| Author | Post |
|---|
Newshound
Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1018 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 8th, 2006 07:05 pm |
|
Until Nov. 8, when Bush nominated Gates in place of Rumsfeld, the nominee was already a member of the bipartisan Iraq Study Team. The two statements he made on Iran and Iraq have broad implications for Israel’s strategic and military standing. I smell a sellout of Israel. What they add up to is a harsh reality: The United States, by failing to overcome the Sunni insurgency and al Qaeda in Iraq, and Israel, by similarly failing to subdue Hezbollah in the Lebanon war, will have to pay the price of coming to terms with the nuclear weaponization of the Islamic Republic. Both the US and Israel have exhibited a weakness that’s going to haunt them. In both countries, the internal politics have caused a weakening of the governments’ resolve for a clear-cut victory. Instead of restraint, Israel should topple the Hamas government. This all may signify a fresh White House conception of Persian Gulf strategy - namely that America’s security interests do not warrant any further involvement in the Gulf region. Since it does not depend on Arabian oil like China, Japan, India and other Far Eastern nations, why should the US saddle itself with the protection of the region’s oil resources and routes? This shift in strategic emphasis, if confirmed, would have a profound influence – not only on Israel, but also on Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the oil emirates. But they, unlike Israel, are not caught unawares, having prepared themselves for the past year by opening up alternative sources of weapons and making massive transfers of assets to Asian markets.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 8th, 2006 03:05 pm |
|
The report has it's flaws, but it it is better then anything else out there. It recognizes, either directly or indirectly, that the situation is extremely grim. It is going to be very difficult for us to do anything to change, because as George Will said...
The ISG's central conclusion, important to say with the group's imprimatur even though the conclusion is obvious, is that the problem with Iraq is the Iraqis, a semi-nation of peoples who are very difficult to help.
Iran has it's own self interests, some of which would benefit long-term from a stable Iraq, especially given the issue of the Kurdish region (there are Kurdish Iraqis, Turks, and Iranians, which could lead them to push for their own country). The problem is that they know we need them right now more then they need us....making them a very difficult partner to negotiate with.
|
kavips
Member
| Joined: | Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 358 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 8th, 2006 11:30 am |
|
Iran is an entitiy like Syria, Turkey, Israel, etc.
Since when did we "not " have dialogues with opponents?
I know we communicated secretly before wars-end with Germany, Italy, Japan, China, (in N. Korea), the Soviet Union ( in Cold War), Hanoi, why would we not want to open channels, even if to ask for their surrender.
With the exception of Vietnam, we won every war so far. It is what America does best. It is when we"refuse" to negotiate that we sink like a stone. We are sinking now.
To quote Ronald Reagan, when you are going the wrong way, does it not make sense to turn around?
|
davidlanderson
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 552 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 8th, 2006 03:33 am |
|
Thanks for your point of view. I have been studying the report. I plan to wait until the weekend before I give any detailed comments. It is a lot to absorb and on a very weighty topic. It deserves more than one read or even two. I admit that my initial reaction is lukewarm. I think some ideas are good, and a couple strike me as unrealistic.
For instance the report pulsated that we have a mutual interest with Iran and Syria to avoid instability within Iraq. Syria is debatable, but from where I sit Iran benefits from instability in Iraq. Here are three reasons. 1. It ties us down and allows them a freer hand to pursue their objectives in the region. 2. A s**te Lead democracy next door would feed the internal opposition already simmering in Iran. 3. Instability strengthens the hand of Sadar and their allies inside Iraq.
That paragraph alone made me shutter because it defies reality for the reasons noted above plus a dozen more. It makes me concerned about the other 78 points.
Last edited on Fri Dec 8th, 2006 03:42 am by davidlanderson
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 8th, 2006 03:22 am |
|
Another reason of why I went was that it was September 2004 when I was activated....I thought there were still a lot of ways and options remaining to win the hearts and minds.
The report IS a consensus, but what it agrees on is not good. Things are hosed up over there, and a new plan is needed. Just about everybody is in agreement on that.
The second problem is that the resources may not be there for other options. We could probably scrape up enough troops to make a difference, but I think one would need a lot more then the 20K that McCain wants, to say nothing of needing lots of equipment for these troops. Worse, we would have shot our load, and we would have nothing in reserve. That is a very uncomfortable situation that no military leader wants to be in.
