| |
Main
Date: 09 Jan 2007 10:32:15
From: annika1980
Subject: Bush's plan to put out the fire
|
"Throw more gasoline on it!"
|
|
| |
Date: 13 Jan 2007 01:35:46
From: Colin Wilson
Subject: Re: Bush's plan to put out the fire
|
We have a fire here that has been burning for over a month. Now nearly a
million hectares.
Bush is quite welcome to send us 20,000 troops to have a go at quenching it.
|
| |
Date: 12 Jan 2007 13:19:08
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush's plan to put out the fire
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 12 Jan 2007 06:43:31 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In Iraq, "the enemy" is a Sunni insugency whose only issue with the US
> >is that we're in their country. The insurgency has grown and continues
> >to grow because of the abuse and mistreatment many young Iraqi males
> >have suffered at the hands of US soldiers. Abu Ghraib was a huge factor
> >in this.
>
> If a more simplistic analysis of the Iraqi insurgency exists, I
> haven't seen it.
Actually, it's completely factual, as you implicitly acknowledge with
your CSIS estimate below. The insurgency is made of largely of young
Sunni, Iraqi males who are seething with anger at what they see as a
foreign occupation of their country. They have no jobs, no electricy
and nowhere to go. When Paul Bremer disbanded the Iraqi army, he put
140,000 young Arab men on the street with no jobs. We might as well
have put bombs all over Baghdad with timers on them. US Army units of
the 4th Infantry Division spent many months barging into private homes
in the Sunni Triangle in the middle of the night, rounding up all
teenage and adult males, blindfolding them, zip-tying their hands
behind their backs and hauling them off for questioning. That is a
perfect recipe for violent retaliation and retribution. What's going on
in Iraq to day is not USA vs. the terrorists. Its USA vs. a homegrown
insurgency that attacks US forces and anyone aligned with them, because
they fear a Shia takeover of the government and subsequent persecution.
Al Qaeda is not a significant factor there. The al Qaeda of OBL is
centered mostly in western Pakistan helping the Taliban retake
Afghanistan.
> >If and when US troops leave Iraq, there is no reason to think
> >that any of these people are going to follow them home, given that no
> >Iraqi ever carried out a terrorist attack against the US, as far as
> >anyone knows.
> >The argument that we're fighting the terrorists there so we won't have
> >to fight them here is completely fallacious.
>
> There's absolutely no doubt that Al Qaeda is involved in Iraq. After
> all, the most wanted insurgent was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian
> connected to Al Qaeda. Of course, the US killed him, but Al Qaeda in
> Iraq replaced him.
>
> It's difficult to estimate exactly what percentage of the Iraqi
> insurgents are foreign. Estimates by the CSIS last year placed the
> number between 4% and 10%. Earlier this week US and Iraqi forces were
> fighting insurgents on Haifa Street in central Baghdad. During the
> battle, 21 insurgents were captured and seven of them were foreigners.
> It's also clear that the Al Qaeda foreign fighters make up a majority
> of the suicide bombers. Very few Sunni are fanatical enough to blow
> themselves up. Accordingly, the foreign fighters in Iraq have a
> greater impact than their numbers represent. They're also
> well-trained in insurgent tactics like bomb making which makes them
> more dangerous than the Iraqi insurgents because they have imparted
> their knowledge to the Iraqis.
>
> Obviously, Al Qaeda are spending money and personnel in Iraq. These
> assets could be used in other places, like planning and carrying out
> attacks in the US. If the US leaves Iraq, Al Qaeda would have no
> reason to continue their activities there, because their major goal in
> Iraq is to make as much trouble for the US as they can. This would
> allow Al Qaeda to redirect the assets currently used in Iraq to other
> places, including the USA.
|
| |
Date: 12 Jan 2007 12:56:01
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Bush's plan to put out the fire
|
John B. wrote:
> The_Professor wrote:
> > John B. wrote:
> > > The_Professor wrote:
> > > > annika1980 wrote:
> > > > > Robert Hamilton wrote:
> > > > > > The Iraq War has been one of the best examples of
> > > > > > poor planning and strategy; however that doesn't change the fact that if the
> > > > > > US walks away, it's the US walking away...again. This time, however, the
> > > > > > enemy will follow the troops back. It's not like they haven't hit the US
> > > > > > directly before.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's a nonsensical argument that Bush makes.
> > > > > So what is keeping these terrorists from coming over here now?
> > > > > It sure isn't our presence in Iraq.
> > > > >
> > > > > Say you're a terrorist. You can come to the US and cause havoc to
> > > > > hundreds or thousands of people at a time. Or you can go to Iraq and
> > > > > get the shit shot out of you.
> > > > > "Yeah, let's go to Iraq!"
> > > >
> > > > That's pretty naive. They *HAVE* to win there. If we beat them there,
> > > > they are done. They are putting almost everything they have into
> > > > getting us out of there, both Iraq and Afghanistan. We can set them
> > > > back at least a couple of generations by taking them out now...and we
> > > > can, rather easily. We choose not to. Not as bad as in Somalia, where
> > > > the mighty US Armed forces runs away from a bunch of rednecks in
> > > > pickups, but in the end, not much different if the US leaves before
> > > > taking out the bad guys.
> > > >
> > > > Once they don't have to allocate so much to Iraq and Afghanistan,
> > > > they'll be all over us. FWIW, they are already here in the thousands.
> > > > However, if they did something in the US now, it would turn the public
> > > > towards a stronger response in Iraq. Wait till the US leaves, then go
> > > > for it! Of course you can say this isn't so even though it so obviously
> > > > is.
> > >
> > > Who is "they"? This is an incredibly niave and ill-informed view of
> > > Islamic extremism.
> > > There are Islamic radicals and potential Islamic radicals all over the
> > > Islamic world. Very few of them are in Iraq. The people who are giving
> > > US forces hell in Iraq are Iraqi Sunni insurgents who want us out of
> > > their country. If you're suggesting that we kill them all, then the
> > > result would be a huge inflammation of anti-American hatred throughout
> > > the Arab world. "Winning" in Iraq, which we're not going to do, would
> > > have virtually no effect on the global Jihadist movement.
> >
> > You don't know who "they" are in this conflict? If so, you are very ill
> > informed. Invent whatever you want as "the insurgency". Most Iraqis are
> > not part of this insurgency. The only reason the US won't win in Iraq
> > is because of people like you. If we do win, we will have Iran squeezed
> > in between two friendly nations. If we lose, Iran will dominate those
> > regions. The global Jihadist movement is a tool of Iranian foreign
> > policy at the moment. Fundamentalist Islam is spreading and growing in
> > influence. They have no desire to negotiate. They simply want to
> > destroy our culture. We can set them back big time if we win in Iraq
> > and Afghanistan.
