03 Aug 05
Originally posted by Thequ1ckI believe 7 more Marines died yesterday, and 14 today. Plus of course some Iraqi citizens and an American Journalist I believe. All within the last 48 hours.
The current president Bush is following his fathers legacy.
But times have changed since his fathers presidency.
Isn't it time that he made his own choices now that his
fellow Americans are dying in droves??
Bush v Bush. Could it happen?
$200 Billion dollars, over 1,800 dead American soldiers, probably 100,000 dead Iraqis, and what exactly do the American people get from this?
I still don't know.
03 Aug 05
Originally posted by wibWe get our freedom.
I believe 7 more Marines died yesterday, and 14 today. Plus of course some Iraqi citizens and an American Journalist I believe. All within the last 48 hours.
$200 Billion dollars, over 1,800 dead American soldiers, probably 100,000 dead Iraqis, and what exactly do the American people get from this?
I still don't know.
03 Aug 05
1 edit
Originally posted by WulebgrNo. We already had and still have that.
We get our freedom.
See here's my delimma Wule: When the Dems are running things they tax and spend. When the Repubs are running things they don't tax, but they keep spending just the same. Even more so in some cases.
Perfect example - 200 Billion Dollars would have done a lot for our schools, infrastructure, maybe student aid, medical research, the homeless, etc etc... So that's what I'm seeing. 200 Billion Dollars, and as Americans what did we get for our investment?
03 Aug 05
Originally posted by sasquatch672I agree with all of that. That's pretty much how I'm feeling about the whole debacle.
I think with a more clearly stated mission, a mission truthfully undertaken, and with an idea of why we're there, we would be less likely to let things like these affect us. But we were not given a clear mission, the operation was badly planned (or just not planned at all), and the justifications turned out to be lies. And now 1,800 Americans and I d ...[text shortened]... how many allied troops are dead, and people are reasonably asking what for. It's a damn shame.
There was a time where I thought this insane endeavor of bringing peace to Iraq through war just might have a slim chance of success. I based that thought on the Iraq economy. If that could be improved to the point where I see an Iraqi man cruising down main street Baghdad, driving his SUV, eating a big mac, while his wife listens to her iPod and their kid in the backseat is playing with his GameBoy, then just maybe they might get fat, dumb, and happy enough to curtail blowing each other up.
But alas... no dice. 3 and a half years later and nothing has changed. The situation has actually gotten worse.
03 Aug 05
Originally posted by sasquatch672That's a very good question in itself. What do we need to win? How much more can the US do to settle the situation in Iraq so that we're not seeing dead marines and Iraqi citizens everyday?
Wib,
We're making the same argument. My rationale is that whatever you feel about the president, how we got there, and how it was planned, we're there. We broke it and we have to fix it. A stable Iraq really is in the world's best interests. And France shouldn't think that because it protested against a US war it gets crossed off the list of ...[text shortened]... oopers to win - he won't ask the question, "What do you need to win?" and give it to them.
I simply believe our reach has exceeded our grasp. I'm not sure this situation is winnable. The Iraqi insurgents, terrorists, freedom fighters, or whatever they're being called today, don't even have to win this war in order to win it. They just have to keep fighting.
As for throwing our hands up and leaving Iraq? I just don't know. You're right that what's done can't be undone. We're there, we're in the middle of a quagmire with no end in sight and we've got leadership that refuses to admit to even the tiniest of mistakes. But I remember the old saying about "holes". The first rule is - when you're in one, stop digging.
We're still digging in Iraq.
03 Aug 05
1 edit
We don't have to 'win'. It's not a question of winning, it's a question of how to get the best result for the people of Iraq from the current starting point. At some stage, withdrawal might be the best result, regardless of whether it feels like a 'win'.
Otherwise, I agree with what you've said. I don't think withdrawal is the best option right at this instant. I think working out how to GET to a point where withdrawal doesn't leave a God-almighty mess is probably a better strategy.
03 Aug 05
Originally posted by sasquatch672Apparently the majority of Iraqis want a representative government that will enforce the Sharia law. Probably the majority of the resistance don't want that. However, since the catalyst for the resistance is the presence of foreign troops, it's a safe bet that violence would decrease substantially when the troops left. Americans are beginning to more and more see the light; the percentage of those supporting an immediate withdrawal is up to 37% in the latest poll a huge increase from only six months ago. And this despite the fact that both big money, major political parties oppose immediate withdrawal. Can you say grass roots movement?
I didn't think about your comment that the insurgents just need to keep fighting. You're right.
Ultimately, it's up to the Iraqi people to decide what they want - whether they want a representative republic or a shari'a law fundamentalist regime. I'm not sure why that suicide bomber that killed nineteen kids a few weeks ago didn't crystallize the debate in alot of peoples' minds.
03 Aug 05
Originally posted by no1marauderThis is a withdrawal to other quadrants of Iraq you mean? The
Apparently the majority of Iraqis want a representative government that will enforce the Sharia law. Probably the majority of the resistance don't want that. However, since the catalyst for the resistance is the presence of foreign troops, it's a safe bet that violence would decrease substantially when the troops left. Americans are beginning ...[text shortened]... ig money, major political parties oppose immediate withdrawal. Can you say grass roots movement?
violence would continue and it would be seen as a retreat by
the US if done in response to the attacks.
That decision should be made by the commanders there, not the
populace and not Bush. It's a military decision.
My question is, how much is of this is old Bush and how much
new Bush. I actually feel quite sorry for him, peeking out through
the apron strings in the White House, this war must have put him
through a lot and it's not really even his war.
Why doesn't he acknowledge what is going on and make some
good decisions based on advice from his aids? He's still playing
with daddy's soldiers, now it's time for him to take charge.
03 Aug 05
Originally posted by sasquatch672Those are dictatorships, not representive republics but I don't see it as any outsider's business if the majority of Iraqis want Sharia law. You said it was an "either/or" situation, not me.
It is possible to have an Islamic government that functions in the world. Dubai and the UAE do it quite well.