The report has it's flaws, but it at least states that the existing policies have failed, and that new ones need to be tried, and even they may not succeed. What I have not heard is what the alternatives are going to be....and from what I have heard, do not expect too much more from the JCS. The Pentagon has been kicking around alternative strategies for at least as long as a year, and there are no blinding flash of the obvious solutions.
If you get a chance, read the report. It goes into some detail why they believe other options are not feasable. One can argue with the facts, or the findings, but to argue the composition (and there were military people on the board) is ignoring the bigger problem.
|
davidlanderson
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 552 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 8th, 2006 03:11 am |
|
Well said, Fred-- I can feel your heart of patriotism in that post. You aren't the only one who hopes you are wrong!!! I believe in my heart that 1. We won the war in Iraq. 2. We can win the post occupation struggle as well.
I wish we had more troops over there a year or two ago and rooted out the resistance. We could have then had a relatively calm environment to train the Iraqi forces. How do you train under near war conditions? These guys get blown up going outside of the police station. John McCain is right (as much as that pains me to admit). He is leading on this issue. He has the warrior's sense for what it takes to win.
The Baker- Hamilton Commission is trying for consensus. No war has ever been won by a consensus committee of bureaucrats and politicians. It did not have any military leaders. The report acknowleged that the main problem is that we do not have sufficient troop levels to clear and hold. So does that mean withdraw? This adds new meaning to Orwellean.
The report is correct that failure would be catastrophic. We have no other option but to win. I hope the Chiefs' report will show us the way.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 7th, 2006 03:34 am |
|
I have faith in the United States. I have faith in the United States military, and I had a responsibility to do what I swore I would do. I had a job to do, regardless of my personal opinion. THAT is what the Oath of Office means. My personal opinion has no bearing on the job that I am asked to do...it is a hard concept for those who have only had jobs that they could quit whenever they disagreed with their boss.
I also did hope that maybe I was wrong in some aspect of my belief. I even said so as I was leaving the theater as the elections finished up last year....I thought at that point that perhaps we had done it. Maybe in the long term that will be a significant event, but Iraq has gone backwards from that point.
I do want a good solution, and I think the idea of sending troops to work with the Iraqis and giving them the logistics support is our best chance. I've said before how the Iraqi military would go out with the US forces, who had their up-armored HUMMVs, body armor, heavy weapons, communications, and great tactics, and be there with mis-matched uniforms, open bed Nissan pickup trucks with metal posts that they put their AK-47s on....I can understand why they were reluctant to go out, at times. That being said, it may be too late. I truly hope not.
|
LCR
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 7th, 2006 03:04 am |
|
| So if this is what you believe, why did you allegedly go over there and fight? If you have so much principle, why did you violate it?
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 7th, 2006 01:51 am |
|
The problem is that those we went after in Iraq were not those who invaded us, despite the very successful spin the administration did by repeatedly using verbal gymnastics to tie the two together. The problem is that the Administration did not listen to the military when they said more troops were needed. The problem is that the administration refused to listen to everybody, including former Marine Scott Ritter, that there were no WMDs in Iraq. The problem is that the administration refused to listen to anyone or any intelligence other then those who gave them what they wanted to hear.
And now they want to blame liberals/media/Democrats/Girl Scouts on the fact that their policy and their execution of the war is a failure. They want to ignore everyone who said it would turn out this way from the beginning and simply chalk it up to people "wanting the US to fail".
|
Tank
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 309 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 7th, 2006 12:37 am |
|
“Always will we remember the character of the onslaught against us. No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory... so help us God.” —Franklin D. Roosevelt
Not my most favorite guy but this made a lot of sense then as it does now. "THE WAR IN IRAQ IS NOT WINABLE." In 1968 in Viet Nam (The Tet Offensive) we heard the same cry. "THE WAR IN VIET NAM IS UNWINABLE." At that time Charlie took us by total surprise. They hit us at every military installation in the country. The whole works. NVA regulars, VC in black pajamas and all, we were caught short. We sustained heavy casualties and under sustained fire for a few days on end. My airframe was hit twice and so bad it wouldn't fly with a dozen other ship's spare or canabalized parts. I became 0300 (basic infntry) and we were in a world of s**t. We heard all the peacenicks back home demonstrating and calling us down, ragging on us constantly and urging a pullout. We resisted the flower children's taunts and got it on with the commies. We were Marines (and a hell of a lot of good soldiers too) and got our eye on the objective. Hit 'em back, and get out of the s**t. We succeeded in thwarting their total takeover, at least at that time. We didn't lose and they didn't win. We did set them back a whole lot. When the fall of Saigon came later on, it was a situation that we were not allowed to win. They didn't defeat us, we just got the hell out of there but we felt that we could have beaten them back. The politics at home won out, just as it did now.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 6th, 2006 09:01 pm |
|
http://www.usip.org/isg/iraq_study_group_report/report/1206/iraq_study_group_report.pdf
The report is here....only 160 pages, but it starts out very blunt, but gives a pretty good assessment of the situation.