> >
> > You can play spin games all you want with what is going on, but the
> > bottom line is obviously that if we lose in Iraq, we will be attacked
> > here; probably nuked at some point in the next 10 years...and that's
> > not particularly alarmist, because a lot worse could happen. That's
> > just simple extrapolation.
> >
> > But no doubt to you it is important to present the "democrat" line o
> > bull to counter the republican line o bull, and you can't see that both
> > lines o bull are totally irrelevant and meaningles to the larger scale
> > geopolitical issues. Right now, the democrat line o bull serves our
> > enemies, but that could reverse itself. You never know. Failure in Iraq
> > is a US failure, not a republican failure; in fact it has no
> > relationship to partisan US politicas at all.
>
>
> My views on this subject have nothing to do with partisan politics.
> they are the result of my having made a concerted effort to enlighten
> myself about this as much as I could over the last several years. You
> obviously haven't done that. Give me some evidence that "the (mostly
> Sunni) Jihadist movement is a tool of (Shiite) Iranian foreign policy
> at the moment."
> I'll concede that you're right on one point: "Most Iraqis aren't part
> of this insurgency." That's true, but most people who are part of it
> are Iraqi.
Then we just disagree. I see quite clearly that fundamentalist Islamics
are not only trying to take over in the mid east, but are succeeding.
Hezbollah (Shiite), funded mainly by Iran, battled the Israelis to a
standstill. Hamas (Sunni) funded mainly by Iran is the government in
the Palestinian Authority. The US is mainly battling sectarian
religious extremists in Iraq. If we lose, they win, and they will start
up here almost immediately. They hate us and want to destroy us. There
is nothing to negotiate with them but us laying off them till they are
too strong for us to do anything about them; basically the policy
towards them over the last 40 years, and they have taken full advantage
of it.
If you don't see it that way, fine with me.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Jan 2007 14:37:24
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Bush's plan to put out the fire
|
On 12 Jan 2007 12:56:01 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:
>Then we just disagree. I see quite clearly that fundamentalist Islamics
>are not only trying to take over in the mid east, but are succeeding.
>Hezbollah (Shiite), funded mainly by Iran, battled the Israelis to a
>standstill. Hamas (Sunni) funded mainly by Iran is the government in
>the Palestinian Authority. The US is mainly battling sectarian
>religious extremists in Iraq. If we lose, they win, and they will start
>up here almost immediately. They hate us and want to destroy us.
While they would like to destroy us, they'd rather destroy each other
- with destroying Israel in between these two desires.
The opposite of a Fanatic is a Fanatic.
|
| |
Date: 12 Jan 2007 12:29:38
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush's plan to put out the fire
|
The_Professor wrote:
> John B. wrote:
> > The_Professor wrote:
> > > annika1980 wrote:
> > > > Robert Hamilton wrote:
> > > > > The Iraq War has been one of the best examples of
> > > > > poor planning and strategy; however that doesn't change the fact that if the
> > > > > US walks away, it's the US walking away...again. This time, however, the
> > > > > enemy will follow the troops back. It's not like they haven't hit the US
> > > > > directly before.
> > > >
> > > > That's a nonsensical argument that Bush makes.
> > > > So what is keeping these terrorists from coming over here now?
> > > > It sure isn't our presence in Iraq.
> > > >
> > > > Say you're a terrorist. You can come to the US and cause havoc to
> > > > hundreds or thousands of people at a time. Or you can go to Iraq and
> > > > get the shit shot out of you.
> > > > "Yeah, let's go to Iraq!"
> > >
> > > That's pretty naive. They *HAVE* to win there. If we beat them there,
> > > they are done. They are putting almost everything they have into
> > > getting us out of there, both Iraq and Afghanistan. We can set them
> > > back at least a couple of generations by taking them out now...and we
> > > can, rather easily. We choose not to. Not as bad as in Somalia, where
> > > the mighty US Armed forces runs away from a bunch of rednecks in
> > > pickups, but in the end, not much different if the US leaves before
> > > taking out the bad guys.
> > >
> > > Once they don't have to allocate so much to Iraq and Afghanistan,
> > > they'll be all over us. FWIW, they are already here in the thousands.
> > > However, if they did something in the US now, it would turn the public
> > > towards a stronger response in Iraq. Wait till the US leaves, then go
> > > for it! Of course you can say this isn't so even though it so obviously
> > > is.
> >
> > Who is "they"? This is an incredibly niave and ill-informed view of
> > Islamic extremism.
> > There are Islamic radicals and potential Islamic radicals all over the
> > Islamic world. Very few of them are in Iraq. The people who are giving
> > US forces hell in Iraq are Iraqi Sunni insurgents who want us out of
> > their country. If you're suggesting that we kill them all, then the
> > result would be a huge inflammation of anti-American hatred throughout
> > the Arab world. "Winning" in Iraq, which we're not going to do, would
> > have virtually no effect on the global Jihadist movement.
>
> You don't know who "they" are in this conflict? If so, you are very ill
> informed. Invent whatever you want as "the insurgency". Most Iraqis are
> not part of this insurgency. The only reason the US won't win in Iraq
> is because of people like you. If we do win, we will have Iran squeezed
> in between two friendly nations. If we lose, Iran will dominate those
> regions. The global Jihadist movement is a tool of Iranian foreign
> policy at the moment. Fundamentalist Islam is spreading and growing in
> influence. They have no desire to negotiate. They simply want to
> destroy our culture. We can set them back big time if we win in Iraq
> and Afghanistan.
>
> You can play spin games all you want with what is going on, but the
> bottom line is obviously that if we lose in Iraq, we will be attacked
> here; probably nuked at some point in the next 10 years...and that's
> not particularly alarmist, because a lot worse could happen. That's
> just simple extrapolation.
>
> But no doubt to you it is important to present the "democrat" line o
> bull to counter the republican line o bull, and you can't see that both
> lines o bull are totally irrelevant and meaningles to the larger scale
> geopolitical issues. Right now, the democrat line o bull serves our
> enemies, but that could reverse itself. You never know. Failure in Iraq
> is a US failure, not a republican failure; in fact it has no
> relationship to partisan US politicas at all.
My views on this subject have nothing to do with partisan politics.
they are the result of my having made a concerted effort to enlighten
myself about this as much as I could over the last several years. You
obviously haven't done that. Give me some evidence that "the (mostly
Sunni) Jihadist movement is a tool of (Shiite) Iranian foreign policy
at the moment."
