said the level of attacks -- between 450 and 500 a week -- is roughly the same as it was a year ago. There were times when the level was between 800 and 900 attacks per week. The area of the attacks is also pretty confined. [b]In 14 out of the 18 provinces in the country, there are only about three attacks a day.[/b] The insurgents will continue to attack Iraqi security forces and the general population. [b]"They realize that over the long term the Iraqi security forces will be the greatest challenge to the insurgency," Casey said. [/b] Yet even with the attacks on Iraqi army and Iraqi police, the insurgents have been unable to intimidate the Iraqis. [b]"Recruiting (for Iraqi forces) is up; they are staying and standing and fighting; and the morale of the forces is quite good," Casey said. [/b] The general said the United States must stand by Iraq. [b]"We look at and study past insurgencies," he said. "The fact is that the insurgencies of the 20th century lasted about nine years.[/b] [b]"Will (the Iraqi insurgency) last at the level it is today? I don't think so," [/b]Casey said. "But we will progressively bring that insurgency to a level that can be contained by increasingly capable Iraqi security forces." Casey said American servicemembers in Iraq are doing a magnificent job. "Every generation of Americans seem to have thrust on them a difficult challenge," he said. "I am continually impressed with their courage, their commitment and their compassion."[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlackJesus Posted June 28, 2005 Report Share Posted June 28, 2005 [quote]6. Iran gets a pupet leader there and basically then has control of over half the worlds oil under radical islamic clerics i like our chances... this would have to come from voter fraud though, b/c the sunnis are a minority in iraq...[/quote] [i][b]Actually, Iraq is a majority Shiite just like Iran and that is why it will go for the radical shiites (Al Sadr) comes to mind. The reason why the US liked Saddam despite the genoicide was that he had a minority the Sunnis run Iraq and began the Iran-Iraq split ie War as well. Are you advising Bush ? Rumsfeld is that you [/b][/i] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted June 28, 2005 Report Share Posted June 28, 2005 [quote name='BlackJesus' date='Jun 28 2005, 02:11 PM'][i][b]Actually, Iraq is a majority Shiite just like Iran and that is why it will go for the radical shiites (Al Sadr) comes to mind. The reason why the US liked Saddam despite the genoicide was that he had a minority the Sunnis run Iraq and began the Iran-Iraq split ie War as well. Are you advising Bush ? Rumsfeld is that you [/b][/i] [right][post="108307"][/post][/right][/quote] the US liked saddam 20 years ago, b/c he was (we thought) the lesser of two evils... its called a mistake, which i'm sure you never make, right? i was wrong about the sunni population... i confussed myself somewhere down the line... i guess its b/c the sunnis are the group in iraq that didn't support the election and seem to be giving us the hardest problems.. thanks for clearing that up for me... anyway, i see what your saying, but there are many things that could go wrong... this is a real concern down the road, but we have to take the chance imo... but it is definatley something that we need to watch out for... but we have to trust that democracy will win in the long run... the other options included leaving saddam in power... i will take the chances (and possible benefits) of taking out saddam, even if the consiquences could include iran playing iraq like a puppet... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted June 28, 2005 Report Share Posted June 28, 2005 [url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8390497/"]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8390497/[/url] [quote]When is the Iraqi army ready to take over? Tales of two brigades offer lessons for the future By Jim Maceda Correspondent NBC News Updated: 2:08 p.m. ET June 28, 2005 QAYYARAH, Iraq  On a recent day, some of the 2,000 soldiers of the 1st Iraqi Army Brigade patrolled a violent neighborhood in West Baghdad, while more than 200 miles to the north, soldiers of the 1,500-strong 3rd Iraqi Army Brigade were on a raid near Mosul. They represent two different Iraqi units and both are backed by the U.S military. The 1st Iraqi Army Brigade works with the U.S. Army's 3rd Infantry Division in Baghdad and 3rd Iraqi Army Brigade trains and works with U.S. Army's 25th Infantry Division near Mosul. The two units have contrasting combat experience, but they are on the same mission. “The people need to see that the Iraqis are taking charge of their country,†explained Maj. Daniel Yeates of the 3rd ID in Baghdad. President Bush, who has scheduled a prime-time speech Tuesday to outline his plans for Iraq, is hoping Iraqi forces such as these can take over security and eventually allow American troops to pull out of the country. [u][b]'Train and operate'[/b][/u] The experience of the two brigades since the Iraqi government took over sovereignty a year ago is a lesson in the challenges facing the U.S. president. For weeks, the 1st Iraqi Army Brigade has taken a lead in what has been dubbed “Operation Lightning† sweeping through Baghdad, moving from house-to-house to search for bombs and insurgents. Watching the Iraqis' backs, and taking notes throughout the operation, have been U.S. troops from the 3rd ID. The job of the 3rd ID has been to help protect the Iraqis and provide an outer cordon of security, but they say that they can move in quickly  and will do so  if called on by the Iraqi forces. It's called “train and operate.