This came to my email and I gotta say... Couldn't have said it better myself.
I Love This Comeback. What about you?
One of my sons (not mine some who sent this email to me) serves in
the military. He is still stateside, here in California. He called me yesterday to let me know how warm and welcoming people were to him, and his troops, everywhere he goes, telling me how people shake their hands, and thank them for being willing to serve, and fight, for not only our own freedoms but so that others may have them also.
But he also told me about an incident in the grocery store he stopped at
yesterday, on his way home from the base. He said that ahead of several
people in front of him stood a woman dressed in a burkha.
He said when she got to the cashier she loudly remarked about the U.S. flag
lapel pin the cashier wore on her smock. The cashier reached up and touched
the pin, and said proudly," Yes, I always wear it and probably always will."
The woman in the burkha then asked the cashier when she was going to stop bombing her countrymen, explaining that she was Iraqi. A gentle man standing behind my son stepped forward, putting his arm around my son's shoulders, and nodding towards my son, said in a calm and gentle voice to the Iraqi woman:
"Lady, hundreds of thousands of men and women like this
young man have fought and died so that YOU could stand here, in MY country
and accuse a check-out cashier of bombing YOUR countrymen.
It is my belief that had you been this outspoken in YOUR own country, we wouldn't need to be there today. But, hey, if you have now learned how to speak out so loudly
and clearly, I'll gladly buy you a ticket and pay your way back to Iraq so you can
straighten out the mess in YOUR country that you are obviously here in MY
country to avoid."
Everyone within hearing distance cheered!
IF YOU AGREE____ Pass this on to all your proud American friends I just did.
Iraq...lol
Had not felt it necessary to carve up the spoils of a war into Iraqi maybe we would not be fighting for what was an effort to over throw a U.S. supported, at one time dictator, and what now is turning into a civil war between tribes and people of different faiths are opposed to each other.
The U.S. supported Saddamm Hussein while he was gassing people of his own country and the U.S. supported the mujahedin in Afghanistan in the war with Russia.
And now years later the U.S. government felt it necessary to invade and topple Hussein under the pre-text of many things, most if not all proven false.
To this day the V.P. still clings to the ideas and makes statements that Iraq was behind the terror attacks in New York.
Without understand the culture and situations in Iraq the administration was so confident that our invasion would be welcomed and we would be showered with praise and flowers.
Most of the country is now subjected to suicide bombers, car bombers, murders, torture victims and so on.
This is not the freedom we promised, is it?
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
Neighborhood...
I agree with your comments that VP Cheney is still holding onto the Iraq/9/11 link...and, that many of the reasons we went proved to be false.
However....lets be honest. Iraq and other middle eastern nations have long been subjected to suicide bombings, car bombings, torture and so on...long before our military arrived there.
Saddam himself tortured his own people. The Shite and Sunni's have been terrorizing each other since damn near the beginning of the muslim faith.
So...I think anyone who suggests that the region is in chaos because of the U.S. being there is not looking at the facts or at history. And...they will still be fighting long after...and if...we ever leave.
"So...I think anyone who suggests that the region is in chaos because of the U.S. being there is not looking at the facts or at history. And...they will still be fighting long after...and if...we ever leave."
I did not suggest that, you may have taken it that way but I did not intend it that way.
What I did say and intend to say was that Iraq was cobbled together by first the British and French and the British failed miserably in their attempts to install a puppet regime and then through actions to maintain the grip that they wanted on the region for oil and this was in the Anglo-Iraq war.
And rightly you point out that Hussein was executing, bombing and gassing his own and people and U.S. administrations stood by and let it happen.
"The Shite and Sunni's have been terrorizing each other since damn near the beginning of the muslim faith."
If this was the case there were would be more reports of the conflicts as the faith's are many billions and many live peaceable with each other.
And we can look at the facts of the U.S. support for the Shah of Iran which is where a lot of the resentment towards the U.S. government comes from.
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
That story you just told is BS. It has been passed around the internet for over a year and for u to say that your son experienced that incident is a diservice to our military by telling untrue stories. Shame on u.
"All evil and unhappiness in this world comes from the I-concept."
I do not believe it to be difficult to have a discussion unless it becomes that one person feels that they are right and there is no other way.
If we look at the history of the coups and the CIA's involvement in setting up regimes that would be friendly to us, we can see a lot of those actions have come back to haunt us.
Political leaders say that the conflicts are not about oil but the strategic interests are not pistachio nuts.
I don't see the discussion of the policies by congress or others giving solace to the terrorists.
Terror has been with us since the dawn of man and will be for some time.
The people that are intent or alleged to be endangering our freedom will use every incident of any action by the U.S. in the world as propoganda, whether or not it is true, abu ghraib, the Haditha actions, the use of white phosphorus and so on and the imagined and made up stories to spread the word against us.
It has risen to a new level and does not appear to be subsiding.
Perhaps if we were stop making moves like chess pieces on a chess board and look at the long term reactions to our actions, maybe then the so called war on terror will not drag for centuries.
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
What do you think about Carter's assertation that I quoted above?
You say, ".
..if we were stop making moves like chess pieces on a chess board and look at the long term reactions to our actions..."
What do you mean by that?
And please, it doesn't do any good to continually repeat that the situation is bad because policies that you didn't belive in were executed in the past?
What do you want to do now to make sure that the world can freely trade for oil? Wanna have a love fest with Iran? What happens when they have nuclear weapons and the means to attack Israel with them? Do you think that we talk them out of their sworn mission to destroy Israel?