I'll concede that you're right on one point: "Most Iraqis aren't part
of this insurgency." That's true, but most people who are part of it
are Iraqi.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Jan 2007 20:20:41
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush's plan to put out the fire
|
On 12 Jan 2007 12:29:38 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>Give me some evidence that "the (mostly
>Sunni) Jihadist movement is a tool of (Shiite) Iranian foreign policy
>at the moment."
Why would the Iranian Shia help the Sunni who, with the help of Al
Qaeda, bomb the crap out of Shia areas?
However, Iran does help radical Islamist Shia in Iraq alligned with
Moktada al-Sadr.
"WASHINGTON, Nov. 30, 2006 — U.S. officials say they have found
smoking-gun evidence of Iranian support for terrorists in Iraq:
brand-new weapons fresh from Iranian factories. According to a senior
defense official, coalition forces have recently seized Iranian-made
weapons and munitions that bear manufacturing dates in 2006.
This suggests, say the sources, that the material is going directly
from Iranian factories to Shia militias, rather than taking a
roundabout path through the black ket. "There is no way this could
be done without (Iranian) government approval," says a senior
official.
Iranian-made munitions found in Iraq include advanced IEDs designed to
pierce armor and anti-tank weapons. U.S. intelligence believes the
weapons have been supplied to Iraq's growing Shia militias from Iran's
Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, which is also believed to be
training Iraqi militia fighters in Iran.
Evidence is mounting, too, that the most powerful militia in Iraq,
Moktada al-Sadr's Mahdi army, is receiving training support from the
Iranian-backed terrorists of Hezbollah.
Two senior U.S. defense officials confirmed to ABC News earlier
reports that fighters from the Mahdi army have traveled to Lebanon to
receive training from Hezbollah.
While the New York Times reported that as many as 2,000 Iraqi militia
fighters had received training in Lebanon, one of the senior officials
said he believed the number was "closer to 1,000." Officials say a
much smaller number of Hezbollah fighters have also traveled through
Syria and into Iraq to provide training.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=2688501
|
| |
Date: 12 Jan 2007 11:52:58
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Bush's plan to put out the fire
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 12 Jan 2007 08:51:17 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>
> >There was no draw in Korea. The US forces were defeated. After WWII,
> >allied forces controlled all of Korea. Communist forces almost took the
> >whole pennisula, but sellted for half. Calling the Korean War a draw
> >would be like calling the Mexican American War a draw because the US
> >only siezed half of Mexico!
>
>
> Following the Japanese surrender in 1945, the US and Soviets divided
> Korea along the 38th parallel creating two occupation zones. The US
> never had any control of Korea above the 38th parallel. Over the next
> 5 years, two separate governments resulted, one democratic in the
> South and one communist in the North. The North Korean's invaded
> South Korea in 1950. In 1953, a cease fire was established and a DMZ
> was created along the 38th parallel. In the end, neither country
> gained or lost any territory. That's a draw.
Not worth too much of an arguement, but the Soviets were our allies in
1945. MacArthur stood on the Chinese border at one time; and shortly
thereafter was almost run off the penninsula.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Jan 2007 15:37:35
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush's plan to put out the fire
|
On 12 Jan 2007 11:52:58 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:
>Not worth too much of an arguement, but the Soviets were our allies in
>1945.
Technically, you're correct, but, as I'm sure you know, the Cold War
was under way before WW2 ended.
|
| |
Date: 12 Jan 2007 11:50:26
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Bush's plan to put out the fire
|
John B. wrote:
> The_Professor wrote:
> > annika1980 wrote:
> > > Robert Hamilton wrote:
> > > > The Iraq War has been one of the best examples of
> > > > poor planning and strategy; however that doesn't change the fact that if the
> > > > US walks away, it's the US walking away...again. This time, however, the
> > > > enemy will follow the troops back. It's not like they haven't hit the US
> > > > directly before.
> > >
> > > That's a nonsensical argument that Bush makes.
> > > So what is keeping these terrorists from coming over here now?
> > > It sure isn't our presence in Iraq.
> > >
> > > Say you're a terrorist. You can come to the US and cause havoc to
> > > hundreds or thousands of people at a time. Or you can go to Iraq and
> > > get the shit shot out of you.
> > > "Yeah, let's go to Iraq!"
> >
> > That's pretty naive. They *HAVE* to win there. If we beat them there,
> > they are done. They are putting almost everything they have into
> > getting us out of there, both Iraq and Afghanistan. We can set them
> > back at least a couple of generations by taking them out now...and we
> > can, rather easily. We choose not to. Not as bad as in Somalia, where
> > the mighty US Armed forces runs away from a bunch of rednecks in
> > pickups, but in the end, not much different if the US leaves before
> > taking out the bad guys.
> >
> > Once they don't have to allocate so much to Iraq and Afghanistan,
> > they'll be all over us. FWIW, they are already here in the thousands.
> > However, if they did something in the US now, it would turn the public
> > towards a stronger response in Iraq. Wait till the US leaves, then go
> > for it! Of course you can say this isn't so even though it so obviously
> > is.
>
> Who is "they"? This is an incredibly niave and ill-informed view of
> Islamic extremism.
> There are Islamic radicals and potential Islamic radicals all over the
> Islamic world. Very few of them are in Iraq. The people who are giving
> US forces hell in Iraq are Iraqi Sunni insurgents who want us out of
> their country. If you're suggesting that we kill them all, then the
> result would be a huge inflammation of anti-American hatred throughout
> the Arab world. "Winning" in Iraq, which we're not going to do, would
> have virtually no effect on the global Jihadist movement.
You don't know who "they" are in this conflict? If so, you are very ill
informed. Invent whatever you want as "the insurgency". Most Iraqis are
not part of this insurgency. The only reason the US won't win in Iraq
is because of people like you. If we do win, we will have Iran squeezed
in between two friendly nations. If we lose, Iran will dominate those
regions. The global Jihadist movement is a tool of Iranian foreign
policy at the moment. Fundamentalist Islam is spreading and growing in
influence. They have no desire to negotiate. They simply want to
destroy our culture. We can set them back big time if we win in Iraq
and Afghanistan.
You can play spin games all you want with what is going on, but the
bottom line is obviously that if we lose in Iraq, we will be attacked
here; probably nuked at some point in the next 10 years...and that's
not particularly alarmist, because a lot worse could happen. That's
just simple extrapolation.
