MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: Murffieus on January 27, 2007, 07:53:33 PM
-
IMO, it has to work-----because the alternative is unthinkable.
If we pull out we leave a terrorist paradise in certain parts of Iraq (ala Afghanistan pre 9/11) from which to train terrorists and plan attacks on the USA & Britain------we leave a strengthened Iran------ we demonstrate to the moderate Islamists of the region that the future is with the Islamic Extremists not with the forces of moderation supported by the USA, as we show we don't have the staying power------Iraqi Oil will support terrorism------the civil war will escalate with the crapes ethnically cleansing the Sunni's-----could embroil the whole region (sunni vs crape).
-
Honestly, I believe the options presented are simply the difference between slow failure and quick failure. The only honest debate is whether to withdraw immediately, or make plans to stay 5, maybe 10 or 15 more years.
The surge? Like a 6-9-12 month surge? Not a chance.
-
absolutely Murf, the alternative is unthinkable! If we 'cut and run' (by any name you choose) we invite disaster.
-
I have been a virulent opponent of this war for going on 5 years. As soon as the trial balloon was floated, I spoke out against it and did all of the typical ineffective stuff to try to stop it. It is still a bad idea. Having said all of that.........I hope it works exactly like the president says. Nothing would make me happier than this 7th surge in troops being the magical one that gives the Maliki government the necessary stability to start taking the steps to stabilize their country. Yes, it would be a disaster if we rapidly withdrew from the mess we have created. So, I have added prayers for the success of this surge to my daily prayers for the safety of our troops.
-
"7th surge"-----keep in mind that this surge is accompanied by different leadership and a different plan (clear out the bad guys and HOLD).
Listening to the former generals in charge of eliminating the resistance-----they sounded more like social workers to me than military generals!
-
How many more surges do we need Murf? You can have this one, but how many more?
-
This surgescalation doesn't raise the troop levels any higher than they were a year ago. While I am happy the old faces in charge of previous failed policies are gone, I believe that the military has achieved all it can, which was winning the initial war against the Iraqi army. These soldiers do not have the training to mediate/solve a civil war between groups who want to wipe each other off the map. The only way that this mess can be salvaged is through diplomacy, but we seem to be destined to failure in Iraq because we refuse to seriously engage Syria or Iran, the two countries who have the means to ensure a deescalation of the conflict in Iraq.
-
"7th surge"-----keep in mind that this surge is accompanied by different leadership and a different plan (clear out the bad guys and HOLD).
Listening to the former generals in charge of eliminating the resistance-----they sounded more like social workers to me than military generals!
I figured the plan was always clear out the bad guys...
hate to say this, but this war is unwinnable. This surge of sending more militay to Iraq is pointless, it truely is, I just think Bush has no other clue what to do, and it is sad that he is our president (no offense to the pro-Bush posters, but come on now, this is getting out of hand). I thought in 2004 Bush said "Mission Accomplished".
When you lose the public's approval of the war(which I never feel they got), you lose the war. Look at Vietnam, and now Iraq is the new Vietnam
-
We have never tried "clear out and HOLD"----it was always "clear out and MOVE ON" (then the insurgents would move back in those neighborhoods)----diplomacy is not a viable alternative-----we have no leverage on Syria/Iran and negotiating with Islamic Facists is useless (no leverage or honesty there either).
The solution has always been to train the Iraqis---they should be trained by now to be able to clear out while we work in a supportive role.
If this deosn't work----we'll just have to retreat to bases within Iraq and put out major fires from time to time (Ai Quida training camps etc)-----in that case we're probably there for the next 10-15 years in one form or another-----meanwhile the crapes and sunnis will keep killing each other until they get tired of it like what happened in Northern Ireland!
-
We have never tried "clear out and HOLD"----it was always "clear out and MOVE ON" (then the insurgents would move back in those neighborhoods
Sorry, I don't buy that. It's not like we went into cities/neighborhoods, fired off a crushing wave of bullets and grenades killing or forcing bad guys out, then we had lunch, maybe a spot of tea, then left town. Sure, I imagine we left after some time, so it's all what the definition of "hold" is. Is a hold a month? 6? 12? Or is a hold only a retrospective concept. If we left after 6 and, surprise surprise, there's a bombing, we didn't hold it long enough, and 9 months would have done the trick?