"The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating. There is nopath that can guarantee success, but the prospects can be improved."
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 30th, 2006 03:01 am |
|
It could get worse, if not for us, for the rest of the Mid-East. A lot of people here don't think it matters, but there is the very real possibility of the entire region breaking out into a large scale war, with Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey and Syria getting involved in the Sunni-Shiite cage match.
Civil war may be something we look back on and wish that was our only problem.
|
kavips
Member
| Joined: | Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 358 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 29th, 2006 10:04 am |
|
I thind the appropriate remark would be: that more Americans are dying in DC than in Bagdad, which may be true.
But it goes to show us that "that" side still refuses to think of Iraqis as people. To "that" side, Iraqis are things, objects to be used and discarded when no longer useful.
If they truly believed otherwise, they would see the war differently. They would see, I believe, 600,000 dead, a population that wants us out, a society that has become so broken by our arrival, that they prefer the consistency of anything else to the
advent of Democracy of the type sponsored by the US.
Even when you coach high school football, you send in the second or third string and pull your star players when there is no hope of winning.
So why are we so bent on putting our best in harm's way when the scoreboard is telling us it is over?
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 29th, 2006 03:28 am |
|
What annoyed me is not any "attack"; it is the minimizing of the war in Iraq. Yeah, the facts are being distorted, but more then that is this false comparision to cities in the US. Usually the distortion uses the death figures of Baghdad and then uses the population figures of all of Iraq to make their "point".
In any case, it is beside the point. I am glad to see that the President is recognizing that there actually is a problem over there, and sound bites are not going to make it go away.
|
LCR
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 29th, 2006 03:06 am |
|
Sounds like Detroit to me..............maybe Philly
Actually since Iran and Syria are the culprits behind the violence, it makes sense to talk to them and tell them to get the heck out of the neighborhood.
Fred wrote:
You are in pure denial. Show me where bombs go off on a daily basis in DC. Show me where people are routinely denied basic services such as electricity and water. Show me when the police stand around while holes are drilled into people's head. I would love to see your numbers, and I suspect they would be, well, suspect. You want to compare the death rate of US soldiers in Baghdad extrapoliated to the same death rate?
Regardless, however it is a crappy situation over there, and it certainly has gotten worse this year. Regardless of the cause, regardless of the people behind it, we are left holding the bag. I give President Bush credit for trying to shift the emphasis to the Iraqis taking charge; it is very interesting to see that he is pushing the Iraqi PM to talk with Iran and Syria to try to get them to help solve the problem.
Last edited on Wed Nov 29th, 2006 03:08 am by
|
Boo
Member
| Joined: | Sat Nov 19th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 481 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 28th, 2006 09:24 pm |
|
| Fred, calm down. No where has it been mentioned as to the manner of deaths, only the pure numbers. Don't take everything as if it were an attack on the Democrats.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 28th, 2006 08:50 pm |
|
You are in pure denial. Show me where bombs go off on a daily basis in DC. Show me where people are routinely denied basic services such as electricity and water. Show me when the police stand around while holes are drilled into people's head. I would love to see your numbers, and I suspect they would be, well, suspect. You want to compare the death rate of US soldiers in Baghdad extrapoliated to the same death rate?