But no doubt to you it is important to present the "democrat" line o
bull to counter the republican line o bull, and you can't see that both
lines o bull are totally irrelevant and meaningles to the larger scale
geopolitical issues. Right now, the democrat line o bull serves our
enemies, but that could reverse itself. You never know. Failure in Iraq
is a US failure, not a republican failure; in fact it has no
relationship to partisan US politicas at all.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Jan 2007 13:12:57
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Bush's plan to put out the fire
|
On 12 Jan 2007 11:50:26 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:
>You don't know who "they" are in this conflict? If so, you are very ill
>informed. Invent whatever you want as "the insurgency". Most Iraqis are
>not part of this insurgency. The only reason the US won't win in Iraq
>is because of people like you.
Could be. So define how we will know when we have won, and why
people like us will be the only reason we won't achieve that
objective?
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Jan 2007 15:46:41
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush's plan to put out the fire
|
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 13:12:57 -0700, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:
>On 12 Jan 2007 11:50:26 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>
>>You don't know who "they" are in this conflict? If so, you are very ill
>>informed. Invent whatever you want as "the insurgency". Most Iraqis are
>>not part of this insurgency. The only reason the US won't win in Iraq
>>is because of people like you.
>
>Could be. So define how we will know when we have won, and why
>people like us will be the only reason we won't achieve that
>objective?
The Americans need a lesson in asymmetrical warfare. The major power
only loses in these types of battles if it withdraws. If the
insurgents can sustain their fighting over long periods, why can't the
US?
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Jan 2007 14:25:26
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Bush's plan to put out the fire
|
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 15:46:41 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:
>>Could be. So define how we will know when we have won, and why
>>people like us will be the only reason we won't achieve that
>>objective?
>
>The Americans need a lesson in asymmetrical warfare. The major power
>only loses in these types of battles if it withdraws. If the
>insurgents can sustain their fighting over long periods, why can't the
>US?
Could be. So define how we will know when we have won, and why
people like us will be the only reason we won't achieve that
objective?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 13 Jan 2007 11:49:03
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush's plan to put out the fire
|
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 14:25:26 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:
>>The Americans need a lesson in asymmetrical warfare. The major power
>>only loses in these types of battles if it withdraws. If the
>>insurgents can sustain their fighting over long periods, why can't the
>>US?
>
>Could be. So define how we will know when we have won, and why
>people like us will be the only reason we won't achieve that
>objective?
First of all, the US got rid of Saddam and his sons so the main
objective has been achieved.
The purpose of asymmetrical warfare is to force the major power to
withdraw by continuing the conflict as long as you can. It becomes a
battle of wills rather than a military struggle. Obviously, the
insurgents cannot defeat the US militarily. They can only win if the
US withdraws. On the other hand the insurgents can continue the
conflict indefinitely, because you cannot stop things like suicide
bombers and IEDs. If the US is to win they have to stay there as long
as the insurgents continue to fight no matter how long it takes.
Look at what the British did in Northern Ireland. They continued
against the IRA for over 30 years without even a hint that they would
give in to the terrorists. Withdrawal from NI was never even
discussed as a political issue in Britain. The Brits put up with a
lot of grief at the hands of the IRA, but they won in the end.
Perseverance and a united political front wins in these situations.
Unfortunately, it's impossible to persevere if you don't have a united
political front.
|
| |
Date: 12 Jan 2007 10:24:37
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush's plan to put out the fire
|
The_Professor wrote:
> annika1980 wrote:
> > Robert Hamilton wrote:
> > > The Iraq War has been one of the best examples of
> > > poor planning and strategy; however that doesn't change the fact that if the
> > > US walks away, it's the US walking away...again. This time, however, the
> > > enemy will follow the troops back. It's not like they haven't hit the US
> > > directly before.
> >
> > That's a nonsensical argument that Bush makes.
> > So what is keeping these terrorists from coming over here now?
> > It sure isn't our presence in Iraq.
> >
> > Say you're a terrorist. You can come to the US and cause havoc to
> > hundreds or thousands of people at a time. Or you can go to Iraq and
> > get the shit shot out of you.
> > "Yeah, let's go to Iraq!"
>
> That's pretty naive. They *HAVE* to win there. If we beat them there,
> they are done. They are putting almost everything they have into
> getting us out of there, both Iraq and Afghanistan. We can set them
> back at least a couple of generations by taking them out now...and we
> can, rather easily. We choose not to. Not as bad as in Somalia, where
> the mighty US Armed forces runs away from a bunch of rednecks in
> pickups, but in the end, not much different if the US leaves before
> taking out the bad guys.
>
> Once they don't have to allocate so much to Iraq and Afghanistan,
> they'll be all over us. FWIW, they are already here in the thousands.
> However, if they did something in the US now, it would turn the public
> towards a stronger response in Iraq. Wait till the US leaves, then go
> for it! Of course you can say this isn't so even though it so obviously
> is.
Who is "they"? This is an incredibly niave and ill-informed view of
Islamic extremism.
There are Islamic radicals and potential Islamic radicals all over the
Islamic world. Very few of them are in Iraq. The people who are giving
US forces hell in Iraq are Iraqi Sunni insurgents who want us out of
their country. If you're suggesting that we kill them all, then the
result would be a huge inflammation of anti-American hatred throughout
the Arab world. "Winning" in Iraq, which we're not going to do, would
have virtually no effect on the global Jihadist movement.
|
| |
Date: 12 Jan 2007 08:51:17
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Bush's plan to put out the fire
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 11 Jan 2007 14:14:21 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote:
>
> >> I think the hope is to weaken the Sunni/Al Qaeda insurgents and the
> >> Shia loyal to Muqtada Al-Sadr to insure that the moderate Shia and the
> >> Kurds end up in control after the US leaves.
> >>
> >> Then it's time to focus on Iran.
> >
> >It really looks like the Americans are going walk out of Iraq, and it
> >will be yet another failure of US foreign policy. Korea was a failure.
> >Vietnam was a failure; now Iraq/Afghanistan (and you can't fail in Iraq
> >and succeed in Afghanistan, once Iraq goes, Afghanistan will soon
> >follow).
>
> The US settled for a draw in Korea. It's one of those things that
> didn't seem to matter very much for a long time, but recently NK has
> really become a problem and it would be nice if they didn't exist.
>
There was no draw in Korea. The US forces were defeated. After WWII,
allied forces controlled all of Korea. Communist forces almost took the
whole pennisula, but sellted for half. Calling the Korean War a draw
would be like calling the Mexican American War a draw because the US
only siezed half of Mexico!
|
| | |
Date: 12 Jan 2007 13:45:08
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush's plan to put out the fire
|
On 12 Jan 2007 08:51:17 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:
>There was no draw in Korea. The US forces were defeated. After WWII,
>allied forces controlled all of Korea. Communist forces almost took the
>whole pennisula, but sellted for half. Calling the Korean War a draw
>would be like calling the Mexican American War a draw because the US
>only siezed half of Mexico!
