Bush=no pullout of iraq

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by iPhil, Mar 22, 2006.

  1. iPhil macrumors 68040

    iPhil

    #1
    [url="http://nctimes.com/articles/2006/03/22/military/8_57_563_21_06.txt']direct link to story[/url]

    Gotta love the draft-dodger Bush since he can get into a mess/quagmire but not out :mad: :mad: ..

    Impeach him now or try to grow some balls Congress to over-turn any veto by bush to bring home the troops from iraq :eek: :eek:
     
  2. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #2
    I was astonished to read Bush's remarks in the paper this morning. Did he really mean to say that the U.S. military commitment in Iraq will run for six years? At a minimum? Isn't this at just a slight variance from previous forecasts?

    If the Democrats can't string Bush up by his thumbs now, then I don't know what will do it.
     
  3. yellow Moderator emeritus

    yellow

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
  4. iPhil thread starter macrumors 68040

    iPhil

    #4
    Bush has said that US military would be there for long haul or 'til Iraq could defend itself .. :mad: :mad:

    if the dems win congress this fall then there might be enough support for murtha's bill to overcome the veto :eek: :eek:
     
  5. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #5
    I saw this last night on CNN's site, and was similarly amazed.

    Bush is obviously positioning himself to regain popularity and quell the fears of GOP congressmen. Believe it or not, I can actually see this gaining the Republicans some points, because instead of just talking in vague terms, he's giving the appearance of having an actual plan for the end of the war. The Kool-aid drinkers in the Republican party will probably welcome this as some kind of strong "vision" for our involvement in Iraq, and some of the troubled GOP congressmen will probably see this as Bush "righting" himself -- taking command and becoming forceful and positive again.

    However, for the rest of us -- the moderate Republicans who have been hoping for a pullout in 2006, and we liberals who see this as a lost cause and a complete folly -- this will just infuriate us more, because we now know that that phrase Bush (or was it Rumsfeld?) used a few weeks ago -- "the long war" -- was merely a preview of things to come. Now it's official: there will be no pullout in 2006.

    I have to wonder what even the loyalest of our troops think about this. Where's Bush gonna get the men and women to go at least another two or three years? Are our troops going to experience fourth, fifth and sixth deployments to Iraq? That's insane. Or are we headed towards a draft?

    Any way you look at this -- unless you're one of the Kool-aid drinkers -- this has UGLY written all over it. I'm sure the Republicans will try to spin Bush's new "doctrine" in a very positive way, but overall I'm sure this is going to be one more nail in the Republicans' coffin come election time this fall.
     
  6. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #6
    so the GOP, figuring they're probably going to lose the presidency in 2008, have opted to leave this mess as a present to the dems. smart move.

    i can't wait to hear the pundits declare the dems inherited a good war and messed it up.
     
  7. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #7
    I think you have put your finger on the macro politics, though maybe in reverse order. All of the options in Iraq are awful. If the Democrats win control Congress this year then the blame for whatever bad outcome occurs can be spread around, giving the Republicans hope of retaining the White House in '08.
     
  8. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #8
    Yeah, but somehow I doubt that if the Democrats take either house of Congress (still a long shot in my book) that we'll be short of scandals to pin on the GOP over the subsequent two years. Subpoena power is an awesome weapon.

    But I do see where you're going with this being used against any future Democrat in control of anything. It's not the GOP's fault, who have been in total control of the entire war, but it will be the fault of any Democrat who takes control.

    "The buck stops over there" should be the motto of this White House.
     
  9. ChrisBrightwell macrumors 68020

    ChrisBrightwell

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Location:
    Huntsville, AL
    #9
    As much as I refuse to be a fan of the GOP, I doubt anyone has a ticket that could be McCain/Guiliani.
     
  10. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #10
    A ticket that will never be nominated?
     
  11. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #11
    I'm not sure that the military is in such bad shape as you think. I think that a lot of the tightness that led to the use of huge numbers of reserves was caused by trying to restructure and conduct a war at the same time. I think most of the restructuring is done which has led to a decrease in the number of reserves being used. That number can go back up as the number of new recruits drops and existing soldiers are killed/wounded or end their enlistments. We can also pull back on some of our other commitments slightly or heavily, which is obviously planned for Korea/Japan/Europe. The military won't break in the next three years, it will just continue to decline, perhaps heavily.
     
  12. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
  13. tristan macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Location:
    high-rise in beautiful bethesda
    #13
    The problem with Iraq is there's no strategy - just a lot of stupid slogans like "we'll stand down when the Iraqis stand up" and "we'll fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" and all that. You can't win a war on catchy slogans.
     
