TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Bush Seeks Help!
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Bush Seeks Help!

quote:

BABYLON, Iraq (Sept. 3) - President Bush shifted strategy on Iraq and sought to give the United Nations a larger role as a Polish-led force took command of a chunk of the country Wednesday from U.S. Marines. Amid daily and often deadly attacks on U.S. troops and other targets in Iraq, Bush directed Secretary of State Colin Powell to open negotiations at the U.N. Security Council on a resolution designed to build a wider multinational force. The United States said Wednesday it would insist an expanded multinational force for Iraq fell under U.S. command. ''The U.S. will remain the commander ...,'' Powell told reporters in Washington as U.S. officials talked of a draft U.N. resolution that envisaged elections to restore power to Iraqis. Washington previously appeared to have ruled out any bid for a new Security Council resolution encouraging more countries to contribute troops or other aid to help stabilize Iraq. But four major vehicle bomb attacks in a month and the refusal of some countries to contribute troops without a U.N. mandate seem to have swayed Bush into changing course. ''We heard from the president that he is willing to follow the U.N. track, a larger responsibility for the U.N., and that is very good,'' Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende said Wednesday after a breakfast meeting with Bush in Washington. ''It is important that more countries are being involved in Iraq as far as military support is concerned. The second element is we have to work on democracy and the new structure of policymaking on Iraq,'' Balkenende said. In a move planned weeks ago, the Polish-led multinational force took command of the so-called Central-South zone from the Marines, who had been in charge of the area for several months. ''I have absolute faith and confidence in the 21 nations that will assume their responsibilities today,'' Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, commander of U.S. troops in Iraq, told a ceremony in an open air amphitheater in ancient Babylon. NATO Secretary-General George Robertson said in a statement: ''This contribution will help ensure that we defeat the men of violence who seek to undermine the stability so much desired by the people of Iraq.'' IRAQI MINISTERS SWORN IN In Baghdad, new Iraqi ministers were sworn in and were set to get down to work in what the U.S.-led administration says is another step toward handing the reins of power back to Iraqis. The United States, whose forces have occupied Iraq since toppling Iraqi President Saddam Hussein April 9, has about 150,000 soldiers in the country and is supported by about 21,000 others, 11,000 of them British. A wider U.N. role could also make it easier to gain reconstruction funds at a donors' conference in Madrid in October, as many contributors are uneasy about the U.S.-led occupation. At a preliminary meeting in Brussels Wednesday that involved the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the European Union and others, the U.S.-led authority in Baghdad sought to allay concerns about security. ''The U.S. wanted to explain that, in their view, the situation was less worrying than people think and getting better every day,'' said a European diplomat, declining to be named. Iraq has the second-largest oil reserves in the world behind Saudi Arabia, but sabotage and looting have put the brakes on the industry powering an economic recovery. A car bombing in Iraq Tuesday targeted Baghdad's police headquarters, killing one policeman and wounding 15. Similar bombings against the Jordanian embassy, the U.N. headquarters and a top Shi'ite Muslim cleric have killed scores of people. Before the four bombings, violence had been largely grenade and gun attacks that Washington blamed on die-hard Saddam supporters. Since then U.S. officials have made increasing mention of al Qaeda and other foreign fighters. Sixty-seven U.S. and 11 British soldiers have been killed in attacks since Bush declared major combat over on May 1. Iraq's U.S.-backed Governing Council appointed the 25-strong cabinet Monday. Ministers will formulate policy with the Council and the occupying authorities and will be responsible for day-to-day running of their departments. Ultimate power remains with U.S. governor Paul Bremer until a general election. No date has been set. Council member Ibrahim al-Jaafari described the appointment of ministers as a step toward meeting the needs of Iraqis neglected under Saddam. ''Exceptional effort is demanded from every minister ... to work for the rebuilding of Iraq,'' he said before the ministers took oaths of office, pledging to serve Iraq and its people. REUTERS Reut13:30 09-03-03 Copyright 2003 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.