Following the Japanese surrender in 1945, the US and Soviets divided
Korea along the 38th parallel creating two occupation zones. The US
never had any control of Korea above the 38th parallel. Over the next
5 years, two separate governments resulted, one democratic in the
South and one communist in the North. The North Korean's invaded
South Korea in 1950. In 1953, a cease fire was established and a DMZ
was created along the 38th parallel. In the end, neither country
gained or lost any territory. That's a draw.
|
| |
Date: 12 Jan 2007 08:48:03
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Bush's plan to put out the fire
|
annika1980 wrote:
> Robert Hamilton wrote:
> > The Iraq War has been one of the best examples of
> > poor planning and strategy; however that doesn't change the fact that if the
> > US walks away, it's the US walking away...again. This time, however, the
> > enemy will follow the troops back. It's not like they haven't hit the US
> > directly before.
>
> That's a nonsensical argument that Bush makes.
> So what is keeping these terrorists from coming over here now?
> It sure isn't our presence in Iraq.
>
> Say you're a terrorist. You can come to the US and cause havoc to
> hundreds or thousands of people at a time. Or you can go to Iraq and
> get the shit shot out of you.
> "Yeah, let's go to Iraq!"
That's pretty naive. They *HAVE* to win there. If we beat them there,
they are done. They are putting almost everything they have into
getting us out of there, both Iraq and Afghanistan. We can set them
back at least a couple of generations by taking them out now...and we
can, rather easily. We choose not to. Not as bad as in Somalia, where
the mighty US Armed forces runs away from a bunch of rednecks in
pickups, but in the end, not much different if the US leaves before
taking out the bad guys.
Once they don't have to allocate so much to Iraq and Afghanistan,
they'll be all over us. FWIW, they are already here in the thousands.
However, if they did something in the US now, it would turn the public
towards a stronger response in Iraq. Wait till the US leaves, then go
for it! Of course you can say this isn't so even though it so obviously
is.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Jan 2007 12:59:33
From: FredK
Subject: Re: Bush's plan to put out the fire
|
"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote in message
news:1168620483.683620.55310@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> annika1980 wrote:
>> Robert Hamilton wrote:
>> > The Iraq War has been one of the best examples of
>> > poor planning and strategy; however that doesn't change the fact that
>> > if the
>> > US walks away, it's the US walking away...again. This time, however,
>> > the
>> > enemy will follow the troops back. It's not like they haven't hit the
>> > US
>> > directly before.
>>
>> That's a nonsensical argument that Bush makes.
>> So what is keeping these terrorists from coming over here now?
>> It sure isn't our presence in Iraq.
>>
>> Say you're a terrorist. You can come to the US and cause havoc to
>> hundreds or thousands of people at a time. Or you can go to Iraq and
>> get the shit shot out of you.
>> "Yeah, let's go to Iraq!"
>
> That's pretty naive. They *HAVE* to win there. If we beat them there,
> they are done.
What kind of twisted logic is that? Do they all of a sudden become
incapable of making a suicide bomb? A plane reservation? They don't have
to win. We have taken the position however that *we* must win.
TERRORIST ARE A NICHE PLAYER IN IRAQ.
>They are putting almost everything they have into
> getting us out of there, both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Eh? Exactly what does this glib statement mean? They out of money (the oil
run out?)? Have they stopped making intellegent mobile bombs (suicide
bombers)? So you really think they are all over in Iraq?
>We can set them
> back at least a couple of generations by taking them out now...and we
> can, rather easily.
Eh? The worst that can happen to them in Iraq is that we send 150,000
troops and impose order. In which case they slip away into the night and
wait for us to leave before they return.
> Once they don't have to allocate so much to Iraq and Afghanistan,
> they'll be all over us. FWIW, they are already here in the thousands.
> However, if they did something in the US now, it would turn the public
> towards a stronger response in Iraq. Wait till the US leaves, then go
> for it! Of course you can say this isn't so even though it so obviously
> is.
>
Twisted logic in the extreme. They are "here in the thousands", but are
holding back so that we don't do what? Pull the troops and nuke
Iraq/Iran/Pakistan/Korea/Afganistan/Syria/Jordan? EARTH TO THE PROFESSOR
(from Gilligans Island I presume) get a clue.
|
| |
Date: 12 Jan 2007 08:34:17
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Bush's plan to put out the fire
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 12 Jan 2007 07:57:19 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >So what is keeping these terrorists from coming over here now?
>
> They can't get a visa.
Can't they get a Master Card?
Or maybe a Anti-American Express card?
|
| | |
Date: 12 Jan 2007 11:04:22
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Bush's plan to put out the fire
|
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1168619657.225267.132700@i15g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Jack Hollis wrote:
>> On 12 Jan 2007 07:57:19 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >So what is keeping these terrorists from coming over here now?
>>
>> They can't get a visa.
>
> Can't they get a Master Card?
>
> Or maybe a Anti-American Express card?
>
Master Kurd.
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Jan 2007 17:06:04
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Bush's plan to put out the fire
|
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 11:04:22 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com >
wrote:
>
>"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:1168619657.225267.132700@i15g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Jack Hollis wrote:
>>> On 12 Jan 2007 07:57:19 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >So what is keeping these terrorists from coming over here now?
>>>
>>> They can't get a visa.
>>
>> Can't they get a Master Card?
>>
>> Or maybe a Anti-American Express card?
>>
>Master Kurd.
>
THAT'S funny! Bingo, Mike.
--
___,
\o
|
| |
Date: 12 Jan 2007 08:32:44
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Bush's plan to put out the fire
|
Bobby Knight wrote:
> >
> >That's a nonsensical argument that Bush makes.
> >So what is keeping these terrorists from coming over here now?
> >It sure isn't our presence in Iraq.
> >
>
> Why isn't that THE most obvious fact to anyone!!!
>
That argument also implies that we are fighting outside terrorists in
Iraq which is untrue. Most of the fighting done in Iraq is with
Iraqis, defending their homeland against the invaders. It is our
presence there which fuels the Arab terrorists all over the world.
There have been terrorist attacks in Great Britain, Madrid, and many
other places. Did these happen because Britain withdrew from the
fighting? No, they happened because Britain was still there. That
whole "we are fighting them over there to keep from fighting them here"
argument collapses under the weight of the facts.
The longer we stay in Iraq, the more gasoline we pour on the fires of
Islamic terrorism.
Remove the "gasoline" in Iraq (our troops) and the fires will burn out.