It's not clear and hold. It's clear and hold and hold and hold and hold. This kind of civil war/genocidal hate doesn't just disappear in a month or a year. It's decades.
Our only two options now are slow failure or quick failure. Enough of this "failure is not an option" stuff, unless you're going to be honest with your argument: We need this surge, plus more, plus about 10 years and, say $8 trillion bucks. Then we've got a decent shot. This 6-12 month surge crap is just nonsense, and everyone knows it's worse than a 90 yard hail-mary touchdown.
This surge will occur. Maybe it'll slow the pace of suicide bombers by 50% for a time. Maybe even cut the death squad runs in half for a few months. Once the "surge" is over, once the "hold" on your clear and hold, are done .. game on, once again.
-
I pretty much agree with everything that has been said. The clear and hold should work if the "hold" lasts until the entire country has been cleared by the iraqi (and US) force . I stated it that way because, like Murf said, the iraqi force should be trained enough to be doing the clear out work with the US providing support. Once the effort is done, it should be the iraqi forces left doing the holding and the US forces able to start withdrawing.
What hasn't been said and what I believe is crucial to maintaining that "hold" after the country has been cleared is the implementation of extremely effective border control, a very good Iraqi version of the FBI, and economic success. The US forces could pretty much completely withdraw after the first two are implemented and running successfully.
The border control requires some detailed and thought out planning as well as investment in some new technologies (the US, ironically, has been slowly starting to go down this path in recent years as well) and would aim to keep the bad guys (or at least the bad equipment) out and define a unambiguous front line where 95% of the conflict would occur. The Iraqi FBI would be involved in establishing enforcement of laws and maintaining internal security (by catching the bad guys/bad equipment that DOES get through the border). As I said earlier, once these first two items are implemented then the Iraqi forces should be sufficient to maintain the hold.
Economic success is what will bring the citizenry as a whole behind the Iraqi government in a way that would allow even the Iraqi forces to be reduced or eliminated at the hold points. At that point, they'll be much more content and the internal civil unrest will be nearly eliminated. Further, they'll be in support of the government and will act on their best interest to maintain the stability by assisting the Iraqi FBI with intelligence (reporting suspicious activities, etc.), shunning support any insurgent forces that might be remaining, and bringing a new generation of children up with a different attitude towards their country. This is a long term effort, but the key is that the "clear and hold (by Iraqi troops)", border security, and internal investigative agencies are the enablers for the Iraqi government to get there.
The on-going daily violence that is instigated primarily by foreign fighters precludes the Iraqi family from feeling secure in their own homes. Poor economic results precludes the Iraqi family from being satisfied. Security is something the US forces can assist in achieving. Economics is something that they'll have to create for themselves (and will oil as a driver, this should not be too difficult with the right longer-term investments).
Another comment I'd like to make is regardless of whether or not we should have gotten into this war in the first place, we are there now. We have irreparably altered EVERYTHING over there. We are therefore morally, ethically, and humanely responsible for following through. Abandoning the country after what we have done is much like a child coming into a (loosely) organized toy room, pulling out all the toys, destroying half of them, rubbing the crayons all over the walls, peeing on the carpet, and then leaving the resident to clean it up. This is behavior we expect from a 2 or 3 year old child. This is not behavior we expect from an adult. I would like to say that the US would metaphorically act as an adult in this situation. Regardless of your feelings about the war itself, the mess is made (and cannot be magically unmade), now let's work on effective ways to clean it up.
-
I pretty much agree with everything that has been said. The clear and hold should work if the "hold" lasts until the entire country has been cleared by the iraqi (and US) force .
That made me think about something .. we're rapidlly coming up on $1 trillion dollars spent on these wars. With the population of Iraq+Afghanistan being around 58 million, that's spending $17,200 on each man, woman, and child.
For that kind of money, we could have given each person/family a first class ticket to anywhere in the world, relocation expenses, job and language training, a year's rent, and maybe have enough money left over for a family car.
Maybe we should just buy our way out. Free trips to Disney World for everyone. I hear Euro Disney needs visitors!
