Originally posted by knightwestI do agree that by leaving Iraq the situation will get worse, so can see Bush's point of view
What makes you think he is over-simplifying things?
But at the same time I did not see any clear stratergy going forward. Putting aside the discusion on wheater it was right or wrong to invade, the point was made what to do once in ? And how do the US leave ?
The British I think will leave at some point from Basra as they are aleardy working towards that from troop movements, I just get the feeling that this is not thought out well and no clear dircetion lies for US troops.
More killing will happen, but a point will be reached when things can not go on. As a leader of nation, yesterday he expressed support for Mr Maliki, but today US intelligence study tells a different story.
I can only see a lose, lose situation and donlt really think he has thought this through correctly. Hence I think he has over-simplifying things
Originally posted by RSMA1234The reason there is no clear plan for Iraq because one cannot possibly exist. The situation is far too unstable. There are to many players involved and too many separate goals. The reason vo one has ever heard of a solid plan for Iraq is because one cannot be created.
I do agree that by leaving Iraq the situation will get worse, so can see Bush's point of view
But at the same time I did not see any clear stratergy going forward. Putting aside the discusion on wheater it was right or wrong to invade, the point was made what to do once in ? And how do the US leave ?
The British I think will leave at some point from B ...[text shortened]... eally think he has thought this through correctly. Hence I think he has over-simplifying things
Originally posted by AmauroteSecond highest in what time frame? Annual? Daily? Monthly? single attack?
On the spectactular success of Surge, the statisticians have just recorded the second highest number of civilian casualties since this characteristic stroke of Bushian military genius began. Mission Accomplished - again.
Originally posted by AmaurotePerversely, as soon as talk of withdrawal starts violence will only get worse as all groups will fall over themselves to try and take credit for kicking out the allied forces. The answer is to stay put, and stay firm and let everyone know that's what they're doing.
On the spectactular success of Surge, the statisticians have just recorded the second highest number of civilian casualties since this characteristic stroke of Bushian military genius began. Mission Accomplished - again.
Originally posted by RSMA1234Incidentally, it is my opinion that the British went into Iraq with the US. To even consider a withdrawal know is wrong. In together, out together, the rest is disgusting politics and currying of public favour. Our previous PM was oh so very good at that, and it looks like our new one is good at it too.
I do agree that by leaving Iraq the situation will get worse, so can see Bush's point of view
But at the same time I did not see any clear stratergy going forward. Putting aside the discusion on wheater it was right or wrong to invade, the point was made what to do once in ? And how do the US leave ?
The British I think will leave at some point from B ...[text shortened]... eally think he has thought this through correctly. Hence I think he has over-simplifying things
Just in case anyone cares, here's the part of the the speech that was referred to in the opening post.
"One unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like 'boat people,' 'reeducation camps' and 'killing fields,' "
He might have just put the donks on notice with that speech. Only time will tell, but with the leftists comparing Iraq to Vietnam for the last three years or so, I think the right just might make a point of being just as loud about the result of the lefts policies in Vietnam.
And just because I'm tired of people being negative about Iraq all the time, here's another quote from that speech.
Some said Japanese culture was inherently incompatible with democracy. Joseph Grew, a former United States ambassador to Japan who served as Harry Truman's Under Secretary of State, told the President flatly that -- and I quote -- "democracy in Japan would never work." He wasn't alone in that belief. A lot of Americans believed that -- and so did the Japanese -- a lot of Japanese believed the same thing: democracy simply wouldn't work.
Others critics said that Americans were imposing their ideals on the Japanese. For example, Japan's Vice Prime Minister asserted that allowing Japanese women to vote would "retard the progress of Japanese politics."
It's interesting what General MacArthur wrote in his memoirs. He wrote, "There was much criticism of my support for the enfranchisement of women. Many Americans, as well as many other so-called experts, expressed the view that Japanese women were too steeped in the tradition of subservience to their husbands to act with any degree of political independence." That's what General MacArthur observed. In the end, Japanese women were given the vote; 39 women won parliamentary seats in Japan's first free election. Today, Japan's minister of defense is a woman, and just last month, a record number of women were elected to Japan's Upper House. Other critics argued that democracy -- (applause.)