And our occupation of Arab lands makes us MORE likely to be attacked
here at home by these "Islama-fascists" that Bush keeps talking about.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Jan 2007 11:09:27
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Bush's plan to put out the fire
|
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1168619564.371155.318410@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> That argument also implies that we are fighting outside terrorists in
> Iraq which is untrue. Most of the fighting done in Iraq is with
> Iraqis, defending their homeland against the invaders. It is our
> presence there which fuels the Arab terrorists all over the world.
So you think Iran has nothing to do with the insurgency?
>
> There have been terrorist attacks in Great Britain, Madrid, and many
> other places. Did these happen because Britain withdrew from the
> fighting? No, they happened because Britain was still there. That
> whole "we are fighting them over there to keep from fighting them here"
> argument collapses under the weight of the facts.
They terrorist scum knew if they were attacked they would cave and pull out.
>
> The longer we stay in Iraq, the more gasoline we pour on the fires of
> Islamic terrorism.
> Remove the "gasoline" in Iraq (our troops) and the fires will burn out.
Wishful thinking.
>
>
> And our occupation of Arab lands makes us MORE likely to be attacked
> here at home by these "Islama-fascists" that Bush keeps talking about.
>
Hasent seem to have been the case since 2003.
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Jan 2007 14:24:36
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Bush's plan to put out the fire
|
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 11:09:27 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com >
wrote:
>
>So you think Iran has nothing to do with the insurgency?
If we allowed it - Iran would become the local bad guys again. Arabs
have always had a hard time with Persians setting themselves up as
models of Islam. But as long as the West is more visible, Iran can
stay in the background.
|
| |
Date: 12 Jan 2007 07:57:19
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Bush's plan to put out the fire
|
Robert Hamilton wrote:
> The Iraq War has been one of the best examples of
> poor planning and strategy; however that doesn't change the fact that if the
> US walks away, it's the US walking away...again. This time, however, the
> enemy will follow the troops back. It's not like they haven't hit the US
> directly before.
That's a nonsensical argument that Bush makes.
So what is keeping these terrorists from coming over here now?
It sure isn't our presence in Iraq.
Say you're a terrorist. You can come to the US and cause havoc to
hundreds or thousands of people at a time. Or you can go to Iraq and
get the shit shot out of you.
"Yeah, let's go to Iraq!"
|
| | |
Date: 12 Jan 2007 14:51:22
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Bush's plan to put out the fire
|
annika1980 wrote:
> That's a nonsensical argument that Bush makes.
> So what is keeping these terrorists from coming over here now?
> It sure isn't our presence in Iraq.
Bushtard is a criminal and should be tried in the Hague. Of course since he
is in charge of 12,500 nukes nobody has the balls to force that issue.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Jan 2007 16:16:39
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Bush's plan to put out the fire
|
On 12 Jan 2007 07:57:19 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com >
wrote:
>
>Robert Hamilton wrote:
>> The Iraq War has been one of the best examples of
>> poor planning and strategy; however that doesn't change the fact that if the
>> US walks away, it's the US walking away...again. This time, however, the
>> enemy will follow the troops back. It's not like they haven't hit the US
>> directly before.
>
>That's a nonsensical argument that Bush makes.
>So what is keeping these terrorists from coming over here now?
>It sure isn't our presence in Iraq.
>
Why isn't that THE most obvious fact to anyone!!!
>Say you're a terrorist. You can come to the US and cause havoc to
>hundreds or thousands of people at a time. Or you can go to Iraq and
>get the shit shot out of you.
>"Yeah, let's go to Iraq!"
They're waiting for the U.S. forces to sail back so they can stowaway
on our troop carriers. Then the attacks begin here. LOL
"-- "
___,
\o
|
| | |
Date: 12 Jan 2007 11:15:43
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush's plan to put out the fire
|
On 12 Jan 2007 07:57:19 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com >
wrote:
>So what is keeping these terrorists from coming over here now?
They can't get a visa.
|
| |
Date: 12 Jan 2007 06:43:31
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush's plan to put out the fire
|
Robert Hamilton wrote:
> frankross wrote:
>
> > The_Professor wrote:
> > > Jack Hollis wrote:
> >
> > \clip\
> > > In the case of Korea, Vietnam and now Iraq there is/was no real reason
> > > for the US to \insert\....
> >
> > ...get involved.
> >
> > frank
>
> The fact is they did get involved. Time's arrow is unidirectional. The issue
> then becomes what you did. The Iraq War has been one of the best examples of
> poor planning and strategy; however that doesn't change the fact that if the
> US walks away, it's the US walking away...again. This time, however, the
> enemy will follow the troops back. It's not like they haven't hit the US
> directly before.
In Iraq, "the enemy" is a Sunni insugency whose only issue with the US
is that we're in their country. The insurgency has grown and continues
to grow because of the abuse and mistreatment many young Iraqi males
have suffered at the hands of US soldiers. Abu Ghraib was a huge factor
in this. If and when US troops leave Iraq, there is no reason to think
that any of these people are going to follow them home, given that no
Iraqi ever carried out a terrorist attack against the US, as far as
anyone knows.
The argument that we're fighting the terrorists there so we won't have
to fight them here is completely fallacious.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Jan 2007 15:30:42
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush's plan to put out the fire
|
On 12 Jan 2007 06:43:31 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>In Iraq, "the enemy" is a Sunni insugency whose only issue with the US
>is that we're in their country. The insurgency has grown and continues
>to grow because of the abuse and mistreatment many young Iraqi males
>have suffered at the hands of US soldiers. Abu Ghraib was a huge factor
>in this.
If a more simplistic analysis of the Iraqi insurgency exists, I
haven't seen it.
>If and when US troops leave Iraq, there is no reason to think
>that any of these people are going to follow them home, given that no
>Iraqi ever carried out a terrorist attack against the US, as far as
>anyone knows.
>The argument that we're fighting the terrorists there so we won't have
>to fight them here is completely fallacious.
There's absolutely no doubt that Al Qaeda is involved in Iraq. After
all, the most wanted insurgent was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian
connected to Al Qaeda. Of course, the US killed him, but Al Qaeda in
Iraq replaced him.
It's difficult to estimate exactly what percentage of the Iraqi
insurgents are foreign. Estimates by the CSIS last year placed the
number between 4% and 10%. Earlier this week US and Iraqi forces were
fighting insurgents on Haifa Street in central Baghdad. During the
battle, 21 insurgents were captured and seven of them were foreigners.