Regardless, however it is a crappy situation over there, and it certainly has gotten worse this year. Regardless of the cause, regardless of the people behind it, we are left holding the bag. I give President Bush credit for trying to shift the emphasis to the Iraqis taking charge; it is very interesting to see that he is pushing the Iraqi PM to talk with Iran and Syria to try to get them to help solve the problem.
|
The Insyder
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 546 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 28th, 2006 07:10 pm |
|
While the military "quagmire" in Iraq was said to tip the scales of power in the U.S. midterm elections, most Americans have no idea that more of their fellow citizens – men, women and children -- were murdered this year by illegal aliens than the combined death toll of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan since those military campaigns began
The murder rate in Baghdad is lower than that of Washington, D.C.
(USDOJ)
|
kavips
Member
| Joined: | Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 358 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 27th, 2006 06:32 pm |
|
davidlanderson wrote: American miseducation is making us soft. It is time we act like Americans and stand with our friends and defeat our enemies.
What is making us soft is not miseducation. It is mis-direction. We are not soft inside as a country. We only appear soft because our leaders have led us as a country to a place where we did not want to go..
Had we continued to isolate Iraq with sanctions until the Afgan conversion was complete, and an alternative to all other Moslem despotic regimes was up and running, we could have upheld all the values we went to Iraq to prove.
Most of our problems came from arrogance. When your allies disagree and say, "we don't think you should do this (invade Iraq)", and we say"we don't care what you think, we are doing it anyway", proves that perhaps our allies were right and we were misdirected by knuckleheads who know less about foreign policy the the first Bush president's dog.
|
kavips
Member
| Joined: | Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 358 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 27th, 2006 06:21 pm |
|
davidlanderson wrote: We were still occupying the Axis powers and taking casulties 10 years after the war.
Check your history. The casualities were traffic accidents and misfires on maneuvers.
The germans threw out all Nazi holdovers. It was a national embarassment, sort of like Republicans are today. They fully embraced American, British, and French occupation and the eventual formation of West Germany centered in Bonn.
The soviet sector may have held some nostalgia for the "glory days" but the East Germans effective spy systerm, kept a lid on it.
The Japanese were allowed to keep their emporer, and because he was against any insurrection against the Americans, there was none.
Compare the wisdom of Americans then, to today's "let's get our oil money out now. what is taking so long!", you see that perhaps the punishment we are taking in Iraq is proportionate to the crime we have committed.
|
kavips
Member
| Joined: | Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 358 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 27th, 2006 06:08 pm |
|
If we already won in Iraq, I hate to see your idea of defeat.
I have heard your rhetoric before. The Germans and the Japanese used it to rally old men, women, and tiny children to defend the mother countryduring WWII.
The language you use comes from the speech of a lost cause.
Remember, we also won in Vietnam: again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again................................. .......................................................
But though we won every military engagement, it was to no avail.
Staying tough will not make any difference. Trying something new, will.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 27th, 2006 03:17 pm |
|
The Europeans were with us from the beginning. The issues and backsliding came during the rebuilding process, where the committment for funds was not there....and the Taliban gained a lot of power by feeding on people's discontent.
We did win in Iraq, but sometimes, like a dinner guest, one can stay too long. I think the option of "going big" was probably the best one, but am not sure we have the troops to do it....it has been reported that only the troops over there, and the next ones scheduled are "combat ready". There are things we can do, of course, such as extending the deployment, or bringing back those who have already been there, but the long term effects on our all-volunteer force would not be good.
As for those who keep hoping to somehow minimize Iraq by incorporating it into the larger "Long War"...other then Afghanistan, where else are we fighting the terrorists?
|
davidlanderson
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 552 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 27th, 2006 01:59 pm |
|
We already won Iraq. The government is replaced and the country was occupied. We were still occupying the Axis powers and taking casulties 10 years after the war. Learn your history not just the highlights they teach in school.
American miseducation is making us soft. It is time we act like Americans and stand with our friends and defeat our enemies.
Afganistan was going very well until we let the Europeans help us. Quite frankly, the Taliban remanents rose up and are getting shot down. I don't buy this losing 50 to 100 people a month as some massive defeat. We have lost 30,000 people in a day in some wars. Buck up my fellow Americans. We are the only ones that can defeat us.
I agree with Halvah that we need more troops and need to stop worrying about whether a larger footprint will offend them. Get the place pacified, give it to the new government, and go home. If they need to fight it out themselves, we can't stop it.
|
kavips
Member
| Joined: | Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 358 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 27th, 2006 09:14 am |
|
If we can't "win" a piddly war in Iraq in the time it took us to defeat two gigantic world empires of Hitler and Tojo, how do you think we can win in Iran?