-
From a purely poltical perspective, the Republicans need to at the very least decrease the troop levels in Iraq by half before the election in order to have any chance of winning back the Whitehouse or gaining ground in congress. This surge is necessary in order to work towards and eventual withdrawal. It provides the "critical mass" necessary to battle back the terrorists enough for the Iraqi government to get, and stay, on it's feet.
I think Bush's closing comment from the 2007 State of the Union says it best:
"The state of our union is strong, the cause of our nation is right and tonight that cause goes on.”
Brandon Henak
Gop3.com: News, Politics and Marquette Basketball
http://www.gop3.com (http://www.gop3.com)
-
Due to this over spending in iraq - only 5 out of 60 scientific grants will be approved as funding for NIH will be thrown away. This wont effect clinical research as it will probably pick up private funding, but basic or fundamental science will be gutted. It is not sexy to fund the study of cells and how they communicate to each other. This President and his flawed leadership will put science back years. However, this may be their goal.
-
This President and his flawed leadership will put science back years. However, this may be their goal.
I doubt this could be proven, but it certainly is in line with the current spin.
If in fact it would mean we stop funding (10's of millions of $) the UW boring holes in the polar ice cap to drop little sensors 1,000's of feet down as one of dozens of other similar tests currently being funding to prove the existence of neutrinos..., then it's a good thing!
-
Hey war isn't pleasant------not the type of thing that accelerates domestic agendas-----but we're in the initial stages of a very long term war that has been imposed on us and has no boundaries----not a conventional war to be sure.
It's war between the facist element of Islam and the Christian world----the facist leaders have told us----either convert (to Islam) or be exterminated. The main perpetrators are Iran and Al Quida. One reason we're in Iraq is because it's right next door to Iran. A failure in Iraq leaves that door with all it's oil open for Iran-----Iran then becomes a huge player in the manipulation of world economies.
Iran is working fast to accumulate nukes, if they succeed the whole ball game changes----Iran will bully their neighbors successfully-----gain more respect & recruits for terrorism------have an untouchable area to set up terrorist camps and to train terrorists for atacks on the USA & elsewhere)----and above all show Islamists that the USA has no staying power (paper tiger). One of the successes of the Iraq war is that we haven't had an attack here in the USA since 9/11----principally because Bush & Tony Blair have Al quida and Iran successfully bogged down in and focused on Iraq and afghanistan.
GWB and Tony Blair have the vision to see the threat and have taken pre-emptive action----they have information that you and I don't see----they're not out to do us (or themselves in)----they would not be putting us (and themselves) through this, if they weren't convinced with the information they've been presented with----that this isn't the proper course to follow!
-
This is behavior we expect from a 2 or 3 year old child. This is not behavior we expect from an adult.
- Lying to the public about the reasons for entering the war
- not listening to other opinions
- not listening to the election results
- not admitting failure
- worrying about one's place in history rather than the 50k soldiers and families effected by these actions
Who is acting like a child?
-
This is behavior we expect from a 2 or 3 year old child. This is not behavior we expect from an adult.
- Lying to the public about the reasons for entering the war
- not listening to other opinions
- not listening to the election results
- not admitting failure
- worrying about one's place in history rather than the 50k soldiers and families effected by these actions
Who is acting like a child?
My statement about 2/3 year old behavior vs. behaving like an adult was applied to the country as a whole, which includes its leaders. I was not saying that we weren't acting as children in the past (a whole separate debate in and of itself) but rather that we should act responsibly (as the adult in that metaphor should) with regards to how we proceed with regards to Iraq. Past events should not have an influence on this burden of responsibility - we are in the here and now and in the situation that we are in. Bemoaning what the president or anyone else did is, really, trivial to the discussion of what to do going forward.
In fact, looking for blame when approached with a situation is yet another sign of immaturity that our country should not be displaying. Many of the debates I hear on the news networks over what to do about Iraq invariably disintegrate into a blame game over why we are here in the first place. This contributes absolutely nothing to the discussion over what to do now. Such debate about the causes, blame, etc. of the war IS useful in a "learning our lesson' context, but, as I said before, that is a completely different discussion.