It's also clear that the Al Qaeda foreign fighters make up a majority
of the suicide bombers. Very few Sunni are fanatical enough to blow
themselves up. Accordingly, the foreign fighters in Iraq have a
greater impact than their numbers represent. They're also
well-trained in insurgent tactics like bomb making which makes them
more dangerous than the Iraqi insurgents because they have imparted
their knowledge to the Iraqis.
Obviously, Al Qaeda are spending money and personnel in Iraq. These
assets could be used in other places, like planning and carrying out
attacks in the US. If the US leaves Iraq, Al Qaeda would have no
reason to continue their activities there, because their major goal in
Iraq is to make as much trouble for the US as they can. This would
allow Al Qaeda to redirect the assets currently used in Iraq to other
places, including the USA.
|
| |
Date: 11 Jan 2007 14:14:21
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Bush's plan to put out the fire
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 11 Jan 2007 11:33:44 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I think the most Bush can hope for is that the 21,500 new troops will
> >compel the insurgents on both sides to crawl back under their rocks
> >while the Iraqi government, army and police get up on their feet and
> >the US pulls out of Iraq. As soon as that happens, they're all back in
> >the streets again, blowing eachother up, slaughtering civilians,
> >hanging dead bodies from lamp posts and otherwise demonstrating what a
> >wonderful part of the word the Middle East is.
>
>
> I think the hope is to weaken the Sunni/Al Qaeda insurgents and the
> Shia loyal to Muqtada Al-Sadr to insure that the moderate Shia and the
> Kurds end up in control after the US leaves.
>
> Then it's time to focus on Iran.
It really looks like the Americans are going walk out of Iraq, and it
will be yet another failure of US foreign policy. Korea was a failure.
Vietnam was a failure; now Iraq/Afghanistan (and you can't fail in Iraq
and succeed in Afghanistan, once Iraq goes, Afghanistan will soon
follow). Since the US became a world power in 1946 none of it's major
initiatives have succeeded; except possibly the Reagan administrations
Soviet policy, which was screw detente; let's see if they are up to a
real tit for tat global influence peddling contest! Of course the
Soviet Union could have been more or less done anyways, and it wouldn't
have mattered what Reagan did, it still would have collapsed.
In the case of Korea, Vietnam and now Iraq there is/was no real reason
for the US to fail other than a lack of national will to see the thing
through. It seems to always come down to meaningles partisan politics.
That the president is elected is important. Who it is really doesn't
mean much though. World events especially move along despite what
politcos in the US think. Of course this time, the failure will come
home, and no doubt give a lot of people something to complain about,
but not do anything about.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Jan 2007 21:09:50
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush's plan to put out the fire
|
On 11 Jan 2007 14:14:21 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:
>> I think the hope is to weaken the Sunni/Al Qaeda insurgents and the
>> Shia loyal to Muqtada Al-Sadr to insure that the moderate Shia and the
>> Kurds end up in control after the US leaves.
>>
>> Then it's time to focus on Iran.
>
>It really looks like the Americans are going walk out of Iraq, and it
>will be yet another failure of US foreign policy. Korea was a failure.
>Vietnam was a failure; now Iraq/Afghanistan (and you can't fail in Iraq
>and succeed in Afghanistan, once Iraq goes, Afghanistan will soon
>follow).
The US settled for a draw in Korea. It's one of those things that
didn't seem to matter very much for a long time, but recently NK has
really become a problem and it would be nice if they didn't exist.
Of course, one never knows what would have happened if the US would
have decided not to settle for partition of Korea in 1953. There
would have been a very nasty war with China that could have required
the US to use nuclear weapons. In addition, while the US was in a
major war with China, the Soviets could have made advances in Europe.
Those were the concerns at the time. You never know.
Vietnam was a mistake. It was just bad luck that Ho was a communist.
The US had little problem with Indonesia and the Philippines becoming
independent because the nationalists there weren't communists. It was
fear of communism that led to Vietnam.
Ultimately, Vietnam was one of the major battles in the Cold War,
which the US finally won. Vietnam is now a free ket capitalist
state. So it turned out for the good in the long run.
Al Qaeda had to be removed from their sanctuaries in Afghanistan and
this has been accomplished. The Taliban are still hiding up in the
hills, but so what. No one, not even the Taliban, has ever controlled
Afghanistan.
The major aim of the war in Iraq was regime change and that has been
accomplished. Ultimately, what's happening now is an Iraqi problem.
The reason it was easy for the US to go into Iraq is because there was
no outcome that was worse than Saddam staying in power.
>Since the US became a world power in 1946 none of it's major
>initiatives have succeeded; except possibly the Reagan administrations
>Soviet policy, which was screw detente; let's see if they are up to a
>real tit for tat global influence peddling contest! Of course the
>Soviet Union could have been more or less done anyways, and it wouldn't
>have mattered what Reagan did, it still would have collapsed.
The Soviet Union would have eventually fallen apart. It's hard to
imagine a major nation existing in the information age that outlaws
copy machines. Communism is an inferior economic system and it just
couldn't compete. Nevertheless, Reagan, with some help from the Pope
and garet Thatcher, certainly hastened the Soviet's demise.
One of the problems with the American public is that they don't
understand asymmetrical warfare. They're looking for a clear cut
victory and that doesn't happen in asymmetrical warfare. Like in
Vietnam, there's no possibility of a military defeat. The US won
every battle in Vietnam and the same is true in Iraq. However, the US
lacks the political will to stick it out. This is a flaw and a
weakness of the US and it can be exploited.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Jan 2007 16:34:24
From: frankross
Subject: Re: Bush's plan to put out the fire
|
The_Professor wrote:
> Jack Hollis wrote:
\clip\
> In the case of Korea, Vietnam and now Iraq there is/was no real reason
> for the US to \insert\....
...get involved.
frank
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Jan 2007 05:00:41
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: Bush's plan to put out the fire
|
frankross wrote:
> The_Professor wrote:
> > Jack Hollis wrote:
>
> \clip\
> > In the case of Korea, Vietnam and now Iraq there is/was no real reason
> > for the US to \insert\....
>
> ...get involved.
>
> frank
The fact is they did get involved. Time's arrow is unidirectional. The issue
then becomes what you did. The Iraq War has been one of the best examples of
poor planning and strategy; however that doesn't change the fact that if the
US walks away, it's the US walking away...again. This time, however, the
enemy will follow the troops back. It's not like they haven't hit the US
directly before.
|
| |
Date: 11 Jan 2007 11:33:44
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush's plan to put out the fire
|
Dene wrote:
> annika1980 wrote:
> > "Throw more gasoline on it!"
>
> One question that I have not been able to find the answer on. Can Bush
> order the surge without Congressional approval?
