Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Jan 22, 2005.
Why is this not surprising?
I remember a time when journalists did more than state the obvious. They actually investigated things so that disasters could be avoided, rather than just observed in progress.
Gosh, I really miss the Clinton years.
Jeez, I knew we weren't doing well, but I thought we were at least "treading water" there. This is distressing news.
Talk about lousy options, if this is true:  institute a draft;  invade with heavy equipment (again, as we did at the beginning of the war);  withdraw and (assuming the new government is crushed by insurgents) leave them a new fundamentalist, terrorist state.
Almost any way you look at it, if this is true, it's a crushing defeat for Bush. God knows I can't stand the man and wouldn't mind seeing him fail, but not this way, at the cost of so many thousands of lives...and not this big.
I thought the war was over. Do they mean losing the occupation? How empowered are terrorists going to feel if they kick us out of Iraq. I think Iraq will only become more of a problem in years to come. Long after Bush has gone to work for Halliburton as an advisor.
as far as taking out saddam and capturing him and bringing him to justice, the usa has succeeded beyond its wildest dreams
but occupying iraq and controlling the violence has been a different matter...while not as bad and ugly as vietnam, the usa has greatly underestimated the insurgents and we may never get the situation totally under control
the lingering war in iraq will erode at president's popularity and eventually, long time supporters of bush will eventually speak out against his policies in iraq
at a certain point, we have to leave iraq to the iraqis and it just isn't possible to bring the county to any level of democracy up to our satisfaction
It would appear that going out and investigating stories in Iraq is rather dangerous.
Point taken. I suppose I was referring more to the fact that mainstream journalists are just now getting around to the discovery that we are "losing" the war, when that has been fairly obvious for months now.
It was certainly obvious during the election, and that was a time in which we could have actually done something about it.
The worst part is that the media seemed to eat up the rhetoric that we would be met with roses and flowers in Baghdad during the run-up to the war, when any enterprising journalist could have exposed the faulty logic at play there. Iraqis hated Saddam - but there was one thing they hated more, and that was the U.S.
Iraq is now a breeding ground for terrorists. We made great strides at eliminating this situation in Afghanistan, only to leave our work there unfinished and create a new terrorist haven where none existed. Not to mention the fact that we have justified every Muslim's worst fear of the U.S. - that we are bent on changing their way of life and making them more like us, especially if there's a new source of oil to be gained in the process.
I did not mean to suggest in my post that the media is lazy. Many have offered this explanation. I think they're just scared. Anyone who speaks the truth under the watchful eye of this administration is subjected to an organized smear campaign that results in public humiliation and a pink slip. They knew what we would face in Iraq, but they would have been painted as left-wing zealots if they had come out and said it.
The GOP has made tremendous progress in their effort to cast the media as a vast, left-wing conspiracy machine. Now, the Democrats are building organizations to do the same thing from the other side. If something is not done, we will have nothing but carefully orchestrated talking points in place of actual journalism. And to those who will suggest that we are already there, I assure you that the worst is yet to come.
We are coasting toward the vision presented in Apple's infamous 1984 ad, and our best hope for salvation is exactly what the spot suggested. With our computers, we can use the internet to break through the spin machine and awaken this sleeping nation to the disastrous path it has taken.
I tend to look at this somewhat like Vietnam. Sure, the US would've liked to have won, but the real point might just have been to convince the leaders of various countries that the US is sufficiently irrational and vicious if it wants to be and you better watch your step.
Nixon/Kissinger supposedly impressed/influenced China and USSR by their erratic behavior late in the Vietnam War with the bombing of Cambodia etc, which allowed for the US to open relations with China.
This war, even though we are losing, may have the same effect. After all, we did manage to dispose of the reigning regime, desroy the military and infrastructure of a country. Any world leader would probably be a little unnerved of the US's willingness to fight in wars, win or lose, if pissed off.
Is this worth the lives of Iraqis and US soldiers, not to mention the billions of dollars we've spent? Probably not, but that wasn't the question.
What exactly was the question, then?
I'll answer that in two ways:
1) From the POV of me contributing to this thread, it is not a question of whether we should have fought in the first place, but of the situation we are now in. I attempted to divine ulterior motives from this whole mess, but my opinion on the validity of such a course of action is not relevant to their opinion on such matters.
2) And that the Administration probably never thought of phrasing the question in such a way either, or indeed of even asking it. Whether their motives were calculated or ideological, they were both probably abstracted to such a degree to make such points irrelevant.
I'm none the wiser.
But I agree that part of the Administration's motivation for this war may have been a crude demonstration of mental instability. Always a good ploy for psychopaths.
was i the only one who thought "what war ? i thought the US/coalition never officially declared war ?" (that or either "i thought it was already over..."
seriously this isn't surprising at all...
So Bush has himself in a position from which he can neither raise troop levels significantly, not can he reduce them by much yet all signs point toward a radical rethinking of the military's role in Iraq. If Bush's strategy is to keep on doing what he's doing until such time as a withdrawl is forced upon him, then I want no part of it.
Raising troop levels significantly for any length of time over a year would probably require a draft. Doubtful the GOP wants to see this happen, even though Bush doesn't have to run for reelection, many others do. With public support near or below the 50% threshhold, and with the potential for a draft to drive support down fast, I think many would view that as political suicide.
Lowering troop levels is the only option, and that only happens if we can get a well trained Iraqi force capable of providing nationwide security. It also means the government will be friendly to US interests, and therefore probably not exactly representative of the will of the Iraqi people.
It all boils down to more of the same, coming to a station near you. I wonder if it will take another soldier having to stand up and ask how you ask someone to be the last person to die for a mistake.
You can thank our brave, take-no-prisoners Congress for that little oversight.
Here's an idea put forth by Heinlen (the sci-fi author):
An amendment to the constitution, the "war referendum" amendment. Major points thus:
1. Except in cases of invasion of the US, the power to declare war is taken from the congress and given to the people.
2. If the administration believes war, invasion or major military operations are necessary, it must have a referendum to be voted on by the people for approval of the use of the military.
3. Only those people eligible for military service may vote in the referendum
4. If the referndum passes, those who voted "yes" are automatically conscripted to serve in the combat zone.
5. If this number of soldiers is not sufficient, those people eligible for military service who did not vote are in the second round of conscriptions.
6. If needed, those who voted "no" are conscripted in a third round.
Who thinks we'd've gone to Iraq had this system been in place? Who thinks we'd still be there, if yes?
What? Didnt you know? We dont lose wars. We institute a strategic withdraw to reassess our military options
All I can say is good. Let this and every death be on the head of everyone who voted for that ***hat. And if anyone thinks the next 4 are going to be any better.. I mean for the love of god...Condoleezza Rice as Sec of State? Isn't that like putting Bam-Bam from the Flintstones in charge of a china shop.