Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Jan 4, 2007.
Iraq = Vietnam brought to us by those who deferred from vietnam.
You want to here a radical idea? I think we should of annexed Iraq for a little while untill things got stable. I'm thinking too much effort was put into staging a fake government rather than just getting the place safe for people to live there. And of course, firing all of the iraqi soldiers is what got the insurgency started.
Yeah, right. Good plan.
I cannot help myself from thinking this whole war in Iraq is America's war. I hope he will fix his own mess. International communities are forced to pitch in money for this whole fiasco (ie. getting into war on the false and fabricated info, which is to say a fraud in the normal life in the business). Unfortunately, the mess is here to stay and my home country has to pitch in money (which is my home country's tax payer money) to finance the recovery process. Whatever he does before his term is up, I hope things will get better.
You're right. We should of just gone in there, pumped all the oil out of the ground, loaded it up onto tankers, and got out of there.
These things might have worked three years ago. But of course, for political reasons, Bush couldn't admit a mistake because he was afraid it would cost him his presidency.
And while these neo-con folks may have been holding this view for a while, they sure haven't been vocal about countering the president's view until very recently. Like so many on the right, the election of the Democrats to power has brought about a "come to Jesus" moment for them. Earmarks are suddenly bad, the minority party needs a bill of rights in the House, the war in Iraq might not be going so well.
Too little, too late. The public ain't buyin' it anymore.
People like Bill Kristol have been consistently wrong about, well, everything. Yet they are still treated as authorities on the very things they've gotten wrong. Bush was their baby, he's doing exactly what they wanted. They can complain all they want that he screwed things up, but you reap what you sew. Bush may live in a bubble, but who put him there? Who was right there defending him the whole time?
They destroyed their own credibility by attempting to put into play ideas that never would have worked and were doomed to failure, so, yeah... I don't believe them now either.
This concerns me, but only in the short term. Since this will lead only to more failure, it'll merely ratchet up pressure for Congress to cut off funding to this fiasco.
Of course, before that happens, more men and women will die, and more terrorists will be created.
The only thing 40,000 more US troops in Iraq should be doing is replacing the British ones coming home. I'm sick of our involvement in this.
Now it looks as if Bush is changing the 2 senior generals in Iraq. Not sure how I feel about this, I can see it three ways. One, they are being fired for a failed Bush policy, i.e. political scapegoats. Two, they're not effective generals. Or three, they're resistant to Bush's desire to add more troops.
If I was as cynical about using American troops for domestic political gain as Bush is, I would cheer Bush's plans to escalate the war. He's been wrong about every aspect of this war so far, and he's wrong that an escalation will help things now. And the more Bush is seen as wrong, the more people like me are seen as being right all along.
But I'm not as cynical as Bush is, and so I despair over the waste of life that he will preside over as he sends more of America's young men and women off to die for his own ego.
I wish no ill upon any, but with the escalations of civil war taking aim in Baghdad, one could only hope Nuri al-Maliki is still alive to celebrate the new year in '08.
The front page story on yesterdays Independent newspaper: For the first time, a real blueprint for peace in Iraq, written by Ali Allawi, former Iraqi Defence Minister.
Maybe the Americans and British "intellectuals" should ask some Iraqi's how they would put their country back together?
I cannot help myself from thinking this whole war in Europe is England's War. I hope Churchill will fix his own mess. International communities are forced to pitch in money for this whole fiasco... and my home country has to pitch in money to finance the Marshall Plan.
Nice idea, but expecting a coherent answer is total pie in the sky. The wider ambitions of the Kurds and the Shia will not so easily be put back into the bottle.
A pretty silly analogy. WW2 was not a war of choice. The UK does share a great deal of responsibility for the Iraqi fiasco, however, thanks to Blair's craven foolishness. If he had rejected the idea, it would not have happened, period. Even Bush would not have dared go in alone.