That's what I mean by an "intelligent discussion?"
Saying, "If we look at the history of the coups and the CIA's involvement in setting up regimes that would be friendly to us, we can see a lot of those actions have come back to haunt us." doesn't contain a solution, does it? What about the successful CIA actions? How would you recommend that the CIA be changed? Or has it already changed and you're talking about a past that has already been studied and addressed through changes in the Agency?
Give us a specific alternative to armed action to secure Iraq, Afghanistan and in the future, Iran! -- an alternative that insures that we can still insures that trade routes are protected or free from the potential of being cut off... -- an alternative that insures that Israel survives...
Alternate energy will not be able to alleviate the world's need for oil any time soon -- good for green and good to start now, but not in enough time to defuse the current situation.
Please forgive me, but it really does seem that a lot of politicians and others want to be demogogues regarding Iraq, but none that I have heard, to date -- Ron Paul, and the others -- have any answers.
Paul Hem, I think you are a little confused as you attributed quotes to me that I never said. However, I do think one of the main points Paul, Kucinich, and Gravel make is blowback. When you monkey around with other countries' governments, you should expect retaliation. We should spend our time and resources trying to solve the abundant problems of the US, before we try to solve others' problems. Therefore the solution is non-interventionalist policies.
http://nookularoption.blogspot.com/
Does that mean you admire the words? That you agree?
Certianly, I direct my request not only to you, but neighborhoodconcerns.
So your specific solution is: "Therefore the solution is non-interventionalist policies."
Again, your answer is a negative. How would you resolve the Iraq situation now? and how would your solution impact the world's oil trade and Israel?
Is lamenting, "Will common sense prevail, or are we doomed to an ill-conceived "war on terror"
What is the "common sense" to which you refer? Specifically, what? What would you or Paul do NOW to insure that Mr. Carter's area "great strategic importance" is addressed NOW?
Are you going to once again tell us about how in hind-sight you would have NOT done this or NOT done that? Or have a NON-(fill in the blank) policy?
Do you now understand what I mean by an intelligent conversation?
Do you now understand what I mean by an intelligent conversation?
You see Paul, this is why people hate you. But, I'll play along.
How would you resolve the Iraq situation now?
Redeploy troops to Afghanistan, Kuwait, and the Persian Gulf. Not to mention holding Musharref's feet to the fire on serioulsly going after Osama bin Laden in Waziristan. Allow Iraqis to rebuild their country with their own people, not private contractors (give them some ownership), and also allow the Iraqis to do what they want with their oil, instead of forcing this hydrocarbon law on them (which they don't want).
and how would your solution impact the world's oil trade and Israel?
It's unknown what effect this will have on the oil trade. Two schools of thought from what I have read. Iraq has a ton of oil that is untapped. Some think that by privatizing the oil fields and pumping the hell out of them, OPEC's control will be broken. But I read that Venezuela tried to ignore OPEC's quotas (pre-Chavez), and the Saudis just flooded the market and ruined them. Others think that by keeping the oil in the ground, it will be a more stable atmosphere, and they prefer to work in league with OPEC to keep oil supplies and quotas low, and benefit from the high prices. So who knows? As far as Israel, they're all grown up--they can handle themselves.
http://nookularoption.blogspot.com/
What request?
I am very confused by the statement
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
"When you monkey around with other countries' governments, you should expect retaliation."
First off, we never monkeyed around with Afghanistan. When Russia invaded we trained, funded, and assisted the Mujahadeen as much as possible. Then we abandoned all major operations as soon as the country turned to civil war. We even turned a blind eye to them selling opium on the black market to fund a new government. What did that get us? They helped train and harbor terrorists to attack us. I'd argue we should have stayed and tried to install a pro-West gov't.
An isolationist policy has never benefitted anyone. Not us, not our allies. Instead it left more to die. For that I'd reference both WWI and WWII.
"If we look at the history of the coups and the CIA's involvement in setting up regimes that would be friendly to us, we can see a lot of those actions have come back to haunt us."
With the lone exception of Cuba the CIA's involvement helped to keep the western hemisphere free of a major communist influence. Had the bay of pigs invasion not been prevented from receiving the air support they were promised then we might not have that exception either.
And if you look at the converse of areas where the CIA has had little involvement and the record doesn't look anywhere improved. There was still ethnic cleansing in Bosnia. Africa is still a mess. You have to depend on someone to do SOMETHING and the UN is dropping the ball yet again. Did Hotel Rwanda set up a new shop in the Sudan?
Personally I'd rather live in a country where we have a group like the CIA willing to do the dirty work while we freely criticize it's actions. It's better than living in Venezula. WHERE NOW 100% OF THE MEDIA AGREES: CHAVEZ IS GOOD!
MikeyA
Bin Laden was part of the Mujahadeen.
"Then we abandoned all major operations as soon as the country turned to civil war. We even turned a blind eye to them selling opium on the black market to fund a new government. What did that get us? They helped train and harbor terrorists to attack us."
We turned our backs as soon as the Russians left and the need for us to be there, to counter the Russians. We should have stayed and not left the country and allow it turn into a failed state, but that was not in our strategic interests at times.
"With the lone exception of Cuba the CIA's involvement helped to keep the western hemisphere free of a major communist influence."
And with the actions of CIA sponsored coups and other covert activities we had dictators installed in Central and South America and many people have gone missing. People in countries we have tinkered with tend to remember our roles, while the people of the U.S., not all, tend to forget and then when the tide turns and people rise up from around the world and say enough there is resentment at home, because we were trying to spread democracy through the installation of dictators.