†The idea is to help Iraqi soldiers to learn by doing. And, according to their U.S. Army trainers, it’s working. “I believe that they will take the task, and complete the task,†said Spc. Bryan Boudreaux, a U.S. Army trainer. The 1st Iraqi Army Brigade  which is made up of mostly Shiites  has held its own in close-quarters combat, particularly in Fallujah, last November. Recently, the soldiers retook Baghdad's Haifa Street from snipers and kidnappers and rescued Australian hostage Doug Wood, with no help from U.S. troops. “They've shown their bravery, they've shown their technical expertise to be able to fight this insurgency,†said Gen. John Basilica of the 3rd ID. [u][b]Different story near Mosul[/b][/u] But it's been a very different story for the 3rd Iraqi Army Brigade around Mosul. Last fall, entire battalions cut and run in clashes with insurgents south of Mosul. Undisciplined and under daily attack, the mostly Sunni brigade disintegrated. But today, it is fighting back and was recently a key part of a joint raid on a local Sunni leader, suspected of arming insurgents in Mosul. Some Iraqi soldiers were visibly uncomfortable with bedroom searches for weapons, but were no longer hiding their faces, or their uniforms. What accounts for the turnaround? “The only way I can explain it is that we found two or three leaders who are genuine and capable,†said Maj. Kevin Murphy, of the U.S. Army’s 25th ID. Unconventional approach One example is Ali Atalah Mallow, known to his men as General Ali. A controversial test case, Mallow is the only general in Saddam Hussein's army who has been rehired by U.S. forces. In just eight months he's rebuilt the 3rd Iraqi Army Brigade and tamed the insurgency in his large area around Mosul, barely escaping three assassination attempts along the way. “I lead by example,“ Mallow said. “From the front, in a word, I took the initiative. I never cave in to the terrorists' demands.†Now, the U.S. military is reportedly looking for other vetted former Saddam generals to help coalition forces, too. Some military analysts are skeptical. The 1st and 3rd Iraqi Army Brigades, they say, represent only a fraction of Iraq's 170,000 soldiers and police. But, most, are far from capable of going it alone. Still, one year after the transfer of power to the Iraqi government, U.S. commanders [color="blue"]here believe that in a year or two these brigades will be leading the charge, on their own.[/color][/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted June 29, 2005 Report Share Posted June 29, 2005 [quote name='jza10304' date='Jun 28 2005, 10:42 AM'] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/41.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/41.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/41.gif[/img] Homer, what happened in Germany after WWI..........(foreshadowing????) [right][post="108194"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote] A number of Germans thought that the loss of the war was due to a lack of support on the homefront. This eventually bacame a part of the radical rhetoric of the 20s and 30s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted June 29, 2005 Report Share Posted June 29, 2005 [quote name='bengalrick' date='Jun 28 2005, 10:44 AM']rummie is very blunt, and i could understand, for someone that doesn't agree w/ him, could not like him... i personally want to hear things bluntly, so i appreciate him...[/quote] It's not his bluntness that concerns me, it is the opposite: he sounds just like MacNamara in shifting justification mode... [quote]our main enemy (or at least, the enemy that does the most damage) right now is the democrats that are against the war... that is a fact, b/c we lose if democrats win... they are trying to tell us how bad of a country we are, and how "unjust" this war is... if they win, AMERICA loses... i hope you sleep well knowing that... one thing is a fact, and i don't understand how someone can call me stupid, when this is true: either result of the war, you and i will have to live w/... your stance puts the US in a horrible position...[/quote] This is just pure nonsense, Rick. The Democrats aren't the enemy, nor are the anti-war folks. You aren't stupid, which is why I was a little surprised you are retailing this crap. [quote]this isn't about blame... unless your an anti-american person (and i know your not) we all voted (rep and dem) to go to war, and that is that... the blame will be on us as a country... w/in the country, you will blame me... but, you are always putting this into us losing.. what if we win?? answer that for me... what if we win and the seeds are really planted? can you grasp that concept that it is impossible?