Actually, it is not at all a silly analogy, though it was not intended as a perfect one. Many people in WW2 felt that the US had no business at all in the European Theater. The Germans seemed quite content to shape a new order in Europe and not involve us at all. Furthermore, it was a very hard sell for the American people to embrace the Marshall Plan, which was tremendously unpopular, but the statesmanship of Marshall convinced people that it was in their long-term interest to rebuild Europe to avoid the fiasco that the Treaty of Versailles wrought.
Much of the mess in Middle East is a direct result of European colonialism. Allies stick together for the sake of their common values. I stand by my "silly analogy."
Germany declared war on the US, not the other way round.
Yes, that's true, but in response to the fact that the US was already assisting the United Kingdom with destroyer escorts of her convoys, the Lend-Lease Act, etc. The United States had already come to the UK's aid, despite significant public pressure to the contrary. It was well known by Hitler from the Rainbow Five plan that the US was committed to assisting in Europe by 1943.
My point is simple: friends help friends when they need it, a fact that PM Blair seems to understand well. You can call this an elective war, but it was going to be fought at one point or another. Would things have changed for the better with Uday or Qusay in power?
To me, this was always a humanitarian intervention first. We botched the occupation in any number of ways and, though it pains me to say so, the whole enterprise might have been doomed to failure from the get go from a humanitarian perspective, given the forces at play there. That said, we're there now and if we leave there will be a sectarian bloodbath and likely a regional war. Recall for a second the events in Vietnam and Cambodia when we left there.
Whining about "Bush's War" seems to miss the larger point.
I'm also particularly pained by the willingness of some Europeans to abandon us given the fact that we provided a security umbrella for all of Western Europe post-World War II. It was the right thing to do, for the obvious reasons, but it sure appears that memories are short.
I shouldn't have posted, because I know full well that these internet arguments have little chance at accomplishing anything, so I'll try to be quiet now.
All very well and good except for one thing. There already is a sectarian bloodbath in the country formally known as Iraq (note the past tense). And yes, this was Bush's War. He, Rumsfeld and Cheney had this planned before they even took over in the White House (in dubious circumstances, let's not forget). From 2000 on, the invasion of Iraq was going to happen whoever tried to stop it. The attack on 9/11 was spun to help those plans rather than catch the guilty, and everyone that died on that day still has no justice as a result.
So maybe it's the Americans with the short memories. Roosevelt and Truman would never have acted as Bush has done and continues to do. Your current President is nothing short of a spoilt child. He is both an embarrassment and a danger to your country, and a global joke to boot. Thanks very much for the help in WW2, but if every country in the world now turns it's back on the USA, it's the man in the White House to blame.
First, I disagree with your assessment of the events that led to the war, but I know better than to descend into those fevered swamps.
With that said, you'll undoubtedly feel better that you've really shown Bush when the "world now turns its back on the USA" while the region explodes and scores of people are butchered in a sectarian bloodbath. Take that, Iraqi children!
US destroyer escorts did not begin until spring 1942, after Hitler had declared war on the US.
This illegal invasion and occupation did not need to happen at all. Iraq was no threat.
That's not how it was presented, was it?
In all probability, there will be anyway, thanks to the appalling incompetence of the political effort.
You were never officially in Cambodia, and Vietnam was much better off without you.
If you read my post, I blame Blair equally, if not more. He enabled Bush to pretend there was some consensus, and lied to his people and the UN to cover both their backs.
Irrelevant in the extreme.
No, please continue to post. Just don't expect a free ride.
Unfortunately, thanks to your idiot President and his complete inability either to see other's points of view or the most likely consequences of his actions, the deaths of those children are now inevitable. Once again, the sectarian bloodbath is already under way. There is no country where Iraq used to be, only anarchy.
You can throw as many troops at that as you like, but you'll only increase the death and violence. You see, the insurgents don't see foreign troops as their saviours, but as their occupiers. As such, they'll keep fighting until the last Westerner leaves, and then they'll fight amongst themselves for dominance.
The absolute best we can hope for now is the establishment of two Islamic theocracies and a Kurdish state, all independent of each other. So much for bringing democracy to the Middle East
I don't get it. Because you did the right thing for us many years ago you have the right to demand we do the wrong things for you now?