"There was still ethnic cleansing in Bosnia. Africa is still a mess. You have to depend on someone to do SOMETHING and the UN is dropping the ball yet again."
And we did not react to the ethnic cleansing until many people had died.
Africa is a mess? It is for us to decide how the countries in Africa should be?
We are part of the U.N.
Maybe we could concentrate our efforts at home and not try to rebuild the world on our model which seems to illicit some pretty harsh reactions.
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
There's a difference between non-intervention and isolationism. I don't think anyone suggested isolationism. Just like there's a big difference between WWI/WWII and Iraq. Iraq was a war of choice
http://nookularoption.blogspot.com/
Those who say we have to
When do we expect to be able to withdraw or retreat as some would say from Iraq and Afghanistan.
The karzai government is negoiating with the Taliban and NATO troops are fighting them. Pakistan claims that there is no harboring of the Taliban but one recent Taliban commander was killed as he crossed over from Pakistan into Afghanistan.
With regards to killing innocent Iraqi's, it will do nothing but cause some to plant more and more bombs and kill more and more troops.
There is a lack of understanding the culture of the varied peoples of Iraq
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
tribal, etc.
Since we have no other alternative than to secure the trade routes in the area, then we must learn. Don't you think? Not necessarily to use weapons to militarily defeat someone, but a combination of empathy, material assistance, organizational help, and, yes force when necessary.
We have Turkomen, Kurds (Iranian, Iraqi, Turkish, Syrian, etc.), and many tribes that have come from different Beduoin origins, along with Chaldeans, etc, etc.
For example my son just returned from Iraq and he received a medal for diffusing a potentially tragic encounter between the Iraqi Police and some villagersl, along with other similar achievements. He was able to do so because he is conversant in Arabic. He learned it while serving in Iraq. He is a young Infantryman - a "trigger puller" - who graduated from Sylvania Southview. There are many more like him, and you will see the Iraq situation improve eventually.
We have a professional military, and these men and women can handle this.
neighborhood you're giving me double speak.
"We turned our backs as soon as the Russians left and the need for us to be there, to counter the Russians. We should have stayed and not left the country and allow it turn into a failed state, but that was not in our strategic interests at times."
And you then advocate this:
"Redeploy troops to Afghanistan, Kuwait, and the Persian Gulf. Not to mention holding Musharref's feet to the fire on serioulsly going after Osama bin Laden in Waziristan. "
So tell me why should we pull out of Iraq and redepoloy to Afghanistan? Why do you have a "hands off" approach towards Iraq but conceed to a more active role in Afghanistan? Why should we not have held Saddam's "feet to the fire" but yet we should for Musharraf? I'd argue Musharraf, while he has been at times reluctant, more of an ally to the U.S. than Saddam ever was. And Musharraf has never gased his own people or invaded a soverign nation.
I agree that we should have helped Afghanistan create a better more open government the first time around but we used the "hands off" approach you now condemn us for not currently using in Iraq.
It seems to me your ideas are nothing more than that of the leaders of the 80's only with the roles of Afghanistan and Iraq reversed.
I contend the U.S. should be more proactive on ALL countries. We should actively enforce the Albright Doctrine that states where there is tyranny the U.S. will act. Not because we are the "world police" but because the actual "world police", the UN, consistently fails to act. And even when they do act they fail (Korea-tie, Somalia-failure, Rawanda-failure).
Other than that our only other hope is NATO which has only been involved in two actions. Bosnia and Afghanistan (2 wins). However NATO faces constant hostility from Russia with it's proposition of a European missle shield.
MikeyA
No, you are Chris, said mixing two different posts and two different persons posting.
"I contend the U.S. should be more proactive on ALL countries. We should actively enforce the Albright Doctrine that states where there is tyranny the U.S. will act. Not because we are the "world police" but because the actual "world police", the UN, consistently fails to act. And even when they do act they fail (Korea-tie, Somalia-failure, Rawanda-failure)."
What kinds us the right and duty to police the world? Are we empowered by some thought or moral correctness to not realize that throughout time there has been tyrants and states that do not share the same belief's as us and has not history shown us that tyrants like everything else changes, including us?
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
I guess that point could be made but until we have a system with no political parties there will be the label given, the party in power decides what the policies are and will be.
"What good does it do for the troops, the Iraqi's, or the ability to oil trade routes open by continualy whining about why we are there?"
Well, for one thing it serves to educate the future generations as to the mistakes that our generation has made.
It could maybe make the troops question why are they there. Your son served to protect the country from terrorists, or to open and protect oil routes or to open and protect the trade routes or to topple the alleged regime behind September 11.
"Do you or do you not believe that the Persian Gulf is a strategic area of the world."
Strategic in what sense?
"Today (D-Day), a storm near the Strait of Hormuz threated shipping, the oil prices started skyrocketing."
Yes, so? It is mere speculation that something may happen to the oil rigs there. Odd that it is, as we do not get most of the oil supply from the middle east that our prices would be so effected.
"What do you think will happen to the price of oil if a general conflagration occurs because people are pissed at George Bush and so they get what they want and withdraw?"
There is a general conflagration going on at the present time and the price of oil went up and it went down and now with a storm the prices rises again.
If we withdraw the impact on oil prices would do the same, I suppose.
"Look, you have a constitutional right to whine. But I will call it what it is."