-
The sad part is; Murf put in a nutshell-it isn't going away. Is the best we can hope for to 'keep the lunatics occupied' elsewhere? A depressing thought. Sounds like the crusades were unsuccessful and the hatred has been festering ever since! Their current strategy of infiltrating most countries and causing havoc on a regular basis (see france, germany, spain, england, et al) to advance their agenda is strangely successful. The nightly riots and car burnings in france are considered normal. They now compose 20% of the german populace. The spainish have already succumbed to demands to withdraw troops. I wish it were as simple as 'the war in iraq'..., rather than the global war against us!
-
Mildly off the subject .. but is anyone else completely stunned by the lack of terrorism in the US?
With the story out of the UK this week, with the plot being so simple .. kidnap a soldier and behead him .. it just amazes me that something simple like that hasn't happened yet.
My wife thinks I'm nuts, but at least once a month, I'll start a sentence with "If I was a terrorist ..." followed by some simple security breach. So many acts are easy to pull off, no need to get all dramatic with bombs and poisons. With the US and its 24/7 media frenzy, a few kidnappings here and there, or a school raid like Beslan, would bring this country to a halt. That's why it amazes me it hasn't happened yet, as simple things like that would be hard to detect and prevent, if the guys were smart.
Perhaps we're dealing with a bunch of really dim witted guys. That sure would be lucky.
-
I, personally, am amazed. And I am not sure how to explain it either. I too have had "wow that would be something very easy to exploit if I were a terrorist" observations monthly if not weekly.
Saw a guy walk through airport security back when NO liquids were allowed. After he got through, he promptly reached into his pant pockets and removed a small bottle of shampoo and a tube toothpaste and put them in his bag and then pulled a water bottle out of a different pocket. Simple and stupidly easy stuff in many opportunistic areas.. even something as simple as inserting bad stuff (tm) into a water main somewhere.. figuring out critical electrical junctions and taking those out to have a cascading blackout affect half the country.. and so many more. I know they guys that do the planning aren't dim witted and these concerns have all been aired before in much more public forums than this.. so I definitely do wonder "what gives?"
-
Oh, that no-liquid thing at airports .. what a preposterous policy. So you're a terrorist and you know you can't put your explosive liquids into a water bottle. But you're not going to be strip searched.
So you get a ziplock bag(s), fill it, and strap it to your legs, waist, back, wherever. Presto. What did that take, $3 and 10 minutes of time to defeat "security"?
It's kind of like when Bradley Center security wants to look into my kid's diaper bag to make sure I'm not smuggling in a bazooka or something. Of course, he'll miss the handgun in my pocket.
-
This thread has now been flagged by the NSA. Watch your backs, gentlemen. 8)
-
Of course, he'll miss the handgun in my pocket.
Now I'm not sure if I want to sit right next to/behind topper so I can keep an eye on him or if I want the furthest seat from him so I reduce my chances of getting hit......... *walks slowly backwards away from topper in the most direct path out of the building*
-
I was thinking the same thing. Pretty soon Chopper 4 with power zoom will be hovering over my house and John Mercure (local WTMJ hack) will be knocking at my door.
-
I think the big reason why there have been no terrorist attacks here since 9/11 is that we have their focus & energy tied up in Iraq----also the fact that Bush has decapitated a large part of Al Quida and they're desperately trying to regroup-----hard to export your product when your bogged down domestically!
-
That's certainly the company line. Again, it's hard to believe the bad guys are that dumb.
If I were a terrorist, especially fanatical enough to give up my life and do a suicide mission, you'd think instead of just being another bomber blowing up some corner in Baghdad (that's probably been blown up twice before), you'd want to go out in style, and do it in America where you'd be on the front page of every newspaper in the world.
I continue to be amazed it hasn't happened. I give credit to the government(s) from stopping grand scale attacks .. still amazes me they haven't decided to slip across our pourous border to the south and try something here.
-
I think the big reason why there have been no terrorist attacks here since 9/11 is that we have their focus & energy tied up in Iraq----also the fact that Bush has decapitated a large part of Al Quida and they're desperately trying to regroup-----hard to export your product when your bogged down domestically!
I had that thought, but then again, if they are so bogged down "domestically" then why have they been able to launch attacks in other countries?
I half wonder if it is on purpose.. lure the american public into a false sense of security so that when it is disrupted again it has a more maximum effect (bigger fall->harder hit->greater return on effort). Unfortunately, in my thoughts, it is not a matter of "if" they strike again, but "when".