Ooook.. what are your thoughts about this? I find it Ironic. After Bush shoved UN on hiss ***.. and talking about if US goes alone US will take care of Iraq and such, besides taking positions on the Petroleum, now he WANTS THEIR HELP!! and even like that he is given a hard time to them..your thoughts?!?! I know there are some very insightful thoughts about this.. would be interesting to see the thoughts of those "for war" peeps.. (thats not directed to you Occrider, just in case.. oh well... I hope though that UN orders itself and do some major acting, hopefully pushing the the US aside for lets say some 50%, in means of taking care of things and such. BUt I still think that eitherway US will be taking "the blame".

Bush should be impeached.

quote:

Originally posted by Galapidate Bush should be impeached.

He wont be tho, noones got the ballz to stand againts him in the house.

www.votetoimpeach.org

quote:

Originally posted by Galapidate www.votetoimpeach.org

Yes, more circus races! Just what we need in such gloomy times... We'll call it California the Recall - but bigger and better.

quote:

Originally posted by Galapidate Bush should be impeached.

But he didn't get fellated in the Oval Office. So there can't be an impeachable offence!



MrS

quote:

Originally posted by MrSquirrel But he didn't get fellated in the Oval Office. So there can't be an impeachable offence! MrS

Mmm it can be considered that he lied?

quote:

Originally posted by MrSquirrel But he didn't get fellated in the Oval Office. So there can't be an impeachable offence!

i see, it all makes sense now... its okay for a president to lie to their people about a "tyrannical dictator", but when the president gets a simple blow job, its a fucking outrage!!!

you guys, i say we all drop our liberal stances and go become conservatives!

quote:

Originally posted by fuct4less i see, it all makes sense now... its okay for a president to lie to their people about a "tyrannical dictator", but when the president gets a simple blow job, its a fucking outrage!!! you guys, i say we all drop our liberal stances and go become conservatives!

LOL! Corruption of the government is a-okay!

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX Mmm it can be considered that he lied?

He is the american leader he would never lie, what kind of sick mind do u have?

Heh, first you screw a country when the rest of the world says you shouldn't, then you go and ask them for help in rebuilding. A bit of cynical behaviour if you ask me.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Heh, first you screw a country when the rest of the world says you shouldn't, then you go and ask them for help in rebuilding. A bit of cynical behaviour if you ask me.

If by "first" u mean supporting Sadam and his party back in the 80's to deal with iran and the bonus of oil and again more oil, even tho he was clearly a nutjob right from the beggining then yes i agree with u.

What Bush also doesn't realize is that the cost for the war is costing his votes for 2004. He just recently dropped the annual salary raises for federal workers from 2.7% to 1.5%. Some of these workers make only 30 or 40 thousand a year, so a few hundred dollars is a pretty lame raise...


Edit: forgot to mention that drop was to pay for the war.

This is just rich. First he tells the UN to shove it since they won't back him on a war against Iraq,and now he wants their help to rebuild a country from a war they didn't want any part of? You gotta be kidding me.

quote:

Originally posted by Sand Leaper This is just rich. First he tells the UN to shove it since they won't back him on a war against Iraq,and now he wants their help to rebuild a country from a war they didn't want any part of? You gotta be kidding me.

You didn't think that he actually thought this through and through did you? Also I love how rumsfeld continues to state that more troops are not needed. If I had a deep set desire to oust the regime ************ of its immediate threat (and I kind of did) then I would have immediately expanded the scope of the responsibilties and power to the UN after the dirty deed was done. There was no real point in maintaining SOLE power in the region following the war. What would have been the benefits? I think the only reason Bush wants to avoid power sharing is because he's in some kind of pissing contest.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle....storyID=3383146

The kind of help Bush has to seek is the psychological kind...