We get smart, bug out of Iraq.....we reengage Afganistan as a positive force. At least win ourselves one ally in the war on terrorism.
|
LCR
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 26th, 2006 10:08 pm |
|
All the more reason to resign from this "League of Nations".
Halvah wrote:
How ironic that we in Israel face the same predicament as you Americans in Iraq. We had (and still have) the same problems of the politicians running the war instead of the generals. As soldiers we define victory as other than defeat; as leaving the enemy vanquished top the point that his agressive behavior toward us is altered, abated, or eliminated. It is total and in many cases, unconditional. The parallel situations in Iraq and in Lebanon may, at times, defy logic. You perhaps whould have gone in stronger and with enough troops to hold and pacify your objectives. Same here. We did not go into Lebanon with enough strength although, as with the Allied soldiers, the determination was there but as we all know, determination alone is not enough. We were pressured to pull out before we completed our mission just as you may have to do in Iraq. You will have the same problem as we. The enemy will take over and fill the void, regroup, rearm, and strehgthen and move into other countries in the region. The United Nations will do nothing to make any meaningful solution last. By and large, they are anti-American, anti-Israel, and anti-democracy. They are mostly dictators and socialists who hold power in their respective nations and do not want any democratic process that may eventually lead to their internal demise.
|
Halvah
Member
| Joined: | Thu Dec 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | Haifa, Israel |
| Posts: | 326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 26th, 2006 08:11 pm |
|
| How ironic that we in Israel face the same predicament as you Americans in Iraq. We had (and still have) the same problems of the politicians running the war instead of the generals. As soldiers we define victory as other than defeat; as leaving the enemy vanquished top the point that his agressive behavior toward us is altered, abated, or eliminated. It is total and in many cases, unconditional. The parallel situations in Iraq and in Lebanon may, at times, defy logic. You perhaps whould have gone in stronger and with enough troops to hold and pacify your objectives. Same here. We did not go into Lebanon with enough strength although, as with the Allied soldiers, the determination was there but as we all know, determination alone is not enough. We were pressured to pull out before we completed our mission just as you may have to do in Iraq. You will have the same problem as we. The enemy will take over and fill the void, regroup, rearm, and strehgthen and move into other countries in the region. The United Nations will do nothing to make any meaningful solution last. By and large, they are anti-American, anti-Israel, and anti-democracy. They are mostly dictators and socialists who hold power in their respective nations and do not want any democratic process that may eventually lead to their internal demise.
|
LCR
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 26th, 2006 06:50 pm |
|
| Iraq is not the war, it is one of the battles in the war on terrorism. Victory will come when Iran and Syria cry uncle.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 26th, 2006 01:10 pm |
|
It is the drugs you are on, CR. Try cutting back a bit.
And stop ignoring the tough questions I pose. Given where we are now, define victory. One of the key tenents of any military operation is knowing the end state...when is the mission accomplished? Can you articulate what that end state in Iraq currently is, according to the administration?
|
LCR
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 26th, 2006 01:38 am |
|
Victory was claimed after the fall of Saddam. Unfortunately the LSM and Demo-Libs bashed the President and made us all feel as if victory was a bad thing. Remember Bush on the Carrier returning from the war??????????????????? He claimed that major fighting was over. You a-holes just couldn't find it within you to celebrate and work to bring the troops home.
Your spin is making me dizzy Fred.
Fred wrote:
First, I've given many Republican quotes, and there are a lot more since the November election regarding the war in Iraq. Granted, a lot of them are jumping on the bandwagon, but they see the light.
Second....what is the latest defination of "victory" in Iraq? I know what it was when we went in, and it has continously been downgraded ever since. Victory should have been claimed when we knocked off Saddam.
Military solutions are not compatible with political problems.
Last edited on Sun Nov 26th, 2006 01:40 am by
|
davidlanderson
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 552 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 25th, 2006 11:01 pm |
|
Okay, on the run may be an exaggeration. They are suffering defeats around the world. Add to the foiled plots you mentioned and add the Philipines, Indonesia, Qutar, Yemen, and Thailand. In many nations we have been successfully aiding those fighting against the radicals. Their own memos captured by us show their despair. They need a victory. If we give them Iraq, they will be energized worse than our worst nightmares. Others on the sidelines will join them and we will remember this past election as the beginning of WW3.