Yes. He is commander in chief of the armed forces. Congress could enact
legislation denying funding for the so-called surge, but Pelosi has
already said that's not in the cards.
>
> I listened to his speech and then the dem's response. There is one
> point the Dem's made that makes a lot of sense to me. It's the notion
> of letting Iraq sink or swim on their own, even if that means the Shia
> dominates without the cooperation of the Sunni's. (If they refuse to
> unite, then somebody has to lose). Anyway, the dilemma is similar to
> welfare reform debate 10 years ago which basically said, "the
> government will help, for a limited time." Basically, it's time's up
> for Iraq.
>
> So....I'm officially against Bush and the Republicans on this one. The
> Iraqi people don't want us there. It's time to leave and let them
> choose what kind of country they want.
>
> -Greg
I think the most Bush can hope for is that the 21,500 new troops will
compel the insurgents on both sides to crawl back under their rocks
while the Iraqi government, army and police get up on their feet and
the US pulls out of Iraq. As soon as that happens, they're all back in
the streets again, blowing eachother up, slaughtering civilians,
hanging dead bodies from lamp posts and otherwise demonstrating what a
wonderful part of the word the Middle East is.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Jan 2007 17:54:51
From: Carbon
Subject: Re: Bush's plan to put out the fire
|
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 11:33:44 -0800, John B. wrote:
> I think the most Bush can hope for is that the 21,500 new troops will
> compel the insurgents on both sides to crawl back under their rocks
> while the Iraqi government, army and police get up on their feet and the
> US pulls out of Iraq. As soon as that happens, they're all back in the
> streets again, blowing eachother up, slaughtering civilians, hanging
> dead bodies from lamp posts and otherwise demonstrating what a wonderful
> part of the word the Middle East is.
Bush and his handlers want more troops in the region to pave the way for
invading Iran.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Jan 2007 15:14:49
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush's plan to put out the fire
|
On 11 Jan 2007 11:33:44 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>I think the most Bush can hope for is that the 21,500 new troops will
>compel the insurgents on both sides to crawl back under their rocks
>while the Iraqi government, army and police get up on their feet and
>the US pulls out of Iraq. As soon as that happens, they're all back in
>the streets again, blowing eachother up, slaughtering civilians,
>hanging dead bodies from lamp posts and otherwise demonstrating what a
>wonderful part of the word the Middle East is.
I think the hope is to weaken the Sunni/Al Qaeda insurgents and the
Shia loyal to Muqtada Al-Sadr to insure that the moderate Shia and the
Kurds end up in control after the US leaves.
Then it's time to focus on Iran.
|
| |
Date: 11 Jan 2007 10:15:55
From: Dene
Subject: Re: Bush's plan to put out the fire
|
annika1980 wrote:
> "Throw more gasoline on it!"
One question that I have not been able to find the answer on. Can Bush
order the surge without Congressional approval?
I listened to his speech and then the dem's response. There is one
point the Dem's made that makes a lot of sense to me. It's the notion
of letting Iraq sink or swim on their own, even if that means the Shia
dominates without the cooperation of the Sunni's. (If they refuse to
unite, then somebody has to lose). Anyway, the dilemma is similar to
welfare reform debate 10 years ago which basically said, "the
government will help, for a limited time." Basically, it's time's up
for Iraq.
So....I'm officially against Bush and the Republicans on this one. The
Iraqi people don't want us there. It's time to leave and let them
choose what kind of country they want.
-Greg
|
| | |
Date: 11 Jan 2007 15:08:32
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bush's plan to put out the fire
|
On 11 Jan 2007 10:15:55 -0800, "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote:
>One question that I have not been able to find the answer on. Can Bush
>order the surge without Congressional approval?
Yes.
|
| |
Date: 10 Jan 2007 16:07:49
From: Ben.
Subject: Re: Bush's plan to put out the fire
|
On Jan 10, 4:58 pm, "Head Shot" <HeadS...@ThePinkMist.com > wrote:
> Howard Brazee wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 09:04:47 -0600, "the Moderator"
> > <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
>
> >> Republicans are the party with bad ideas. Democrats are the party
> >> with no ideas.
>
> > I used to like the promise of the Republicans that they would do
> > little, as opposed to the promise that the Democrats that they would
> > try to do everything.
>
> > Times have changed.Politicians are one generation away from being gangstas. When Mike Vick
> becomes president I am moving to Europe.
Vick in '08! Vick in '08! BTW, it would have been...cheekier had you
said you were moving to Mexico if Vick becomes pres. Thank you, thank
you very much.
|
| |
Date: 10 Jan 2007 09:05:39
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bush's plan to put out the fire
|
the Moderator wrote:
> "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1168367535.859431.130900@77g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> > "Throw more gasoline on it!"
> >
>
> Republicans are the party with bad ideas. Democrats are the party with no
> ideas.
Which is worse?
|
| | |
Date: 10 Jan 2007 11:25:16
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Bush's plan to put out the fire
|
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1168448739.434926.46690@i56g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> the Moderator wrote:
>> "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:1168367535.859431.130900@77g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>> > "Throw more gasoline on it!"
>> >
>>
>> Republicans are the party with bad ideas. Democrats are the party with
>> no
>> ideas.
>
> Which is worse?
>
We're about to find out.
|
| |
Date: 10 Jan 2007 09:04:47
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Bush's plan to put out the fire
|
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1168367535.859431.130900@77g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> "Throw more gasoline on it!"
>
Republicans are the party with bad ideas. Democrats are the party with no
ideas.
|
| | |
Date: 10 Jan 2007 22:51:21
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Bush's plan to put out the fire
|
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 09:04:47 -0600, "the Moderator"
<sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote:
>Republicans are the party with bad ideas. Democrats are the party with no
>ideas.
I used to like the promise of the Republicans that they would do
little, as opposed to the promise that the Democrats that they would
try to do everything.
Times have changed.
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Jan 2007 17:58:26
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Bush's plan to put out the fire
|
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 09:04:47 -0600, "the Moderator"
> <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
>
>> Republicans are the party with bad ideas. Democrats are the party
>> with no ideas.
>
> I used to like the promise of the Republicans that they would do
> little, as opposed to the promise that the Democrats that they would
> try to do everything.
>
> Times have changed.
Politicians are one generation away from being gangstas. When Mike Vick
becomes president I am moving to Europe.
|
| |
Date: 09 Jan 2007 14:10:32
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Bush's plan to put out the fire
|
On 9 Jan 2007 10:32:15 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:
>"Throw more gasoline on it!"
Once again, thanks for the very descriptive thread title.
--
jvdp
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
|
|
