Originally Posted By TomSawyer The Independent is reporting that Bush will call for one last big push in Iraq to turn the tide of the conflict. There are four points to his plan. First, increase the number of troops in Iraq by 20,000, and use them to secure Baghdad. Then shift forces around Iraq to deal with the insurgency. Second, encourage regional cooperation in dealing with the problems in Iraq. That means calling on resources from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and possibly Syria. And, a remote possibility, Iran. Third, keep working on reconciliation between the Kurds, Shia and Sunnis. And - here's the bitter pill - set aside goals for a Western-style democracy and focus on setting up a cohesive national government instead. Fourth, a whole bunch more money from Congress to pay for expanded troop deployments and to provide more aid and support to the Iraqi army. <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0" target="_blank">http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq /Story/0</a>,,1948748,00.html So now we aren't even fighting to establish a democracy there. Nice. And if Mr. Bush does want more money, I wonder if he's willing to repeal some of his little tax cuts so we can pay for his little adventure?
Originally Posted By TomSawyer A United Churches of Christ pastor who goes by the name PastorDan at <a href="http://www.streetprophets.com" target="_blank">http://www.streetprophets.com</a> summarized it like this: 1. Escalate an unpopular war. 2. Get two countries we've been threatening for five years - and who see themselves as having won a recent war against Israel, an important US ally and the biggest military threat in the region - to help us out. 3. Wave a magic wand and stop a civil war that's been going on for about two years. 4. Convince Congress that it needs to pony up so that the previous waste, fraud, and idiocy doesn't cause us real trouble.
Originally Posted By ecdc So thousands dead later he wakes up and realizes his repeated insistence that they want freedom America-style doesn't cut it? Bush could wave a magic wand and fix Iraq and get us out of there and it would still be too little, to late. He's Lyndon Johnson in 1968 only he doesn't care about civil liberties and we're stuck with him for two more years.
Originally Posted By SuperDry Let me provide my own translations: <<< First, increase the number of troops in Iraq by 20,000, and use them to secure Baghdad. Then shift forces around Iraq to deal with the insurgency. >>> So now we need 20,000 more troops just to secure Baghdad, when we were told for *years* that current troop levels were enough to secure the whole country? We weren't told the truth. <<< Second, encourage regional cooperation in dealing with the problems in Iraq. That means calling on resources from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and possibly Syria. And, a remote possibility, Iran. >>> What, we can't do it all by ourselves? <<< >> Fourth, a whole bunch more money from Congress to pay for expanded troop deployments and to provide more aid and support to the Iraqi army. << And if Mr. Bush does want more money, I wonder if he's willing to repeal some of his little tax cuts so we can pay for his little adventure? >>> Why would this be any different than the $300 billion or whatever it is that we've already spend there with borrowed money (none of it paid for)?
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Why would this be any different than the $300 billion or whatever it is that we've already spend there with borrowed money (none of it paid for)?<< He doesn't have a rubber stamp Congress any more.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So now we need 20,000 more troops just to secure Baghdad, when we were told for *years* that current troop levels were enough to secure the whole country?> 20,000 more troops takes us back to what the troop levels were just before the Iraqi election. It's within the range of what we've been told all along was needed to secure the country, so we weren't lied to. <What, we can't do it all by ourselves?> We've never said we could do it all by ourselves. We've asked for help and support all along. If we had received more of it, it's likely we'd be better off now than we are.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<It's time to bring the troops home from Iraq. Enough is enough.>> Exactly. Things will be no worse if we bail out. It has already been made very clear that the United States is incapable of fighting an insurgency. Every terrorist in the world is already laughing at our futility. By continuing to fight a lost cause only makes us look stupid.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Things will be no worse if we bail out.> Most of the people who spend almost all their time there or studying there say otherwise.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Most of the people who spend almost all their time there or studying there say otherwise.>> Wishful thinking on their part. We've been hearing "it's getting better" for over three years now. That's a lie. It is getting worse and the entire world knows it.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Today the president, in Vietnam, said the lesson of Vietnam is patience. So in 30 years, things in Iraq should be A-OK.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Today the president, in Vietnam, said the lesson of Vietnam is patience.>> The lesson of Viet Nam is if we get the heck out of a country we don’t belong in and leave them alone; 30 years later they are friendly to the U.S.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Wishful thinking on their part. We've been hearing "it's getting better" for over three years now. That's a lie. It is getting worse and the entire world knows it.> I disagree.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh We pulled out of Vietnam and 2 million people were slaughtered and millions more forced to live in oppression. It didn't have to be that way.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>By continuing to fight a lost cause only makes us look stupid.<< Why did you have to bring the Rush Limbaugh thread into this?
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>So in 30 years, things in Iraq should be A-OK.<< The GOP candidate for the 2036 presidential election is somewhere today dodging service in the Iraq War.
Originally Posted By ecdc "We pulled out of Vietnam and 2 million people were slaughtered and millions more forced to live in oppression. It didn't have to be that way." You're absolutely right. It didn't have to be that way. If we had never gone into Vietnam, or if we had not escalated the situation, this might not have happened. But we arrogantly assumed that the now-defunct domino theory needed to be addressed, and we did so without knowing anything about Vietnamese history or culture. We ended up fighting an enemy that we would have had to entirely exterminate to declare any kind of victory. We blew up a bridge and children and old women had it replaced within hours. Mothers handed GIs their newborn babies with hidden grenades in their blankets. Only those most ignorant of history would suggest "staying the course" was the solution in Vietnam, or more troop levels, or "we didn't go in to win." There's no winning against an enemy that will kill itself to bring you down with them. Sound familiar?
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>There's no winning against an enemy that will kill itself to bring you down with them. Sound familiar?<< Now you're bringing up the Rush Limbaugh thread!