And you have facts and the frame work for the what it is or is it just what you believe.
Why do you make these statements when people try and engage in discussion?
Is that you thought is the only thought and others thoughts are not worthy of discussion as you posted; A request for an intelligent conversation.
It would appear that your idea of an intelligent conversation is one where all agree with you and offer no other thoughts.
I could be wrong though.
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
Help me out
And I've done that. Bill Clinton was the first President in my lifetime to explain to us why he took military action against the leader of another country. I have gone forward since that time believing his representation of Saddam Hussein. Nothing I have seen or heard since then has done anything other than to continue to lower my opinion of Hussein.
Here's the text of the speech I heard President Clinton give:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html
" CLINTON: Good evening.
Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.
Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.
The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.
The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.
The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.
The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.
Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.
Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.
When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.
I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.
I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.
Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan.
The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.
In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.
Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.
Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.
It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.
Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.
Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.
So Iraq has abused its final chance.
As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.
"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."
In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.
Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.
This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.
And so we had to act and act now.
Let me explain why.
First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.
Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.
Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.
That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.
They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.
At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.
If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.
Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East.
That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq's a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.
Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.
So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.
First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.
The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.
Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people.
We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.
The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.
The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.
The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.
Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.
We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.
Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.
And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.
Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.
Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.
But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.
In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.
Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America."
I bolded my favorite...
Well, history shows us that the peoples of the world, who were oppressed have thrown of the yoke of repression, before the U.S. came along, so history will carry on and show that, I think, that with our interference, as noble as it is intended, we have supported more dictators and tyrants than we have overthrown, so the answer to your question is; the people being oppressed will.
"Was not our country founded on the principle that ALL men (reguardless of race, religion, and nationality) are created equal and are bestowed the inaliable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?"
And I believe that was referring to our country and not the world. And interestingly enough we then enslaved people and treated them like property.
"We don't have a right to police the world instead we have an OBLIGATION to when no one else will."
Can you cite us any documents that our founders put together that shows us to have an obligation, please.
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
Who supported either President Clintons' or President Bush's invasion of Iraq and then changed their positions. Where I come from we call it bailing out when the tough gets going.
Let just say what if. What if tomorrow morning the President arranged for an immediate pullout from Iraq. What would the follow up be if the people who want an immediate and unilateral pullout got what they wanted?
The first Bush launched attacks on Iraq and there was a minimal incursion into Iraq but the invasion was not a complete invasion like the second Bush.
There was operation Desert Fox in the Clinton term, which was an air campaign.
"Where I come from we call it bailing out when the tough gets going."
Or making a decision on emotions and invalid information as we all know now.
"What would the follow up be if the people who want an immediate and unilateral pullout got what they wanted?
Could you clarify this question, please.
Follow up in what sense? What would happen in Iraq?
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
Who in the world thinks the people of Iraq were innocent victims? Double standards abound! We, the USA are considered by the world at large, as a group effort. Likewise, all individuals are considered part of the whole of their Country, State, all the way down to township.
Because they had little say in what their Government/ Dictator did, they are therefore innocent??..
BULL! If the Bushster were out running around America killing Citizens, letting his Children rape and pillage....we'd have him killed ourselves. Just because they have less education in other places in the world, doesn't excuse the lack of common sense that even a 5 year old has.
The People of Iraq, and all the other Countries that have like thinking in them have the vast populations to overthrow any threat from within. Even with Saddam's evil manner, if his people were so unhappy and oppressed, they should have mounted a death march against him. He and his army could not and would not have been able to kill them all before they overthrew his regime. Being ignorant and stupid are not valid excuses.
The Citizens of terrorist nations are just as guilty as the "Leaders" they have. Likewise, we, Americans are just as guilty on an individual basis as our Government is in all matters.
When it comes to waging war, America has lost it's nerve. We worry so much about "Collateral" damage that we have lost more than we gained. While I would have waged war on both Afghanistan and Iraq, among others, I would never have used a single ground troop. It would have taken 3 planes and several more bombs, but we'd never have set foot on the soil. I would have leveled the cities and the populations would be so busy trying to survive that they would have run for their lives. WAR...is not in principal, a friendly carefull exchange of ideas...it's the overthrow of a Country and that isn't kind or pretty or carefull.
World history has shown the only effective use of war is to do just that...take the place you battle so far back that they will be decades in the salvation of themselves..far to busy to be a problem.
Some of the citizens did uprise.
"'Why now?'
Talk turns to the motivation behind US intervention in Iraq. The question `Why now?' hovers over the discussion. ''There's no precedent in US foreign policy to indicate that human rights in the Arab world are at the forefront of the agenda,'' Bazzaz says. ''What has historically guided US foreign policy is geopolitical interests, at the expense of human rights.''
The fact is, these Iraqi-Americans say, Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction against his people for decades. And if he does possess them, they point out, he's not alone: North Korea, India, Pakistan, and several other countries also harbor such weapons.
They angrily note that the United States helped Hussein attain his deadly toys by supporting Iraq during its war with Iran. That fact only weakens the American position in Ali's eyes: ''The judge is not that much different from the criminal.'' Instead of military intervention, Ali repeatedly calls for Hussein to be tried by the United Nations' war-crimes tribunal."
http://www.boston.com/news/packages/iraq/globe_stories/021703_iraqis.htm
"World history has shown the only effective use of war is to do just that...take the place you battle so far back that they will be decades in the salvation of themselves..far to busy to be a problem."