There are other critics, believe it or not, that argue that democracy could not succeed in Japan because the national religion -- Shinto -- was too fanatical and rooted in the Emperor. Senator Richard Russell denounced the Japanese faith, and said that if we did not put the Emperor on trial, "any steps we may take to create democracy are doomed to failure." The State Department's man in Tokyo put it bluntly: "The Emperor system must disappear if Japan is ever really to be democratic."
Those who said Shinto was incompatible with democracy were mistaken, and fortunately, Americans and Japanese leaders recognized it at the time, because instead of suppressing the Shinto faith, American authorities worked with the Japanese to institute religious freedom for all faiths. Instead of abolishing the imperial throne, Americans and Japanese worked together to find a place for the Emperor in the democratic political system.
Originally posted by MerkSince the policy began. Additionally, some 1600 civilians were killed during July. As policies go, Surge is simply lame.
Second highest in what time frame? Annual? Daily? Monthly? single attack?
It's quaint to see conservatives desperately scrabble for a reason to keep their troops billeted on Iraqi soil and the Iraqi assets they force-privatized and sold to themselves in their own hands, but as a UK citizen I've seen the craptastic "We may have buggered things up, but we'll have to stay or things will get even worse" argument used too many times about Northern Ireland (as it was in India, Africa, the Middle East...) over the years to take it very seriously.
You can get out of your own volition or you can be bled dry, but don't pretend you're neutral observers in a civil war. Coalition forces are picking sides and amplifying the violence every day - even the Iraqi army is part of the factional conflict now.
Originally posted by RSMA1234Seems pretty obvious that there will be a crazy upheaval.
So Bush states that a military retreat could trigger the kind of upheavel seen after US forces left Vietnam.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6959710.stm
Is he over simplflying things ? After all he ws the one to go into Iraq ?
Or is he just an idiot ?
Originally posted by knightwestI'd love to see an Iran-Saudi war over there.
I don't think Bush is an idiot all, in this case.
I don't think anyone can really disagree that the absence of US troops will make Iraq peaceful.
The problem, just like Vietnam is not the presence of American troops.
But let's look at Vietnam and it's neighbours after US withdrawal in 1975:
- North Vietnam took control of the whole country after ame not that far off the mark.
(edit: source: the above points are from today's times)
EDIT - But I'd want the US to STAY OUT OF IT.
Originally posted by knightwestBush should have known that Americans won't tolerate extended fighting occupations for the most part and he should have planned for a fairly quick withdrawal. I knew that the day I heard we might be attacking Iraq.
In the end it will be down to american public opinion, just like Vietnam.
I have no doubt that America will withdraw too early, stabbing it's soldiers and generals in the back on the battlefield, betraying the Kurds and the Iraqi people to a terrible fate.
It will be a bloodbath, but probably someone's ticket to the White House.
Originally posted by AmauroteSince the policy began
Since the policy began. Additionally, some 1600 civilians were killed during July. As policies go, Surge is simply lame.
It's quaint to see conservatives desperately scrabble for a reason to keep their troops billeted on Iraqi soil and the Iraqi assets they force-privatized and sold to themselves in their own hands, but as a UK citizen I've seen the crap ...[text shortened]... fying the violence every day - even the Iraqi army is part of the factional conflict now.
I don't follow. That answer would imply a running total. As in one single total, where's the second come in? Is this the second highest daily total? Monthly total? Weekly total? Second largest single attack?
It's quaint to see conservatives desperately scrabble for a reason to keep their troops billeted on Iraqi soil and the Iraqi assets they force-privatized and sold to themselves in their own hands, but as a UK citizen I've seen the craptastic "We may have buggered things up, but we'll have to stay or things will get [i]even worse" argument used too many times about Northern Ireland (as it was in India, Africa, the Middle East...) over the years to take it very seriously.[/i]
I can't speak for British colonial adventures, but I think we all know full well what happened the last time America punched out in the middle of a hot war.
You can get out of your own volition or you can be bled dry, but don't pretend you're neutral observers in a civil war. Coalition forces are picking sides and amplifying the violence every day - even the Iraqi army is part of the factional conflict now.
Aside from your assertion that not getting out will bleed us dry, I agree with you on this point. To pretend that we're nuetral is absurd at best. We have a vested interest in Iraq. As for the Iraqi military and/or police forces being part of the factional fighting, this shoudl be no surprise to anyone. It's a rather tribalistic culture and to expect forces to homogenize almost immediately would be childish in its dreamyness.