|
Bush vetoes Iraq withdrawal bill (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DJ Shibby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
"Anybody who recommends a timeline or a deadline in war doesn't understand war." Dwight D. Eisenhower
I don't think we should be telling our enemies when we plan to pull out. All they'de have to do is wait it out and know the Americans are leaving soon. |
Don't defeat yourself from the word go with paradoxical logic. |
|
|
| M.Johan |
And that's why some media want to bomb Iran
Any succes or any adv. or satisfactory way to resolve the crisis
in Iraq ,an opportunity to save face in the water.
Some dogmatic and fine politices (WTF)
On the other hand they'll talk about Iraq
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/2007042...aq_070429203557 |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
"Anybody who recommends a timeline or a deadline in war doesn't understand war." Dwight D. Eisenhower
I don't think we should be telling our enemies when we plan to pull out. All they'de have to do is wait it out and know the Americans are leaving soon. |
Really now, what does that imply then? I can only think of two possibilities:
1. We pull out real secretive-like. We make a stealthy "quiet" exit that will throw the insurgents so off-guard that they'll remain frozen in time and won't ever fight again.
2. We never pull out - we remain there until some booming voice from the Heavens tells us otherwise. Because at the rate of events occurring in Iraq combined with our 4 year history, there's no way in hell we are leaving anytime soon (at least until Bush is gone in '08 and puts the mess on someone else so they'll be to blame, of course).
But hey, I enjoy messages from our past leaders like this, just like I enjoy hearing messages from the past from our current leader:
| quote: | “Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”
-Gov. George Bush
April 09, 1999
Houston Chronicle
Bush toughens his stance on NATO bombing
R.G. RATCLIFFE, Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau |
and:
| quote: | “I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.”
-Gov. George Bush
June 5, 1999
Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Clinton War Policies Draw Barrage of GOP Criticism
Thomas Hargrove, Scripps Howard News Service |
But you see, that's okay for Bush to say it, but anyone else who thinks such nasty thoughts need to be taken by the Thought Police immediately....... |
|
|
| LatinLover |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
1. We pull out real secretive-like. We make a stealthy "quiet" exit that will throw the insurgents so off-guard that they'll remain frozen in time and won't ever fight again.
2. We never pull out - we remain there until some booming voice from the Heavens tells us otherwise. Because at the rate of events occurring in Iraq combined with our 4 year history, there's no way in hell we are leaving anytime soon (at least until Bush is gone in '08 and puts the mess on someone else so they'll be to blame, of course).
|
:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:
Certainly you dont understand warfare, leadership nor military history.
First, okay we all know bush ed up... we didnt send enough soldiers, thanks to Rumsfeld, and we werent ready for an insurgency.
I dont know if you understand this, but what your echoing to just withdraw its basically telling our enemy " wait just hang on there for a couple of more months till we get out so you can do w.e the hell you want" withdrawing would be basically handing over victory to the resistance.
Okay, what is the insurgency main goal since day one? :conf: Not to only kill Americans and our allies... not to only kidnap journalist... nor to kill Iraqi leaders and civilians... but to drive out the US and its allies :rolleyes:
But not to forget.... Americans dont like long wars. But we cannot act in favor of our enemy. , I dont know if Dems are just playing stupid... but do you know what a withdrawal mean? 1. Let Iraq be a central/invitation and haven center for all terrorist organizations. 2. Let them take over Iraqi resources so they can finance their operations towards the West and let them take jihad to the West 3. A regional conflict between Iran, S. Arabia aiding different sects in Iraq etc... 4. A more instable ME and more importantly the US can kiss the ME good bye.
Wow all those things dont sound too bad... :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Clovis |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
"Anybody who recommends a timeline or a deadline in war doesn't understand war." Dwight D. Eisenhower
I don't think we should be telling our enemies when we plan to pull out. All they'de have to do is wait it out and know the Americans are leaving soon. |
Not if that timeline would end the war.
Eisenhower was speaking in the context of would war 2, a completely global conflict in which deadlines could not be established, in which timelines were useless. It was a war we had to fight. The Iraq war has been, since day one, one of the most fruitless and backwards endeavors in U.S. military intervention since vietnam.
And in case you havn't noticed, our enemies want us to stay. Suicide bombers don't "wait it out". They go blow themselves up whenever the opportunity is there. |
|
|
| Clovis |
| quote: | Originally posted by LatinLover
1. Let Iraq be a central/invitation and haven center for all terrorist organizations. 2. Let them take over Iraqi resources so they can finance their operations towards the West and let them take jihad to the West 3. A regional conflict between Iran, S. Arabia aiding different sects in Iraq etc... 4. A more instable ME and more importantly the US can kiss the ME good bye.