It also has shown the failure of our policies in Korea, we are still in state of war there and the failure in Vietnam and hopefully no failure in Afghanistan.
But then again why are we in Afghanistan when nation building is not our forte.
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
The Turks have several thousand troops massed on the Iraqi border at the Kurdish region. The U.S. has warned the Turks not to make an incursion into the Kurdish region as they have several times in the past. Is it in our interest to repel any Turkish incursion of this region along with Iraqi troops, and risk alienating a NATO ally, or allow the Turks to put the Kurds (who are trying to rouse the Kurdish minority in Turkey) to flight? Do we try to bring about a Kurdistan composed of Kurdish minorities from Iraq, Iran, Turkey, and parts of the C.I.S.(parts of the old U.S.S.R.), or permit the Turks to lay waste to them because they seek an independent Kurdistan that would take parts of these nations?
This link is the latest news I could find
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/4874189.html
Another example of the repression of peoples.
" Modern Turkey's founder, Mustafa Kemal (better known as Atat
We studied this in psych class at OSU. Here is a wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness.
Our point of study was the concentration camps in Germany and what happened to those people. It was so sad, just so awfully sad.
But when people are in tremendously bad situations and they have no control over them - this learned helplessness happens. It doesn't make for a civil uprising - it makes for beaten down and defeated people. Like a whipped puppy.
To say that because the people who had been oppressed for decades by a tyrannical dictator didn't just overcome him is to say they don't have a right to the natural human responses that people have in those situations. That's unfair.
They are real people you know. The big difference between men and women here and men and women over there is largely a circumstance of our places of birth.
I never said I'd wipe the map of the population. I would offer them 24 hours to remove themselves from the Cities and head out to a safer zone. Being challenged isn't an acceptable excuse. My intended targets would be almost exclusively the infrastructure. There is always unintended victims when it comes to war. But given fair warning to leave, and failure to do so would likely result in danger.
In this war, the policy of it and the exicution of it have lead to more unintended victims than I can remember in prior wars. Had we destroyed the Cities completely, there would be no current war in Iraq. Our care to preserve as much as possible has destroyed any hope of peace in that Country. Our lingering presence and the lack of progress are intertwined. So tangeled is the web, so lost is the original goal...nothing won here.
According to the National Priorties Project website the cost of the Iraq war over $400 billion dollars and this cost is increasing every minute our troops occupy the country.
In 4 more years the cost of being there will be in the trillions and our children will have to work to pay the taxes on the debt our government is amassing while fruitlessly trying to clean up the mess.
Sorry I haven't been commenting. I spent the weekend out on the boat my wife just allowed me to buy.
Neighborhood the declaration of independence allows for us to take action ... "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
also I'd argue that the Monroe Doctrine would also be a blessing to intervention since it dealt with the same issue only in the Western Hemisphere. In today's world the world is much smaller and we are more connected than that of Monroe's world. His doctrine was that America should always hold a vested interest in the dealings of the Western Hemisphere. Since the world is "smaller" it would only seem natural that he would advocate America's interests adapting to that change.
But to discuss your opinion of leaving Iraq. I would have no problem with it, however, I would still financially and logistically support Iraq because history tells us to not do it would be spell almost certain chaos (moreso that now) to the country. Many of the countries that we aided after toppling their government's succeeded when we financially supported them. Those we didn't support fell in short time.
MikeyA
"I call bullshit on this statement. Iraq didn't have a terrorist problem until we showed up. "
I wonder what you would classify gasing a civilian population as since it's not terrorism in your view?
MikeyA
As far as a pull out to Afghanistan is concerned I wouldn't do that either.
The Taliban is an entrenched foe, with years of insurgency warfare practice, and can survive quite well in the mountainous region.
The Taliban will most likely be around in 10 years still. However they currently do not enjoy the support of the populace which marginalizes them. To lead a ground offensive against a seasoned veteran of mountain warfare who could easily cross Iranian and Pakistan borders (where our troops cannot follow) would essentially be the same as our situation in Western Vietnam.
Instead I think our current position is the best. 1) Isolate them from the populace 2) Marginalize their influence to affect only few 3) Allow Afghanistan poppy farmers to regrow their crops where they can be bought to create legal opium for the world's morphine supply thus preventing the Taliban from getting money from illegal drug smuggling schemes.
Under this plan they'd be more like the Grecian Communists of the 40's and 50's. They were allowed to survive but eventually lost because they were isolated from the population.
MikeyA
I believe the Middle East is bigger than Dems and Republicans. I'm sorry it does not fit into 24/7 news coverage. The region is a pressure cooker and it doesn't matter who is in office. Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afganistan, Palestine, Israel, Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon are going to be go through some rough times regardless who is in power in our country. As far as oil goes, since China & India are sucking up Natural Resources as well as Environmentalists preventing us to add additional refineries / new capacities, we are stuck until a new energy technology adds more supply to our demand as well as reduces some of our demand through efficiencies.
Lastly, I think its BS that China, Russia, and India get a pass from Envinronmental-Wacko's!
I also think it's BS that Environmental Wackos don't go after junk mail since now it's overtaken 1st class mail in U.S Deliveries. Think about all the trees and energy used to deliver something we want to throw away. I might actually give money to some fruit cake group if they reduce my junk mail.
Lastly, more BS on Greenhouse gases. 95% of greenhouse gas is water vapor. Of the 5%, less than half is carbon dioxide, while next majority is menthane. Why not be like France and go more Nuclear Power. What I hear from Wind power is that they kill a lot of birds / bats as well as disrupt migration patterns.