-
Spiral----that could be part of it----maybe a big part----(the fact that it would awaken the American people into stiifening their resolve in Iraq) !
-
We are being lulled into a false sense of security. The attacks on the WTC came after long intervals of quiet. Our actions in the ME have only created more versions of al-queada. I dont feel any safer with the decider or decision maker in office. However, The decider is galvanizing democrats and republicans into a mainstream anti-war movement that wants to re-focus on alternative fuel solutions to cut our reliance on Middle East oil and fossel fuels. I was concerned that America was losing its mind 3 years ago, but recent election results point to change.
We have many more pressing security issues at home to deal with and these are much more important than Iraq to the majority of Americans. The thought that Iraq can be "won" with more troops or an escalation is unworkable ~ This is a civil war and it is time to pull away. There are urgent national security issues at home that can use practical solutions from our elected leaders:
--global warming already effecting the SE - need to rebuild and protect our coasts.
--Reduce our reliance on fossel fuels. Enforce mileage rules for Car manufacturers and in turn make them competitive. Turn the green movement into a money maker for our country.
-- Updated infrastructure projects - roads, power plants, ports etc....
--poor education - not competitive with the rest of the world. Huge security issue
--A dissappearing middle class ~ we are starting to see 2 classes in this country. How can we create jobs that actually pay the bills ~ starts with education.
--The cost of health care is making it difficult for our companies to compete globally. Our elderly and youth are the big casualties here.
-
actually, the 9/11 attacks were not long after the uss cole attack, but you are right, the media is galvanizing the masses into an anti-defense frame of mind and re-focusing our attention to other things. and yes, we have to rebuild the SE after the natural disaster- katrina. and yes, we need more school choice to elevate the quality of our education system- less money on bricks and mortar, bi-lingual social workers, and more on additional teachers and teaching 'tools'. and yes, we can go back to monetary penalties (might still be in place) for auto manufacturers (called it "gas guzzeler tax"), as we did in '83, or so. i'd rather incentivize hydrogen autos, true electric autos and cng autos. our health care is being flogged to death with the 'benefit assimilation' of those whom are benefitting from company coverage; demanding more and more elective and even absurd coverages (chiropractors, massage therapy, cosmetic dental, stomach-stapling now called gastric by-pass, psycho-counselors, a.d.d. meds, and on and on...,) and still our health care system is the envy of the world. already common to meet canadians in waiting rooms who've come down for hip or knee replacement at their own expense because the wait in canada is 5 years, yet their 'socialized medicine' was held up as an example by the committee hilary formed to "fix" our health care. i apologize if i got long-winded. in answer to your post we absolutely are falling asleep if we forget that they have been attacking us since '79 when they took the hostages in iran and we stuck a thumb up our collective asses and said "gee, that's mean"!
-
We are being lulled into a false sense of security. The attacks on the WTC came after long intervals of quiet. Our actions in the ME have only created more versions of al-queada. I dont feel any safer with the decider or decision maker in office. However, The decider is galvanizing democrats and republicans into a mainstream anti-war movement that wants to re-focus on alternative fuel solutions to cut our reliance on Middle East oil and fossel fuels. I was concerned that America was losing its mind 3 years ago, but recent election results point to change.
We have many more pressing security issues at home to deal with and these are much more important than Iraq to the majority of Americans. The thought that Iraq can be "won" with more troops or an escalation is unworkable ~ This is a civil war and it is time to pull away. There are urgent national security issues at home that can use practical solutions from our elected leaders:
--global warming already effecting the SE - need to rebuild and protect our coasts.
--Reduce our reliance on fossel fuels. Enforce mileage rules for Car manufacturers and in turn make them competitive. Turn the green movement into a money maker for our country.
-- Updated infrastructure projects - roads, power plants, ports etc....
--poor education - not competitive with the rest of the world. Huge security issue
--A dissappearing middle class ~ we are starting to see 2 classes in this country. How can we create jobs that actually pay the bills ~ starts with education.