Wow all those things dont sound too bad... :rolleyes: |
Maybe someone in the whitehouse should have thought of that before hand, don't you think? Well of course not, their goal was to have an open ended conflict to substatiate the "War On Terror" and keep the funding machine going. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Clovis
Not if that timeline would end the war. |
When in history has a pre-established timeline ever directly resulted in a war victory? Okay guys, we're down to the 2 minute warning and we've got a 20,000 casualty lead...I dont even think there's a logical way to frame that point. It's just argumentative for the sake of disagreeing.
| quote: | | Eisenhower was speaking in the context of would war 2, a completely global conflict in which deadlines could not be established, in which timelines were useless. It was a war we had to fight. |
Why was it a war we had to fight?
| quote: | | And in case you havn't noticed, our enemies want us to stay. Suicide bombers don't "wait it out". They go blow themselves up whenever the opportunity is there. |
So you're saying they would all prefer to die than to have the U.S. and her allies out so they can just continue to - the region as they please? The first rule of -ing is that you have to be alive to -.;) |
|
|
| Clovis |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
When in history has a pre-established timeline ever directly resulted in a war victory? Okay guys, we're down to the 2 minute warning and we've got a 20,000 casualty lead...I dont even think there's a logical way to frame that point. It's just argumentative for the sake of disagreeing.
|
What is victory here? Even the president is unsure. Theres no chance of "victory" now, unless you consider the current situation "victory".
| quote: |
Why was it a war we had to fight? |
It's arguable at best, but you could say that without US intervention Japan and Germany may have defeated Russia. Thus leaving us next in line for attack. Also, we couldn't simply not respond to Pearl Harbor.
| quote: |
So you're saying they would all prefer to die than to have the U.S. and her allies out so they can just continue to - the region as they please? The first rule of -ing is that you have to be alive to -.;) |
Seeing that we created the conditions which allow them to operate, yes I think they would rather have us there. You have to distinguish between the different groups in operation in Iraq though, theres not just one and they all have different goals. But it is pretty obvious that the goal of Al Qaeda in Iraq is to kill as many American soldiers as possible, and as many civilians as possible in order to make the maximum amount of instability. Instability aids their cause, lack of targets does not. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Clovis
What is victory here? Even the president is unsure. Theres no chance of "victory" now, unless you consider the current situation "victory". |
That's a different argument. What is ensured is that a timetable is guaranteed failure for the reasons cited above. I would like our men in uniform to come home as much as the next guy, but I'd prefer it not be with their tails tucked between their legs with an incomplete mission behind them.
| quote: | | It's arguable at best, but you could say that without US intervention Japan and Germany may have defeated Russia. Thus leaving us next in line for attack. Also, we couldn't simply not respond to Pearl Harbor. |
Sounds like pretty similar arguments to the entire war on terrah. I don't disagree--I was playing devil's advocate.
| quote: | | Seeing that we created the conditions which allow them to operate, yes I think they would rather have us there. You have to distinguish between the different groups in operation in Iraq though, theres not just one and they all have different goals. But it is pretty obvious that the goal of Al Qaeda in Iraq is to kill as many American soldiers as possible, and as many civilians as possible in order to make the maximum amount of instability. Instability aids their cause, lack of targets does not. |
I don't agree that the U.S. created the conditions, though I may concede that we have exposed them and thrown a rock at a hornets' nest. However, these people were around far before the U.S. arrived. |
|
|
| MrSquirrel |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
That's a different argument. What is ensured is that a timetable is guaranteed failure for the reasons cited above. I would like our men in uniform to come home as much as the next guy, but I'd prefer it not be with their tails tucked between their legs with an incomplete mission behind them.
|
The inherent problem is that the mission keeps changing on whatever whim the administration uses to justify staying there "to complete" the mission.
It has been 4 years since they declared MIssion Accomplished with a 60 foot long banner on the deck of the U.S.S. Lincoln, why is it that we did not withdraw "victorious" then?
This war has turned into an extended police action.
While I am not a fan of leaving a job unfinished, there is no possible way to finish a job when you don't know what the job is you are doing.
The situation is exacerbated by the fact that the post vietnam U.S. military was not designed for long term, large scale operations without activating the selective service machinery and conscripting men to serve. Sure, it can handle a large scale war for a period of several months, but beyond that the rest of the country has to take on some of the extra burden themselves.