[/quote] If it is not about blame, then why did you make the accusations? [quote]you never replyed to my main part of the post though... we don;t lose if the terrorists sneak in to a camp and blow their self up and we don't win if we find osama, and kill alot of terrorists... we win if iraq creates a constitution and finishes their last round of voting in december... if the terrorists stop this, we lose... if not, we are winning... it won't stop there, but we will be winning... then we win, when they are totally controlling their police and country in general... if you think we are losing and will lose homer, do you think the constitution process will falter? [right][post="108195"][/post][/right][/quote] Well, at the strategic level, we lost when we decided to divert our efforts into a needless war in Iraq. Not only because this harmed our relations with other nations in the world, but also because this admin deceived its own people to create the war. It'll take a long time to overcome both of those. With respect to putting Humpty Dumpty back together again, I do not favor an arbitrarily defined withdrawal date. Nor am I certain that putting a constitution together is both necessary and sufficient to declare victory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted June 29, 2005 Report Share Posted June 29, 2005 [b][i]This is just pure nonsense, Rick. The Democrats aren't the enemy, nor are the anti-war folks. You aren't stupid, which is why I was a little surprised you are retailing this crap.[/i][/b] sorry for my bluntness, but i wanted to get my point acrossed... i'm not blaming you or anyone else b/c the difference in opinion is what makes this country so great... HOWEVER, the only way we can lose to these guys is if we pull out early... sorry to lump you in that crowd, b/c you said you don't agree w/ that either.. my sincere apoligies... i shouldn't have been directing that at you, but at the folks that are demanding us to pull out and get out now... [b][i]If it is not about blame, then why did you make the accusations?[/i][/b] i'm not sure what you mean by "making the accusations" but what i meant there is w/ every single post, you tell us how we're screwed and no way to win... i'm trying to tell you that we can win, and negativity only breeds losing imo... [b][i]Well, at the strategic level, we lost when we decided to divert our efforts into a needless war in Iraq. Not only because this harmed our relations with other nations in the world, but also because this admin deceived its own people to create the war. It'll take a long time to overcome both of those.[/i][/b] we can debate all night if you wanted about whether or not we we're misled or what ever you want to call it... but the fact is, both democrats and republicans voted for this, and they all seen the evidence... and clinton made very similar remarks to what bush would say... but now that bush is saying them, all dem's are beating "bush lied" remarks... i heard john mccain, after bush's speech tonight, talk about this issue, and he said that every time we say that this is "bush' war", we are (paraphrasing) spitting on our democracy... i have to agree w/ this, b/c we are a democracy and for people to say that he lied and its his war are forgetting that many people had this information and it wasn't just bush and cheney, forging documents and making calls to halliburton... you call it a needless war, but another point was also brought up by mccain... if we hadn't gone to war (reguardless of whether he had wmd's or not) he would be pursuing them right now... the sanctions were wearing off in iraq <cough> UN.... we would be trying to get them right now to hurt us... its like saying we should wait for the crime, after we have already watched him hurt millions, and flip us off for the last decade... why is this needless, unless you think that sadamm would be a nice guy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted June 29, 2005 Report Share Posted June 29, 2005 wow... read this link... this goes through everything, w/ links, pictures, and credible sources... saddam supported terrorism... he gave 25,000 dollars to the families of suicide bombers... this is an extremely informative link... [url="http://www.husseinandterror.com/"]click here[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlackJesus Posted June 29, 2005 Report Share Posted June 29, 2005 [img]http://www.husseinandterror.com/jpeg%20pics/08sized.jpg[/img] [i][b]BengalRick at that link.... he gives this chart as the groups Saddam supported... in actuality Saddam was at war with many of these groups. The P.K.K. is a group I work with for my doctoral studies and they are a group for Kurdish liberation from iraq... they hated Sadam and wanted to overthrow him. Also Al Ansar Islam, again is a Kurdish group that Saddam tried to exterminate and kill. Saddam as a secular stalinist also hated the Mujahedeen... they are radical islamisicts and Saddam was not and killed most clerics who preached radical whabiism. If anything this chart shows that Saddam was also killing many of the same groups the US calls terrorists, as well as his own people (he was an equal oppurtunity killer)....[/b][/i] [i][b]Also as for the Suicide Bombers..... the PLO doesn't have an army, effectivley there army is Hamas and other liberation groups that with small arms and suicide bombing fight against what they feel is an occupation and land theft by Israel. Saddam paying those families 25,000 $ has little difference between the U.S. paying the families of killed US troops in combat a stipend as well, it was recently raised to 100,000 for Iraq. Saddam payed the families of people who killed others, the US also pays families of people who killed others if they are killed. Now there is some difference in that 1. Sometimes the Suicide Bomber kills 12 people on a bus and it gets world coverage, and when the US bomber pilot drops a bomb that kills 50 he is also not seen as a terrorist.... but to some he is.[/b][/i] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted June 29, 2005 Report Share Posted June 29, 2005 Rick, just briefly: 1) BJ's previous post hits the nail on the head pretty well, imo. Saddam wasn't a nice fellow, I knew he supported terrorist groups; I've been following this stuff for better than twenty years, all the way back to the 70s European stuff. 