Re: Bush Seeks Help!

oh boy, i bet some of those "patriotic" americans who bashed france, germany, the UN, and renamed french * to freedom *, must feel goofy now that we are asking for their help

quote:

Originally posted by Vesa His role is to arbitrate in the US Administration between the incompatible visions of his advisors (Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz vs Powell/Bush Sr/Scowcroft). So Bush is living from hand to mouth, choosing the most appropriate advice for each day, instead of planning for the long term.

quote:

Just see how Bush used Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith and Perle in the early planning. Then Bush gave their worst rival Powell the task of getting a UN Resolution that Neocons didn't want.

quote:

Then Bush gave Franks the task of detailed military planning with a complete revision of Neocons' military vision.

quote:

So the US went to war with plans largely distorted from the original reasoning.

quote:

Bush lost his trust in Neocons, and replaced Garner with Bremer, leading to questionable decisions like disbanding the Iraqi army and sidelining INC which was supposed to hold the mess together.

quote:

Neocons never wanted many US troops in Iraq, Instead, Rumsfeld wanted temporary application of superior firepower, and also US Spec-Ops to play a central role like in Afghanistan where few US troops were needed. Franks insisted on more troops.

quote:

Not pissing off ordinary Iraqis was a central premise for the Neocons' war plan to work at all. Neocons estimated that INC's dominant presence would stop this cycle at the very start.

quote:

Neocons wanted to change the US foreign policy. The majority of American and foreign politicians resisted.

i'm not trying to put words into your mouth but from what i understand you're saying that if the Neo-Cons had their way, we wouldnt be in this mess.

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy i'm not trying to put words into your mouth but from what i understand you're saying that if the Neo-Cons had their way, we wouldnt be in this mess.

ya thats sort of what i understood too.. sort of makes me an even bigger neocon fan

Well, we certainly wouldn't be in this mess, but that doesn't mean we wouldn't be in a mess at all.

about bushes

quote:

Originally posted by Galapidate Bush should be impeached.

yep, yes sir i agree. I never voted for him, never supported him.

I guess that is a summary of options, but me as a neocon-fan have always told my friends way before any action of Iraq was on the 'official' table that the US should act in option 1 and this was their best chance of success...

I also believe the neo-cons themseleves were for option 1 (especially if you listen to what Rummy said before the war).

I think you are mixing the neo-cons with the old-cons. The old-cons wanted option 2, and they got it.. they went the old conservative route -> Powell Doctorine, not Bush or Rumsefeld Doctorine.

Powell doctorine calls for an amassment of forces before attack and overwhelm the enemy to create a quick victory. Strategy in Gulf War II reflect Gulf War I (old-cons) much more then Afghanistan (neocons). I believe it was Neocons behind option 1, oldcons behind option 2, and liberals, or multinationalists behind option 3.

In reality they did chose option two.. as it was the centeral agreeable strategy between the two others on the fringes.

quote:

Originally posted by Vesa I think the situation is much more complex than Neocons. To put it shortly, the Iraq War and the current wider Middle-Eastern mess is IMO just instability resulting from the end of the Cold War. The Soviet Union left a big power vacuum, and exposed all the dubious temporary solutions of both superpowers.

I completely agree you are wrong - all these problems are not the result of the end of the Cold War. At least not how I understand it, infact the majority of the world's problems -> Iraq, Yugoslavia, Africa, Israel-Palestinian, India-Pakistan.. and the list go on are the results actually from the collapse of colonialisim.

You see colonialism collapsed very early in the last century, if I wrre to be a historian, I would define the end of WWI the end of colonialism. During that time you would see the glimmers that were to begin to rip the world into this chaos once again. By WWII colonialisim was on a down hill, after WWII the colonial powers were bankrupt after fighting their wars on the mainland they had lose the power to control their former colonies.

The Cold War brought a stasis to these crisis. Under the threat of mutual destruction, the two super-powers created an uneasy stability where these crises were unable to arupt for the most part (of course there are exceptions, as the Arab-Israeli conflict, and many African colonial revolts...).

It is only now, that the cold war has collapsed and the threat of mutual destruction has arisen that the effects of the end of colonialisim are really being felt. Now self-determination is in action -> you can see it work everywhere in the world, its results are usually bloody, violent, and savage revolutions that have no point to them ... but the people are self-determining this, so it must be good?!