Sorry, for any confusion I left you in the earlier post.
Last edited on Sat Nov 25th, 2006 11:35 pm by davidlanderson
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 25th, 2006 11:00 pm |
|
First, I've given many Republican quotes, and there are a lot more since the November election regarding the war in Iraq. Granted, a lot of them are jumping on the bandwagon, but they see the light.
Second....what is the latest defination of "victory" in Iraq? I know what it was when we went in, and it has continously been downgraded ever since. Victory should have been claimed when we knocked off Saddam.
Military solutions are not compatible with political problems.
|
LCR
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 25th, 2006 10:30 pm |
|
Hagel is abut as far away from the Republican base as you can get. He has never espoused the Republican or Conservative mantra. He is a Repub in name only cause it gets him elected. Much like Castle.
Fred wrote:
And yet another Republican sees the light....
Sen. Hagel....
"The time for more U.S. troops in Iraq has passed. We do not have more troops to send and, even if we did, they would not bring a resolution to Iraq. Militaries are built to fight and win wars, not bind together failing nations. We are once again learning a very hard lesson in foreign affairs: America cannot impose a democracy on any nation -- regardless of our noble purpose.
We have misunderstood, misread, misplanned and mismanaged our honorable intentions in Iraq with an arrogant self-delusion reminiscent of Vietnam..."
I might quibble on the "honorable intentions" bit, but other then that, he is right on the money.
Sorry for quoting another Republican on this issue.
|
Tank
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 309 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 25th, 2006 10:17 pm |
|
davidlanderson wrote: The terrorists have made Iraq their cause celeb. They are on the run around the world thanks to us. The specter of Islamofacism will haunt us until we defeat it or it defeats us.
The second paragraph almost contradicts the first one. Don't kid yourself. No one has anyone on the run worldwide. May be in Afghan, but anywhere else, they are already here in the US and are just waiting for the opportunity. WiItness the plots foiled by the Brits, Israelis and Pakistanis, not to mention our own intel. You are right on the second part. It is a scenario of who defeats who and what defeat means.
|
davidlanderson
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 552 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 25th, 2006 10:10 pm |
|
How many times do you have to find Chuck Hagel quotes to make it seem like a Republican cascade of discontent? Senator Hagel is a good man (like you) and I hope you are both wrong.
The terrorists have made Iraq their cause celeb. They are on the run around the world thanks to us. This is their big chance to see if we will cut and run if the going gets tough. If we do they will take these tactics everywhere, including American malls and schools. They will burn our churches, bomb our schools, and shoot up our theaters. The specter of Islamofacism will haunt us until we defeat it or it defeats us.
I hate to say it, but we need more troops in the short run. You know that were we put more troops such as in the west of Iraq, the violence is down. We need to give more equipment and better equipment to the security forces and give them 6 months to get their training down in relative calm. This means another 25 thousand troops in Bagdad alone. That may mean you and I take a trip, that is not something I take lightly--believe me.
The only option is victory either in Iraq or at a much greater cost here and around the world.
Last edited on Sat Nov 25th, 2006 11:43 pm by davidlanderson
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 25th, 2006 05:55 pm |
|
And yet another Republican sees the light....
Sen. Hagel....
"The time for more U.S. troops in Iraq has passed. We do not have more troops to send and, even if we did, they would not bring a resolution to Iraq. Militaries are built to fight and win wars, not bind together failing nations. We are once again learning a very hard lesson in foreign affairs: America cannot impose a democracy on any nation -- regardless of our noble purpose.
We have misunderstood, misread, misplanned and mismanaged our honorable intentions in Iraq with an arrogant self-delusion reminiscent of Vietnam..."
I might quibble on the "honorable intentions" bit, but other then that, he is right on the money.