2) You have higher regard for McCain than I do. Without digressing into that topic, I'll just add that he and Lieberman have been playing footsie on Middle East policy for quite a while now. 3) You say the only way we can lose is if we pull out too early. Rumsfeld says it may take 12 years. Was this what you were told in 2002? There's no need to debate the "misled" aspect of things anymore; it's abundantly clear to anyone who faithfully collates the evidence, regardless of bias. 5) How do we salvage the situation? I don't know, the bozos driving this bus have gotten us into a pretty tight position. I certainly was not enthralled by the Prez's speech last night, it offered only more of the same. The way he choked up at the end of his speech made me think he is unstable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bengalrick Posted June 29, 2005 Report Share Posted June 29, 2005 [quote name='Homer_Rice' date='Jun 29 2005, 07:53 AM']Rick, just briefly: 1) BJ's previous post hits the nail on the head pretty well, imo. Saddam wasn't a nice fellow, I knew he supported terrorist groups; I've been following this stuff for better than twenty years, all the way back to the 70s European stuff. 2) You have higher regard for McCain than I do. Without digressing into that topic, I'll just add that he and Lieberman have been playing footsie on Middle East policy for quite a while now. 3) You say the only way we can lose is if we pull out too early. Rumsfeld says it may take 12 years. Was this what you were told in 2002? There's no need to debate the "misled" aspect of things anymore; it's abundantly clear to anyone who faithfully collates the evidence, regardless of bias. 5) How do we salvage the situation? I don't know, the bozos driving this bus have gotten us into a pretty tight position. I certainly was not enthralled by the Prez's speech last night, it offered only more of the same. The way he choked up at the end of his speech made me think he is unstable. [right][post="108563"][/post][/right][/quote] 1. as far as the graph and the terrorists groups that were in iraq, the point is, is they were there... whether saddam supported all of them financially isn't necessarily the point... they were there, and everyone wants to say that we made them come... in general, we are making more terrorists b/c we're there... i'm not nieve to think otherwise, but we are also changing minds over there... iraqis are trusting us more... we're really fighting for the most part, foreign fighters... as far as the comparison of saddam paying suicide bombers to our paying of soldiers in combat... are you serious? that is crazy... we aren't blowing people up in cafes w/ home made bombs strapped to us.. its disrespectful to equate our soldiers w/ homicide bombers... the reason that, if we drop a bomb that kills 50, it is on ACCIDENT and we are following the laws of war... these fucks aren't so don't even try to equate their "soldiers" w/ our soldiers b/c it doesnt and won't hold water w/ me or most people... the fact is, he payed 25,000 dollars to familes, after they blew their self up... if yo want to compare that to us paying for duty, it just shows your true colors... 2. even alot of democrats on this board have respect for mccain.. sorry to hear you don't... 3. when the war started, we were told "it would be a long and tough war"... that is exactly what i expected, and is what we're getting... and rummie said up to 12 years... cheney said they were in their last throes... i don't believe either prediction... from what i gather from generals and such, is we are still a ways away.. probably, at least 2 or 3 years away from the iraqis will be up to par, training wise... i read this [url="http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050629-121335-2805r.htm"]article[/url] and it at least gives me some hope and some answers... i don't know how true it is, but i hope they are right b/c the shiites are hinting on letting more seats to go to the sunnis... that is exactly what the sunnis are asking for... here is another account of what is going on from a clan chief in iraq: [url="http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/fortwayne/news/local/12012376.htm"]click here[/url] this doesn't support the above link though, and i think this is a better account of what is going on... 5. (where's 4) so your saying that even if they write the constitution, vote in december, and continue to progress politically and through their security forces, we will still not be winning? granted thats a lot of if's, but they are far from impossible goals... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer_Rice Posted June 30, 2005 Report Share Posted June 30, 2005 [quote name='bengalrick' date='Jun 29 2005, 10:40 AM']1. as far as the graph and the terrorists groups that were in iraq, the point is, is they were there... whether saddam supported all of them financially isn't necessarily the point... they were there, and everyone wants to say that we made them come...