  14. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #14
    Not necessarily true - if you choose to differentiate how a war of this kind needs to be fought - and how it needs to be marketed.
     
  15. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #15
    The point is, surely, that it did not "need" to be fought.
     
  16. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #16
    Well, obviously. That points' relevance has limited applicability now, however.

    That mistakes or outright deceptions were made makes limited difference to the reality of the situation now, even if they were fully admitted to - the situation has become too compounded and complex.

    Look, the fact that many on this board can point to this mess and say "I told you so" and give a veritable pile of evidence of poor policy, poor planning, poor leadership that points to this - but if the Administration insists on continuing the effort, what point to these comments serve?

    What is the point of insisting on a pullout as the only option, when that is not the option being taken?

    Look, again - let me remind you all, that I was largely in agreement with opinion that the Iraq War was a mistake - and that it has been subsequently and perhaps determinably, downhill from there.

    Still, I look at the stakes and the political realities prospective over the coming years, and if pullout does not seem to be an option that can or will be taken - I am determined to try and shore up alternatives. Perhaps these ideas will make it to the level of politically-viable, perhaps they might do some good, perhaps they are completely pie-in-the sky.

    I hate this war, it has sucked valuable resources, both human and financial away from more productive ventures. We could've paid for a multitude of college educations or the implementation of single-payer Health Insurance. But we didn't.

    So I am left with some speculatory math here - while a pullout would stem the financial and human cost (at least American), what would it do to Iraq and the ME, our interests there (energy prices, geostrategy), to our Domestic Political layout (would the Democrats end up paying the price for Iraq? - would this, in turn, preclude advancement of other priorities?) What would the financial and human costs be of another terrorist attack here in the US?

    I do not mean to imply that any course of action necessarily determines specific subsequent events. A terrorist attack is about as likely here whether we stay in Iraq or not - I am just speculating.

    I am just not a two-option person.
     
  17. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #17
    I think we should admit we broke it and that we now have to buy it. Commit to a phased withdrawl from the Iraqi interior and leave Iraqi forces to deal with reestablishing a state and system. Position our troops on the borders. Commit to train and equip (for free) the Iraqi military for 20 years. Commit to a schedule of war reparations to fund Iraqi rebuilding. Eventually withdraw most or all of our troops.

    How's that for a strategy? In the long run it will be much much cheaper than conducting a perpetual war, would cost fewer US lives, and could begin to show the world that the US can learn from its mistakes.
     
  18. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #18
    The only thing surprising about this is that you guys are surprised. There have been comments floating around about this war going on for a few more years for the last couple of days, if not weeks. But even if there weren't, it was obvious that we weren't leaving any time soon. And as for this helping to solidify the base, even they're getting restless. This is not a world war, this should have been a smaller mission. Despite what Cheney may be saying, the fact that they talked about how quick and easy this war was going to be is absolutely hurting them now. They sold us on false promises, and have to reap what they've sewn. So we start to ask more questions, and even the formerly patient base is becoming rapidly impatient and frustrated. Let alone the rest of us who have been that way for awhile.

    Bin Laden is still out there too.
     
  19. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #19
    I'm surprised only by the admission. I think we all knew that the U.S. military was in for a long haul if the present policy was pursued, but I never expected Bush to admit it.
     
  20. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #20
    Nor I. But the fact is he keeps falling far short of his own expectations. First it was "mission accomplished", and when that didn't work he changed his stance to one of short-term occupation (until a new government could be set up). Now that he's fallen way short of that goal, he's shifting his position again, figuring that a distant goal of withdrawal is one he may be less happy with but more likely to sell to the American people.

    Not that I think it's going to work.
     
  21. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #21
    I agree big time, in the end what was the point? Iraq? Bin Laden still roam's free after 5 years and all we here from this president is neocon spin of Rove/Cheney. How great this thing is that has bankrupted the U.S.?

    These guys have been wrong on this country, our military did the job of winning the war. Split up the darn country or just leave with some oversite if requested by the Iraqi's. The govt will still need to address extreme Islam because its the common thread these folks are preaching. You cant have people killed for religion,any religion.
     
  22. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #22
    Yep... $400 billion dollars and the better part of a decade to win... I think that was the original estimate. Which would make Cheney right when he says he was 'basically accurate' about their estimates.

    No wonder our deficit won't be cut. But it will still be 'basically accurate' to say that it's going down when it's actually rising by those standards. :rolleyes:

    Is slavery freedom yet?
     

Share This Page