Sorry for quoting another Republican on this issue.
|
Vindicator
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 462 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 01:17 pm |
|
| We all do.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 21st, 2006 10:52 pm |
|
Sounds like you have a lot to be thankful this season.
|
SoaringEagle
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 255 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 21st, 2006 06:31 pm |
|
God Bless All That Half To Spend the holidays Away Fighting The war I Would Just Like To Say Thanks To A That Prayed And Help Out With The War Our Family's Have Over there. I Am Very Thankful That My Baby's Tour Was Over Monday She Back Home with Us For The Holidays God Bless All That Are There And I Hope Allot More Get To Come Home To Their Family's My Prayer's Are With Each And Every One Of You God Bless All Of You.With THE Deepest Respect.  
yellowribbons .Happy Holidays. From my FAMILY To YOURS.
|
Halvah
Member
| Joined: | Thu Dec 15th, 2005 |
| Location: | Haifa, Israel |
| Posts: | 326 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 21st, 2006 06:14 pm |
|
Last Monday, Nov. 13, prime minister Ehud Olmert rather naively claimed he and President George W. Bush were of one mind that Israel must not sit down and talk to Syria until the Asad regime had abandoned its sponsorship of terror. As he spoke, three high-ranking US officials - David Satterfield, the state department’s coordinator for Iraq,J.D. Crouch, deputy national security adviser, and Condoleezza Rice’s assistant secretary of state for Near East affairs, David Welch - were deep in arrangements for the Blair visit to Damascus, which they see as the key for opening the door to direct US-Tehran talks.
The fresh US-European Middle East momentum on the Palestinian issue is being crafted as a positive counterweight to the negative effect of the impending American-British withdrawal from Iraq. Very few people in Washington, London or Damascus understood why President Bush’s leading ally in the Iraq war had suddenly turned against him. But Blair’s eye, say those sources, was very much on the Damascus ball; he was signaling the Syrian leader that he and Asad were now on the same side: the two leaders should together take a lead role in solving the burning issues of Iraq, the Middle East dispute and Iran. He implied that the US president, whose party had lost control of Congress, like Olmert, who had lost the Lebanon war, no longer held controlling stakes in the must urgent regional issues, whereas Blair and Asad were now in a position to seize the high ground.
The Sheinwald mission in late October tactfully avoided mention of Damascus’ role as headquarters for radical Palestinian terrorist groups. Asad was only warned off schemes to topple the Fouad Siniora government in Beirut. Informed that such machinations would bring the new rapprochement to an abrupt halt, Asad is quoted as saying he understands perfectly the fragility of Lebanon’s situation.
All this radical shifting around of US and British positions for the sake of an exit from Iraq, coupled with Europe’s maneuvering to make hay on the Palestinian-Israeli front, leave the Jewish state prey to crippling pressures as well as dangerously exposed to Iran, whose nuclear weapons aspirations remain unsolved in the stampede to leave Iraq. Tehran’s proxy Hizballah, Syria and the Palestinian Hamas will be left in peace to advance on their agenda for rapid armament and preparations for the next war.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 21st, 2006 04:09 pm |
|
Well, it is their plan NOW (maybe). Even GWB can take a hint. A 5-10 year timetable/benchmarks/etc. would allow one to give the Iraqis time to get their stuff together, but also be firm with them that we are not going to be there forever. MOST Democrats support something along those lines, with most fully aware that there is no way we could pull everybody out anytime soon - and those that ARE saying that are probably doing it more from a negotiating point of view then any hard-line belief. I'd push for the 5 year plan (15-20% reduction per year), with a plan to negotiate a permanent presence of 10-20K of troops at the 2-3 year mark.
You also have to realize that there are some flaws to this plan. 20k of Soldiers might not be enough to make a big difference, and we have to accept that the form of government the Iraqis want is not the kind we would like. If the Iraqis do take this seriously, I would also suspect that their police tactics will not be what we would like, either.
|
Prophet of Doom
Member
| Joined: | Sat Nov 19th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 219 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 21st, 2006 03:47 pm |
|
Fred wrote: I generally support the idea of temporarily increasing the troop levels to restore some semblence of order IF it is followed by the gradual (meaning 5-10 years) drawdown of our forces. Greater use of Iraqi troops who are trained but barracked in peaceful areas (as Duncan Hunter, Republican congressman, advocates) probably should be done first or in conjunction with the troop level increase
Careful, Fred. It sounds like the "stay the course" action by Bush. You are sounding like the Republicans and you wouldn't want the Democrats to misread you, right? It may be your political doom!
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 21st, 2006 03:41 pm |
|
So....Iran calls a peace conference, inviting Syria and Iraq to help quell the violence.