[/quote] If this is of genuine interest to you, I'd suggest you probe more deeply into how this stuff works in the world. You won't get that from newspapers only; get into some books on the subject. Most of what we call terrorism is low-intensity warfare, also called irregular warfare, also called assymetrical warfare. The sad truth of the matter is that a lot of what we call terrorism is sponsored by nations as a matter of policy under the guise of warfare "under the radar", so to speak. In other words, to be analytical about it (and therefore not to be consumed by rhetoric), this kind of warfare has been used by many countries, many times, including our own. Now, don't get worked up about this because it'll hamper your pursuit of understanding. I hate genuine terrorism, and I come very close to hating irregular warfare. No matter where I find it. The reason for the former is obvious, and the reason for the latter is because I think that [i]Realpolitick[/i], as the axiomatic basis for the exercise of power, is an unhealthy way to shape policy. It certainly is not real statecraft. With respect to Iraq, the presence of irregular warfare formations in that territory has been long known, but as BJ pointed out, you have to closely look at each one, their goals, and the reasons why they might be present and allowed to group in a country. For example, the whereabouts of Abu Nidal were known for a long time, it was no secret. It also was of no consequence, politically, as he had been more or less neutered. The point I am making can be summed up this way: To truly understand what is going on, one needs to look for the precise causality of situations. Who? What? When? Where? Why? In low intensity warfare this is more difficult because of the nature of the beast, but it is not impossible to come up with workable hypotheses. On a more personal level, I once was acquainted with the son of a Kurdish chief. That was 20 years ago so for all I know, he may be very intimately involved in activities over there, now. I also was better friends with one fellow who was a member of the Saudi royal family (which is not as exciting as it sounds, given the extended relations of the family); I knew a lawyer working on his PhD in poly sci who was sympathic and perhaps even associated with the Muslim Brotherhood (a group you should really get to know if you want to understand a lot of what is happening now in the Middle East--the granddaddy of a bunch of later groupings); and one of my best friends ever was a fellow who left Iran because his family wanted him out of the country when the Shah fell. The diversity of their political views, and their support of various causes corresponding to their views, proved to be a good crucible for me to come to grips with the kind of politics that occurs under the surface of everyday awareness. [quote]in general, we are making more terrorists b/c we're there... i'm not nieve to think otherwise, but we are also changing minds over there... iraqis are trusting us more... we're really fighting for the most part, foreign fighters...[/quote] This is mistaken, and goes to the core of the problem. The truth is we are facing an insurgency composed of Iraqis primarily, with a good portion of foreign fighters, secondarily. This is as Myers (I think it was him) said at hearings last week. No insurgency can sustain itself without the support of relatively broad sections of the populace. Much of that support is passive, but it is support nonetheless. They want us out, period. The big question is, how do we do that, equitably? [quote]as far as the comparison of saddam paying suicide bombers to our paying of soldiers in combat... are you serious? that is crazy... we aren't blowing people up in cafes w/ home made bombs strapped to us.. its disrespectful to equate our soldiers w/ homicide bombers... the reason that, if we drop a bomb that kills 50, it is on ACCIDENT and we are following the laws of war... these fucks aren't so don't even try to equate their "soldiers" w/ our soldiers b/c it doesnt and won't hold water w/ me or most people... the fact is, he payed 25,000 dollars to familes, after they blew their self up... if yo want to compare that to us paying for duty, it just shows your true colors...[/quote] Don't confuse my views with BJ's. And be careful of how you assess the thoughts of others, if you want to be just. BJ has his own way of saying things, but the points he makes are worth thinking about. War is mean and nasty. All sorts of bad things happen. That's why a wise country avoids war, unless there were no other recourse. Speaking for myself, that is precisely why I opposed this war from the start--I thought that the danger posed by Iraq could have been handled diplomatically. This admin came into power in 2001 with the idea of taking down Saddam. And you know what, I didn't have any objections to that goal. There are lots of ways to skin a cat short of sticking a load of TNT up it's ass and lighting the fuse. We disagree, obviously, but I think this admin has more than its share of cruel, impatient people--who also happen to be inept and moral weaklings. Not everyone in the admin is that way, but far too many are in critical places of power. Also, just as you are tired of hearing about my opposition to this war, I am beginning to find it tedious to have my patriotism called into question, either directly or by allusion. It's my opinion that I have served this nation to the best of my ability as a normal citizen, not only by diverting my life for 4 years to serve as a citizen-sailor, but also as a result of the thousands of hours I have spent trying to improve my understanding of just why this nation occupies a special place in history, and also by virtue of the fact that I have volunteered my time, labor, and dollars, as a citizen, during almost every election cycle of my adult life. I have yet to call your