I simply reprinted an email I recieved.
"What I did say and intend to say was that Iraq was cobbled together by first the British and French and the British failed miserably in their attempts to install a puppet regime and then through actions to maintain the grip that they wanted on the region for oil and this was in the Anglo-Iraq war.
And rightly you point out that Hussein was executing, bombing and gassing his own and people and U.S. administrations stood by and let it happen."
Exactly this is why I have supported the War and continue to. It's not because of a supposed Iraq/911 conspiracy. It is not because of WMD's. But because it's the right thing to do.
We are not trying to install a puppet regime now. We are trying to help the Iraqis install an open government by them and for them. After hundreds of years of doing the wrong thing the west is finally doing something right.
I only wish we as a country could do this in places where we don't have the benefit of a profound interest like oil. Sudan would be such a place. Under the Albright Doctrine we should be doing something there as well. However we still are complacent to sit idly by.
MikeyA
The story appears to be a reprint of the very email you speak of. I see no where in this posting where Chad actually claimed his son was the person on the receiving end of this particular incident. Quite the contrary. The very first sentence has the following waiver:
One of my sons (not mine some who sent this email to me) serves in
when I read this post I never got the impression that Chad was speaking of his son.
Well said. Candidates like Kucinich, Gravel, and Ron Paul are saying similar things. But the media is trying to convince us they don't have a chance to win an election. Will common sense prevail, or are we doomed to an ill-conceived "war on terror"?
http://nookularoption.blogspot.com/
by your comment "You see Paul, this is why people hate you." It seems that you can't intelligently discuss the issue, so you just attack the person. And frankly, I'm not in a popularity contest. So, I could care less what your impression of what people think of me, whether correct or not.
So, after you retreat to Afghanistan, Kuwait, and the Persian Gulf, what happens when the Iranians and their proxies begin slaughtering the Sunnis and Kurds -- one hell of war, don't you think?
Before then, you won't be able to afford gasoline for your Prius. 50 mpg, or not.
It's a little more difficult to attempt to come up with solutions, than to sit back and throw spit balls, isn't it?
Does that work?
...than see one more GI killed to "protect" these "liberated" citizens of an ungrateful country.
I alternate between that and the thought that Hitler and Hirohito could have been stopped if we had been able to stop them in an "ungrateful country." Of course there were Americans involved as "contractors" like the Flying Tigers.
However, I honestly do feel the same way you do, OldSouthEndBrdy. And from what I have read, so does Darkseid.
"Just like there's a big difference between WWI/WWII and Iraq. Iraq was a war of choice"
um... they all were wars of choice. The only difference was Iraq was preemptive.
And I'd be interested in hearing what the difference is between non-intervention and isolationism. I can tell you one thing that's similar to both: Ineffectiveness.
England took a stance of non-intervention in 1938. It didn't help Poland in 1939.
The U.S. took a isolationism role in WWI. It didn't help the soldiers on the Western front.
Turning a blind eye to tyranny, hate-mongering, and the creation of a hostile military has never helped anyone in the world. However confronting it has freed millions.
MikeyA
Yo Mikeya, you've been hanging around with Paul Hem too much. You are taking my comments and mixing them up with neighborhood's comments. So your reply doesn't really make sense.
http://nookularoption.blogspot.com/
The invasion of Iraq, the stated to this day reason, was to make the world a safer place.
No mention of trade or oil by any.
"Not necessarily to use weapons to militarily defeat someone, but a combination of empathy, material assistance, organizational help, and, yes force when necessary."
Or the failed attempts to bring electricity, water, sanitary conditions and the many millions, if not billions spent and yet the levels of electricity are no better then they are now and is most cases worse.
"you will see the Iraq situation improve eventually."
Yes, eventually when the tribal leaders and others regain control of their communities and when we leave, sooner than the many decades recently predicted.
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
Oh no, not you too.
"I contend the U.S. should be more proactive on ALL countries. We should actively enforce the Albright Doctrine that states where there is tyranny the U.S. will act. Not because we are the "world police" but because the actual "world police", the UN, consistently fails to act. And even when they do act they fail (Korea-tie, Somalia-failure, Rawanda-failure)."
I NEVER SAID THIS. And I never accused you of mixing people up. First, Paul Hem took one of your posts, and used my name. Then Mikeya combined one of your posts and my posts, and thought they were from the same person (they weren't). Now you neighborhood have taken a quote from someone else, and claimed I said it. I DID NOT.
Is my name showing up on my posts, or not? My name is Chris. I co-host a political talk show on WXUT (88.3 FM) in Toledo on Mondays and Thursdays from 6-8 AM. I am not Mikeya, nor Paul Hem nor Neighborhood Concerns. Please make a note of it.
http://nookularoption.blogspot.com/
I did get the posts confused and I apologize. I am not getting double speak as I contended earlier.
"What kinds us the right and duty to police the world? Are we empowered by some thought or moral correctness to not realize that throughout time there has been tyrants and states that do not share the same belief's as us and has not history shown us that tyrants like everything else changes, including us?"
If we don't stand for freedom then who will?
Was not our country founded on the principle that ALL men (reguardless of race, religion, and nationality) are created equal and are bestowed the inaliable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Do we no longer find those truths to be self evident?
You asked what kinds us the right and duty to police the world and to that I answer: Because no one else does. We don't have a right to police the world instead we have an OBLIGATION to when no one else will. It is our nations pact not with other nations but with our belief in LIBERTY. When we give that up then the U.S. will no longer exist.