--The cost of health care is making it difficult for our companies to compete globally. Our elderly and youth are the big casualties here.
oh my goodness, I could not have summed it up better.
reading 'state of denial' by woodward now--- it's stunning, based upon the recounts he received by so many, how utterly rudderless this endeavor has been... with absolutely no forsight toward the resulting long-term implications.
-
Honestly, I believe the options presented are simply the difference between slow failure and quick failure. The only honest debate is whether to withdraw immediately, or make plans to stay 5, maybe 10 or 15 more years.
The surge? Like a 6-9-12 month surge? Not a chance.
I entered late into this debate, but this post makes me think:
"If the American public knew that this "war" would go on for as long as it did (or more), would they have voted for it?"
The fervor of 9/11 has me say yes...but I cannot imagine that those you said yes have not yet second-guessed themselves (as the polls reveal).
On a side note, I find it appalling that we can continually fork over money to fund this quagmire when we talk of cutting/not funding social security and other social programs.
-
Indeed, there's an article on abcnews.com about how we're coming up on $1 trillion on war spending, and how that compares to other efforts inside our government.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/WhosCounting/story?id=2844304&page=1
That's $3k for every man, woman, and child inside the US. Or $150 for everyone on the entire planet .. some of whom, live on less than $150/year.
.. However, it also should open up possibilities. If our nation can spend $1T, really, so easily, for a war of choice, why not aim that kind of money at other things, like medical research, education, etc, or even homeland security. Suddenly, the idea that it's too expensive or hard to check every cargo container entering the country doesn't ring true.
(Now, of course I don't advocate spending $1T. The fiscal irresponsibility that's gone on for the past 6 years is enraging.)
-
With the budget now issued, it's amazing how much burden is being placed on the states, municipalities.
Yet he'll (it'll) happily take money from your pocket...while telling you to tighten your pocket.
Frickin' idiot.
-
yeah.. I keep thinking that four years of this same budget but diverted towards paying off the national debt would take care of that completely.
This is when you go to the Iraqis and say "we will support you, but you need to support us supporting you - make an equivalent amount of gas available to the US for free in exchange".
-
yeah.. I keep thinking that four years of this same budget but diverted towards paying off the national debt would take care of that completely.
This is when you go to the Iraqis and say "we will support you, but you need to support us supporting you - make an equivalent amount of gas available to the US for free in exchange".
But wasn't that the point of liberating Iraq?!?
-
yeah.. I keep thinking that four years of this same budget but diverted towards paying off the national debt would take care of that completely.
This is when you go to the Iraqis and say "we will support you, but you need to support us supporting you - make an equivalent amount of gas available to the US for free in exchange".
But wasn't that the point of liberating Iraq?!?
who knows.. but if it is then I gotta say.. "show me the oil!"
-
They now compose 20% of the german populace.
Off-Topic:
Muslims are 3.7% of the German Population. https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/gm.html
You try to make it sound like EVERY Muslim is a terrorist. That's pretty offensive if you ask me. The reality is that they (terrorists) are a small segment of their religion, just as there is a small segment of very fundamentalist Christians in this country that will stop at nothing until our national religion is Christianity. I'd like to stop seeing these sweeping generalizations - I'm pretty sure the Muslim MU students out there would be offended.
/Off topic
As for the troop surge, I believe no matter how we got into the war, we need to finish it. Up and leaving Iraq right now would be a disaster that would hurt us later on. However, I just want to know how many more "surges" it will take to stabilize that country? How many more American men and women must die for this war? What we need is a plan that we present to the Iraqis and the world. We tell them we are leaving in X weeks/months/years, and that if they can't pull it together, it isn't our problem.
Someone mentioned that we shouldn't focus on how we got into this war. This is incorrect. Even though we need to finish it, we should investigate the cause of this war 100% to prevent these kinds of things from happening ever again.
-
Question for you (and history is on your side): How does this logic play out with the Vietnam War? Do you think that when we pulled out, it left Vietnam in a better position than it once was?
-
Just remember why the Soviet Union collapsed. They got bogged down in Afghanistan and spent themselves out of existence on a war they couldn't win. All their enemies including the U. S. sat back and watched them defeat themselves. They did to themselves what we couldn't do, bring their country down.
-
Guess what, Vietnam corrected itself in 20 Years. Iraq will too, but we need to prioritize our few dollars here at home.