This is not what one would have thought was going to happen, and it's primary purpose is, of course, to undermine US prestige, most notably GWB. I don't think there is any question that this is the primary purpose....
BUT...we also know that these groups are probably behind a majority of the violence over there. What would the consequences be of a decrease in violence in Iraq brokered by these people?
I generally support the idea of temporarily increasing the troop levels to restore some semblence of order IF it is followed by the gradual (meaning 5-10 years) drawdown of our forces. Greater use of Iraqi troops who are trained but barracked in peaceful areas (as Duncan Hunter, Republican congressman, advocates) probably should be done first or in conjunction with the troop level increase
|
Newshound
Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1018 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 17th, 2006 03:38 pm |
|
| Typical Fred. Demean the messenger. The main point is this one show in particular. It really highlights the radical Islamist who appears to be in much greater numbers than thought. One witnesses hundreds of thousands of Muslims chanting "death to America" and so on. Good news, though. In case you missed the show, the demand has been so great that it will be repeated on HNN this Sunday at 7PM and 9PM. You can comment AFTER you watch it but unless you have seen it, ragging on Glenn Beck does no service to anyone.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7114 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 17th, 2006 03:05 am |
|
| I don't agree with much of Beck's rantings, but he is entertaining, a little bit like Rush used to be 20 years ago. He plays a certain role, and gets a lot of milage out of his schtick.
|
LCR
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 16th, 2006 10:33 pm |
|
Actually the program has really good numbers. Glenn Beck has steadily increased viewership on this program over the past couple of months. He really is a great combination of Humorist/Commentator.
The Insyder wrote:
Maybe there are more people that saw it than we realize, however, this was not well advertised at all. I wouldn't have known about it if I didn't hear about it in AM radio, WDOV (1410) listening to Glenn Beck. They were careful about seperating the moderate Muslims who DID speak out against the radical agenda from the whacko Ahmadinejad types. There is a DVD called "Obsession" that really gets into this. It is not sold in stores (they are probably afraid of the typical radical Islamic reprisals) but it can be o0rdered from the mail.
|
The Insyder
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 546 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 16th, 2006 08:35 pm |
|
| Maybe there are more people that saw it than we realize, however, this was not well advertised at all. I wouldn't have known about it if I didn't hear about it in AM radio, WDOV (1410) listening to Glenn Beck. They were careful about seperating the moderate Muslims who DID speak out against the radical agenda from the whacko Ahmadinejad types. There is a DVD called "Obsession" that really gets into this. It is not sold in stores (they are probably afraid of the typical radical Islamic reprisals) but it can be o0rdered from the mail.
|
Tinkerbelle
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 226 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 16th, 2006 06:29 pm |
|
| Woah, hold on there. I saw the show and it was indeed an eye opener, well, sort of. I was aware of a lot but not to the extent of it. I would hope that they repeat it and you are right. Shocking to see the PC CNN station aire this. It should be on all the major networks but that will never happen for fear of "offending" the racist, radical Muslim element. I would see it again, and besides, I hate Dancing w/the Stars.
|
Footloose
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 22nd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 327 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 16th, 2006 04:59 pm |
|
| Yeah, I saw it too, but judging from the lack of response no one else did. I guess no one wanted to give up "Dancing With the Stars" to see this. If you did not see it, you missed a hell of a lot. What it did teach me is to pay more attention to what is happening in the middle east and to what halvah says. Cool program.
|
Cobra
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 24th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 346 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 16th, 2006 12:03 pm |
|
Bixby wrote:
On Wednesday, November 15, 2006 at 7PM, 9PM, and Midnight, Headline News Network (HNN) will be airing an hour-long documentary entitled, "Obsession - Radical Islam Exposed." I think it is of the utmost importance that everyone make an effort to see this. I saw a DVD realeas of it. It shows us what Halvah has been telling us all along as true, only in more chilling detail. It is comprised of news videos, personal interviews, and hidden cameras and it will send chills up the spine. Don't miss it! Hey, I did catch this program. You guys are right. It was just like Halvahsaid and even worse. I was surprised to tee this on a CNN station (HNN) and not on Fox but it was an eye opener. I can't believe how they indoctrinate the children at such an earlyu age. Worse than Hitler ever did.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7114 |
| Status: |
Offl | |