If the UN, NATO, or some other group would stand and fight for the downtrodden then I'd be right there with you saying we are not the world police. But when there are no police ANYWHERE someone must stand and act.
This is the basic beliefs that we hold as our nations foundations. When we break their significance to us we break our foundation and our house will fall.
MikeyA
The only point of your last post I would argue is this one:
"It could maybe make the troops question why are they there. Your son served to protect the country from terrorists, or to open and protect oil routes or to open and protect the trade routes or to topple the alleged regime behind September 11."
The troops know why they are there. They are reminded every time they're promoted when they retake their oath to "...support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic and to bear true faith and alegiance to the same"
I have no problem with the debates of whether the war was right or wrong. That is why the troops fight is to preserve the right of the debate.
However I know lots of Marines and soldiers who have served in Iraq. I have no doubt that after I graduate I will serve there. And if there is one thing I don't doubt that while there they see the good they can do and are willing to sacrifice to do it. So to answer your question about whether the troops question why they are there I think the answer is: They are the only ones who don't question why they are there.
MikeyA
SensorG: It's waste of time. Why? Because I can read that anywhere, because it's always easier to play a blame game, rather than put oneself out with a realistic solution.
Doesn't anyone here, other than MikeyA, want to dicuss a pottential solution to what is going on now?
And neighborhood and Chris: Yes, you're solution is to withdraw from Iraq, is that right?
SensorG: I'm sure that Neville Chamberlain would have said "...have nothing to show for it." if Churchill could have iniated a preemtive strike on the Nazis, and we were able to save 6 mil. Jews from concentration camps not to mention the millions that had to die.
Chris "played along" and prosposed something intelligent -- wouldn't work, but at least it demonstrates a rudimentary understanding of the situation.
I guess that my request for an intelligent conversation is falling on blank monitors - :-) joking...
I'm outta this discussion.
Every time Clinton bombed something in Iraq, conservatives at the time kept shouting "Wag the Dog".
The People of Iraq, and all the other Countries that have like thinking in them have the vast populations to overthrow any threat from within. Even with Saddam's evil manner, if his people were so unhappy and oppressed, they should have mounted a death march against him. He and his army could not and would not have been able to kill them all before they overthrew his regime.
Didn't they try this in the first Gulf War? We encouraged them to rise up (as we left), only to have Saddam slaughter 100,000?
The Citizens of terrorist nations are just as guilty as the "Leaders" they have. Likewise, we, Americans are just as guilty on an individual basis as our Government is in all matters.
I call bullshit on this statement. Iraq didn't have a terrorist problem until we showed up. Also, it's pretty insulting to say that we Americans are just as guilty for this government. You may be, because you are obviously PRO-WAR even when it's based on lies, and not just.
When it comes to waging war, America has lost it's nerve
I couldn't disagree more. Most Americans would throw their support behind a just cause, not this comedy of errors. Besides, we already won the war in Iraq. This is an occupation.
http://nookularoption.blogspot.com/
I would have leveled the cities and the populations would be so busy trying to survive that they would have run for their lives.
What a horrific statement...
You'd level cities? Kill innocent men, women and children? For what? To show them that we're better then Saddam? F-That!
Too many people (particularly conservative) would have us become what we have fought so hard against. Mass killing of innocent civilians as group punishment; American's pulled from the street tried in secret military courts and executed without lawyers or trail of peers; phones and e-mail tapped at will; and secret searches with out cause or warrants.
I believe we are better than that. If we have to become what we are fighting, then we've already lost.
I have always thought of the Iraq war in much the same way you have, Chris. I am totally opposed to us being in Iraq, the longer we're there...the deeper the quagmire.
We have nothing to gain by staying and more life is lost daily trying to protect our interest in Middle East oil. I say that, and I am sure there are those who are booing what I've said. There would be no concern at all for what was happening in Iraq if we didn't have a vested interest in the land which houses the largest oil reserves on this planet. War is always about land, money or G-d. That's my take.
We, along with other allies, destroyed cities in WWII and then we rebuilt them in Europe and Japan.
And we would probably spend billions to destroy and then more billions to help rebuild what we destroyed.
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
I think your strategy would give validation to the Islamic facists who would have a further recruiting tool for more terrorists against the U.S.
"Our lingering presence and the lack of progress are intertwined." I think you're right to a point. I believe if we were only in a air support and ground training role we would be viewed less as occupiers to many. Plus such a plan could allow for a reduction in forces.
MikeyA
The document was this countries declaration of separation from England, was it not?
Or did the founding fathers envision the U.S. becoming a world power intent on forcing democracy across the globe?
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
I guess that would be true, but if we look at the intimidation tactics used to ensure the "support" we would see that it is intimidation and the killing of village elders.
And the Taliban enjoys support from Pakistan, one of our allies in the war on terror.
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
Mass murder? Genocide? Ethnic cleansing? I know it was popular to link Saddam with terrorism, but I don't think I ever heard his acts described this way before 2001
http://nookularoption.blogspot.com/
to say, "I told you so." (They also said that the advance to Baghdad during OIF1 was "stalled.") or other political capers.
I find it very revealing that Hillary Clinton still defends her vote to enter Iraq, while Obama and company are demogogues who obviously have no clue, or like to pretend that they have none in order to ride the poll numbers.