State of Denial is a very good read - by woodward. I could not put it down.
-
Iraq won't "correct itself" if we leave ----this is the start of a long protracted war----young Muslims are being taught all over the world to hate and kill non Muslims-----in this day and age of Nukes and WMD this is a very dangerous set of circumstances----have to continually take it to them so they don't have the opportunity for them to focus on "Satan"-----Tony Blair and GWB understand this and are willing to put their reputations on the line-----few other prominent politicians in either country get it presently----they will though at some point!
-
I think you are correct in that Iraq is uniquely different from Vietnam in the context of the region it is in (including religion, neighboring countries' influence, etc.).
But I beg the question...are we the policemen of the world, AGAIN? And at whose expense...ours?
I just clipped this from a recent Washington Post article:
Bush, citing the need for fiscal responsibility, proposed reducing by $101 billion over five years the spending growth of the two health programs, which serve 93 million people and will cost the government $564 billion this year. One of his most controversial ideas is to charge wealthier seniors higher Medicare premiums for the second time in the program's 41-year history.
When did FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ever enter his mind when continuing to lobby for money for the Iraq War?
Isn't the last sentence seen as a "tax" on the wealthy - something the GOP does not stand for?
More importantly, isn't he shirking from his duty to protect the welfare of the people of this great country by cutting the programs that benefit them the most...especially to the largest aging group thie country has seen...the same working group that made this country realize more power and greatness?
-
Well if not us (being polieman of the world) then who?
The iraq war comes under the title of "non reoccuring expense" anotherwords at some point the war will end----but spending on entitlements will continue at anaccelerating rate. Fighting wars are necessary evils!
I think wealthier people should pay more for Medicare-----right now everyone pays around $90 per month for Medicare-----should be a means test where a $200,000 income should pay say $200/month and say a $20,000 income $50/month. Like it or not----this is the way it will be in a few years!
If we don't defend the country against terrorism-----there won't be any "programs to protect"!
-
I was an undergrad (Senior) when we went into Iraq the first time. Since then I've been in the region many times; what you all need to understand is underlying goal of our enemies - the establishment of a caliphate that endorses and gives venue for the unification of those who wish to practice, export and impose radical Islamic ideals through rhetoric and violence.
Save your idealistic rants, untie the hands of the military and intelligence communities and let us fight this war how it needs to be fought - without asking permission from nations who harbor our enemy, without nonbinding resolutions that diminish the efforts of our Intelligence Officers, Soldiers, Sailors and Marines and certainly not on CNN.
I wish I could tell you all how many times we have saved your butts back in the US by doing what we do - every day. I've lost many friends in this battle; from 9/11 to Kabul to Najaf to Tora Bora and many other places most of you will hopefully never see - but this is literally the fight of our lives...
Warriors Forever!
-
I was an undergrad (Senior) when we went into Iraq the first time. Since then I've been in the region many times; what you all need to understand is underlying goal of our enemies - the establishment of a caliphate that endorses and gives venue for the unification of those who wish to practice, export and impose radical Islamic ideals through rhetoric and violence.
Save your idealistic rants, untie the hands of the military and intelligence communities and let us fight this war how it needs to be fought - without asking permission from nations who harbor our enemy, without nonbinding resolutions that diminish the efforts of our Intelligence Officers, Soldiers, Sailors and Marines and certainly not on CNN.
I wish I could tell you all how many times we have saved your butts back in the US by doing what we do - every day. I've lost many friends in this battle; from 9/11 to Kabul to Najaf to Tora Bora and many other places most of you will hopefully never see - but this is literally the fight of our lives...
Warriors Forever!
Very passionate. I see much of your points.
Remember that war, much like the American Revolutionary War, Civil War, and the World Wars, is not just a war of "necessity" (perceived, as some skeptics may put it), but also a war of the hearts and minds.
It sounds hokey, but:
- our forefathers had to quell dissension among the ranks at home for some questioned the rebellion
- Lincoln had to reassure a nation that we were still a nation not to be divided
- Americans had to see the bigger picture of why America needed to emerge from the shadows of distancing themselves from the WWI and II.