patriotism into question, though I disagree with the ideas you propound and think them dangerous. I also concede that you might think that the ideas I propound might be dangerous. That's precisely why it is incumbent on each and every citizen to work towards becoming a wise person and to present the best-reasoned arguments they can for their views. In a rational society, the truth will out, eventually. The fact that our government is designed to facilitate this sort of give and take is a part of its beauty. The fact that a bunch of "no-nothings" are present in our society, and have shouted their way into being noticed (and this applies to both ends of the political spectrum), is no reason why any citizen should abrogate their rights and responsibilities to perfom their duties as a citizen. One of those responsibilites is to be respectful in pursuit of the truth. [quote]2. even alot of democrats on this board have respect for mccain.. sorry to hear you don't...[/quote] Here's part of the problem. Where did I say that I have no respect for McCain? Aside from the fact that I suspect I know more about the fellow that you do, and therefore would be able to back up an argument if I did claim to have no respect for the Senator, I simply did not say that. I said you hold him in higher esteem than I do. In fact, I'm keen on paying attention to what McCain says moreso than some other politicans, simply because he and I share the same brotherhood of the Navy, and I am not so blind that I fail to recognize that he served with much more distinction than I did. [quote]3. when the war started, we were told "it would be a long and tough war"... that is exactly what i expected, and is what we're getting... and rummie said up to 12 years... cheney said they were in their last throes... i don't believe either prediction... from what i gather from generals and such, is we are still a ways away.. probably, at least 2 or 3 years away from the iraqis will be up to par, training wise... i read this [url="http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050629-121335-2805r.htm"]article[/url] and it at least gives me some hope and some answers... i don't know how true it is, but i hope they are right b/c the shiites are hinting on letting more seats to go to the sunnis... that is exactly what the sunnis are asking for...[/quote] No, you were not told that the war in Iraq would be long and tough. Review the spectrum of evidence offered by admin members during the runup to the conventional war and its immediate aftermath. Once again: who, what, when, where, and why? [quote]5.  (where's 4) so your saying that even if they write the constitution, vote in december, and continue to progress politically and through their security forces, we will still not be winning? granted thats a lot of if's, but they are far from impossible goals... [right][post="108601"][/post][/right][/quote] I hope and pray that some form of stable government comes out of this mess we have created. We are talking about two levels of war here, I think. As I said previously, we have already lost on the strategic/geopolitical front, simply by going to war in the manner we did. We also lost because the admin misled the American population. On the battlefield, we are not doing so well, either. As a veteran, I am incensed that our troops have been put into such an awkward position. It's a tribute to them that they do their job as well as they do under these adverse conditions. So, Victory? How does one measure that? I know we are here on a board dedicated to a sport that is little more than a bread and circuses form of regulated warfare, but in real life, I'm for peace. I measure victory in prosperity for our people, in lives well spent and not in lives callously thrown into danger. Am I a pacifist? No, sometimes it is necessary to "put on the pads." Afghanistan was, imo, one of those occasions. Iraq, imo, was not. That our Prez last night made a number of references tying these two distinct wars together, when it is becoming more and more apparent that they are not, simply tells me that how this admin defines victory is morally bankrupt. The sooner they are removed from power, the sooner we can begin to repair the damage we have done to our reputation in the world, and the sooner we can work towards some real victories defeating more significant enemies in this world, like poverty and disease. Prosperity. <edited for spelling> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Dan_Bengals_FL- Posted June 30, 2005 Report Share Posted June 30, 2005 You bring up a lot of well put and interesting points Homer Rice. I would be interested on hearing some of your thoughts on McCain. However, in some ways I also agree with Rick. Although I personally think a lot of other measures could have been used prior to the start of war (this administration had it's goal set on Iraq as soon as it came into power) I think we have to focus on getting the job done now. Personally I don't believe that means letting anyone off the hook, but we have to find away to make the situation work best for all parties involved. That is where my main issue with the current president comes into play. I must say I was extremely unimpressed with his speech. For some one who claims to be a such a "Uniter," he sure as hell does a lot of dividing. His talk in absolutes disgusts me. But I think the country as a whole needs to focus more on Iraq and develop a solution that can work well for all parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.