MikeyA, that's why it's difficult to have an intelligent discussion regarding Iraq. Comments like, "...they thought it would be easy." or "Cheney still thinks..." are just really just cat-calling. The fact is that regardless of the political party in power, we will be involved.
I've reminded people that President Jimmy Carter ordered the creation of the RDF, the forerunner CENTCOM BACK IN '77 OR '78 to place a trip wire between the Soviets in Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf. Why? Let him tell ya!
"The region which is now threatened by Soviet troops in Afghanistan is of great strategic importance: It contains more than two-thirds of the world's exportable oil. The Soviet effort to dominate Afghanistan has brought Soviet military forces to within 300 miles of the Indian Ocean and close to the Straits of Hormuz, a waterway through which most of the world's oil must flow. The Soviet Union is now attempting to consolidate a strategic position, therefore, that poses a grave threat to the free movement of Middle East oil." http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/speeches/su80jec.phtml
The U.S. has absolutely no apologies to make to the world for insuring that oil trade routes are open. NONE! And, the President WILL have history on his side.
Here's an observation from that bastion of war-hawks, huffingtonpost.com:
"In a highly unusual maneuver, House Democratic leaders crafted a procedure that allowed their rank and file to oppose money for the war, then step aside so Republicans could advance it. There were 194 Republicans in favor, as well as 86 Democrats, three members of the leadership among them. Pelosi and 139 other Democrats voted against the measure, as did two Republicans."
Sen. Carl Levin:
"I cannot vote ... to stop funding for our troops who are in harm's way," said Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. "I simply cannot and I will not do that. It is not the proper way that we can bring this war to an end."
It's time to quit spouting the B.S. that simply gives the terrorists hope that if they create a few more body bags then the U.S. will leave and they can set up an Iranian style theocracy.
Strategic reality hasn't changed since 1980, has it? Strategic reality isn't the sole domain of a political party, either.
Does it work for what?
I do not understand your comment or the basis of it.
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
So, after you retreat to Afghanistan, Kuwait, and the Persian Gulf, what happens when the Iranians and their proxies begin slaughtering the Sunnis and Kurds -- one hell of war, don't you think?
Merely speculation. Do you have info that our military leaders think this will be the case? I think Iran would not be stupid enough to take this course of action, as they would be attacked instantly with the full force of the world. And it's not "retreating". This is the kind of bipartisan political terminology that prevents intelligent debate from happening. It's widely accepted that the longer we stay, and the more troops that get sent in, the situation worsens. By stategically redeploying, we can restore the strength of our ground troops, get out of the middle of a civil war, allow the Iraqi gov't to take control of the country's rebuilding efforts and security, shift our efforts to crack down on terrorism, deal more effectively with Iran, and still be close enough to help prevent ethnic cleansing.
It's a little more difficult to attempt to come up with solutions, than to sit back and throw spit balls, isn't it?
I've offered a solution based on reports from former military experts and foreign relations experts. Your solution appears to be "stay the course". Good luck with that. It's worked swimmingly so far....
http://nookularoption.blogspot.com/
What I'm referring to when I say non-intervention is the manipulation into other countries affairs, economical, governmental, etc during times of peace Now of course if one of our allies is attacked, I believe we'd have a moral obligation to help out.
um... they all were wars of choice. The only difference was Iraq was preemptive.
I'd hardly call WWII a war of choice since we were attacked and had war declared on us. War is just, sometimes.
The U.S. took a isolationism role in WWI
Really, we were never in WWI?
http://nookularoption.blogspot.com/
"No mention of trade or oil by any."
Does it really make any difference now, about who said what in 2003 in the run up to the war? Does it? What positive outcome can be achieved by relentlessly talking about WMDs, blah blah blah. George Bush isn't running in 2008 and no one in either party is defending the guy. So, you're assured that evil George Bush and his side-kick Cheney aren't going to be in power in 2008, aren't you?
The only way to create a positive outcome is to view the Iraq situation as it is, now. I'm not saying that you are doing this, neighborhood, but part of the reason I get a tad irritated is that I hear too much whining about how we got into Iraq. I'm wondering if some people honestly think that if they whine loud and long enough, then the problem will go away. It will not! If we leave, then I guarrantee that we will be fighting a much larger war, soon thereafter! We have to face this squarely just the way that we are now. Have there been mistakes? you bet! Have false assumptions been built into war plans - Hell yes! Students of history know that every war plan fails/changes with the first encounter with the enemy - So WTF?
Anyone who thinks that this isn't about oil needs to try to filter the political bullshit from reality.
I left out a word, I should have written;
No, you are as Chris said, mixing two different posts and two different persons posting.
My apologies
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
BTW - we now have been fighting in Iraq longer then we have fought WWII.
My solution? Get out of Iraq. Pull back the bulk of the regular army to Afghanistan and completely weed out any and all Taliban; provide true stability there.
There is little if nothing we can do for Iraq. Let Saudi Arabia and Iran sort it out.
We've been in Iraq for 4 years; American deaths are going up, civilian deaths are still high; the Green Zone is shelled daily. We should be done; there is nothing left to do. We have "given" them a democracy and they went and elected a bunch of anti-American/pro Iranian politicians that only make the matters worse.
Paul, what does victory look like to you? Does keeping 140+K soldiers and marines in Iraq for another 1,2,5, 10 years get us there when the Iraqis now have less security, electricity and clean water then they did when Saddam was in power? Hell Iraq is less secure, has less power and clean water then even one year after Saddam was gone.
We broke it for sure, but we can't fix it. I wish we could, but we can't.