The first time you went, they probably told you that you're fighting to get Saddam out. The next time you went, they probably told you you're fighting to get the insurgents out. The time after that, they probably told you you're fighting to defend American and Iraqi lives. What's the next reason?
I have a buddy who's an MU alum and a marine. He's been there three times including Afghanistan. From my discussions with him and his wife (also an MU alum), I can only imagine how hard it is on the military families. Personally, I want to give you the things that will help you win this war, but if it calls upon providing the military and certain offices of the government with total and complete power and control, then I must say no. We were a country that fought against that kind of tyranny, and must always remember that.
Idealism is what I preach to my students, yet realism is what I try to steep them in. "In a perfect world" scenarios are not REAL, but for kids who are going to be our future leaders, it is important to discuss the ideals - for those are the same things you fight for...freedom, liberty, pursuit of happiness, tolerance, etc.
God bless and be safe.
-
I would suggest that everyone watch the movie "Why We Fight" by Eugene Jarecki and read "What Went Wrong?: The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East" by Bernard Lewis. It is interesting that the most common reason that people give for the attecks on 9/11 is "because they hate us." I am disappointed that I rarely see any further investigation into why a group might hate Americans. I can think of several off-hand:
1) Blind support of Israel
Both sides are to blame in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and both have major concessions to make to each other before any peace will be established. US policy would indicate that Israel is completely in the right and should continue on its path. We all know about Palestinian suicide bombings but I would bet you have never head of the Massacre at Deir Yassin or the essentially apartheid laws governing Palestinians.
2) Ignorance of Social Values and Structure
Trying to set up a secular government in a predominantly Muslim country is quite a feat just look at how Saddam had to run it to stay in power. Muslim culture has historically had no place for secular laws because all they needed was the holy law contained in the Koran. In case everyone did not know this already Iraq is predominantly Shiite. Under Saddam the Sunni minority held power and repressed the Shiites. Iraqi Shiites are now taking over control through the democratic system due to their larger numbers. A large portion of the civil war is the result of this power shift with Al Queda, a Sunni organization, fighting Shiite insurgents. So it will take many years for this shift to correct itself and the reality is that it probably never will because similiar Sunni-Shiite conflicts have been simmering for centuries. Our decision to insert a democratic nation would be perceived as rather obtuse and the correct government would be one similiar to Lebanon (previously to its destabilization of course) that would legislate power sharing between Sunni and Shiites.
In the end the troop surge may or may not solve the current problems in Iraq (I don't think it will) but it most certainly will not solve the myriad of problems that we are currently encountering in the Middle East.
And to you Augoman
Let me remind you that thousands of Iranians risked arrest by marching in Tehran Iran on Sept 12, 2001 holding candles and chanting "Down With Terrorism."
In addition, there may be no practical reason to expend resources on studying neutrinos but most scientific breakthroughs do not occur linearly so it is ridiculous to say that certain experiments aren't relevant to you. I would bet you would have said that same thing about investigating advances in magnetrons (FYI you wouldn't have a microwave then).
-
You are correct that our support of Isreal is THE reason why we aren't popular everywhere in the Mid East-----but that's not going to change----too much of a Jewish lobby here-----and morally it shouldn't change as the jews have as much right to live in the mid east s the Arabs annd Persians do-----as the history of the jewish people is just as strong in that area-----therefore they deserve a piece of it-------and it's not even a wealthy area (no oil).
Where I believe you error is when you say "blind" support-----not the case as various US presidents have tried to carve out a peace settlement giving the Palestinians their own state-----but the radical elements of Islam prevail and it doesn't happen. The USA has leaned on the Israeli's to exit Gaza and to stop expanding their area and they have responded-----but instead of quelling the violence----the pullback by the Israeli's has accelerated it.
We as a nation have no quarrel with Islam-----but it's Radical Islam that we are confronting------and in the final analysis the only thing that will eliminate the threat of Radical Islam is to eliminate the poverty in that area (too much hopelessness)-----and the only way to do that is to set up democratic institutions and a democratic society. It works in Lebanon (Christians, crapes, and sunnis) -----were it not for Hezbullah (radical islam). We're trying to do that in Iraq----however many mistakes have been made.
IMO the troop surge will work to an extent----but if it's going to have more than a temporary impact, its going to requirw our presense for a long time!