We are entering a new world the era of post-colonialsim.. and it is radically scary imagining it without a super-power or empire.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus I guess that is a summary of options, but me as a neocon-fan have always told my friends way before any action of Iraq was on the 'official' table that the US should act in option 1 and this was their best chance of success... I also believe the neo-cons themseleves were for option 1 (especially if you listen to what Rummy said before the war). I think you are mixing the neo-cons with the old-cons. The old-cons wanted option 2, and they got it.. they went the old conservative route -> Powell Doctorine, not Bush or Rumsefeld Doctorine. Powell doctorine calls for an amassment of forces before attack and overwhelm the enemy to create a quick victory. Strategy in Gulf War II reflect Gulf War I (old-cons) much more then Afghanistan (neocons). I believe it was Neocons behind option 1, oldcons behind option 2, and liberals, or multinationalists behind option 3. In reality they did chose option two.. as it was the centeral agreeable strategy between the two others on the fringes.

The current invasion of Iraq did create a quick "victory" yes. But it was far from what the Powell doctrine would consider an overwhelming force.

The tactics used were a lot closer kin to the German Blitkreig invasions of WWII. Hit hard, fast, and deep into enemy territory and shock your opponent into submission. But even the Wehrmacht had sufficient troops to mop up any left-over resistance after the first wave went through.

The US did not have enough troops amassed on the entry-point to protect vital supply lines from ambushes, much less to do any real mopping up behind them. This is part of the cause of the problems there today. Much of the lighter resistance was bypassed or even ignored in the thrust to Baghdad. An "overwhelming" force would have subdued ALL resistance, not just that in armored vehicles or along the supply routes.

My opinion is that had Saddam and his cohorts not bailed out of Baghdad so quickly and dug in a bit, we would be in a "better" situation today. The battle for the city would have taken longer, and unfortuanately harmed more civilians. But it would have allowed the US and British forces to do some better mopping up. It would also have allowed the groups repairing infrastructure to get into the swing of things.

Declaring an "end to major combat operations" was premature at best. It was an outright lie for the sake of a few sound bytes and photo ops at worst. At the very least it was an idea pushed by political, not military advisors.

MrS

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus I completely agree you are wrong - all these problems are not the result of the end of the Cold War. At least not how I understand it, infact the majority of the world's problems -> Iraq, Yugoslavia, Africa, Israel-Palestinian, India-Pakistan.. and the list go on are the results actually from the collapse of colonialisim.

I agree with you on the Kashmir issue. If it weren't for a Hindi governor of the region at the time of independence, kashmir would have been part of Pakistan due to its vast muslim majority.

quote:

You see colonialism collapsed very early in the last century, if I wrre to be a historian, I would define the end of WWI the end of colonialism. During that time you would see the glimmers that were to begin to rip the world into this chaos once again. By WWII colonialisim was on a down hill, after WWII the colonial powers were bankrupt after fighting their wars on the mainland they had lose the power to control their former colonies. The Cold War brought a stasis to these crisis. Under the threat of mutual destruction, the two super-powers created an uneasy stability where these crises were unable to arupt for the most part (of course there are exceptions, as the Arab-Israeli conflict, and many African colonial revolts...). It is only now, that the cold war has collapsed and the threat of mutual destruction has arisen that the effects of the end of colonialisim are really being felt. Now self-determination is in action -> you can see it work everywhere in the world, its results are usually bloody, violent, and savage revolutions that have no point to them ... but the people are self-determining this, so it must be good?! We are entering a new world the era of post-colonialsim.. and it is radically scary imagining it without a super-power or empire.

WW I was the beginning of the end of European colonialism yes.

But some would argue that the Cold War was in fact a form of colonialism. But instead of the historical norm of taking resources/land from the colonies the US and USSR instead gave large quantities of material and monetary aid to the nations under their influence. Virtually all of the military conflicts of the second half of the 20th century were waged between groups which wanted to put a given region into one sphere of influence or the other.

Using that idea, we are just now in a period akin to the time when many nations were gaining independence from their European "lords" in the early 1900s.

MrS

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.