The only "scarifices" this administration has ever asked the public as a whole post 9/11 is to hop in their gas guzzling SUVs and head out to the local shopping mall and spend spend spend. No rationing, no policy of conservation of resources. There is all kinds of talk of reducing dependence on foreign oil, but instead of working to reduce the gross volume of oil used, the only solution that has been touted in the last 6 years is to drill for oil in Alaska.
MrS |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by LatinLover
:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: |
I'm just curious - what is it with your fixation to the smileys?
| quote: | | Certainly you dont understand warfare, leadership nor military history. |
Huh, and all this time I thought you weren't going to engage with me. Change your mind, I take it?
Regardless, let's take a look at your criticisms of my sincere lack of knowledge on your aforementioned topics:
| quote: | | First, okay we all know bush ed up... we didnt send enough soldiers, thanks to Rumsfeld, and we werent ready for an insurgency. |
I knew we'd eventually agree to something. It just gets me all warm and fuzzy inside......
| quote: | | I dont know if you understand this, but what your echoing to just withdraw its basically telling our enemy " wait just hang on there for a couple of more months till we get out so you can do w.e the hell you want" withdrawing would be basically handing over victory to the resistance. |
Neither I or the Democrats are echoing that sentiment at all. Rather, what I and the Democrats, along with Bush's senior military cabinet members along with the Bush-appointed Iraq Study Group are advocating a bigger emphasis on diplomacy (versus in the past), along with a phased withdrawal of street policing (to which our military was NEVER meant to do nor was it created to do - a much better role suited for NATO or UN forces, for example, not to forget the Iraqi police themselves), as well as a higher concentration on training the Iraqi military to police themselves, while focusing on hunting down developing/established al Qaeda cells. These points were outlined by both the Iraqi Study Group (led by James Baker, Chief of Staff as well as Secretary of Treasury to Reagan, Secretary of State to Bush Sr., and Chief legal Advisor to Bush Jr. in the 2000 elections, just in case you didn't know or forgot) and the Democratic plan.
Just getting up and leaving without a second thought is a continuing straw man argument. I don't advocate such a silly thought.
But I also recognize that NOTHING we have done in the past, including the current surge plan is going to attain any thoughtful idea of peace (on any level) in that country. If you recall, the military commanders that WERE in Iraq last fall had told Bush that any idea of a surge is likely to fail, and that we need to take a more diplomatic approach as outlined by the Iraq Study Group:
| quote: | General George Casey: Skeptical of Troop Escalation Plan. Casey: "It's always been my view that a heavy and sustained American military presence was not going to solve the problems in Iraq over the long term." [New York Times, 1/2/07]
General John Abizaid Thinks More Troops Will Only Keep the Iraqis from Taking Responsibility for Their Own Future. In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, General Abizaid said, "Senator McCain, I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the corps commander, General Dempsey, we all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American Troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no. And the reason is because we want the Iraqis to do more. It is easy for the Iraqis to rely upon to us do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future." [Senate Armed Services Committee Testimony, 11/15/06]
Joint Chiefs: "Unanimous Disagreement" to a Surge. A Washington Post article, using anonymous White House sources, reports that "White House officials [are] aggressively promoting the concept over the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff." [Washington Post, 12/19/06] |
Of course they weren't alone:
| quote: | General Colin Powell: Surge Will Not Work. Powell said, "I am not persuaded that another surge of troops into Baghdad for purposes of suppressing this communitarian violence, this civil war, will work." [Face the Nation, CBS, 12/17/06]
General James T. Conway, Commandant of the Marine Corps: "We do not believe that just adding numbers for the sake of adding numbers-just thickening the mix-is necessarily the way to go." [Lou Dobbs Tonight, CNN 12/18/06]
Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander General Wesley K. Clark: More Troops Will Not Deliver a Win. Clark wrote, "Will [a surge] deliver a 'win?' Probably not. But it does distract us from facing the deep-seated regional issues that must be resolved." [Washington Post, 1/8/07]
Oliver North: North said, "A 'surge' or 'targeted increase in US troop strength' or whatever the politicians want to call dispatching more combat troops to Iraq isn't the answer. Adding more trainers and helping the Iraqis to help themselves, is. Sending more US combat troops is simply sending more targets." [Human Events Online, 1/5/07]
Major General Don Shepperd, USAF (Ret.): I Would Not Even Consider Increasing Troop Strength in Iraq. Shepperd, who works as a CNN military analyst, offered his analysis of what should be done next after he was briefed by members of the Iraq Study Group. He wrote, "I would not even consider increasing troop strength in Iraq." [CNN.com, 12/11/06]
Michael Vickers, Former Special Forces Officer: "All The Forces in The World" Won't Change Security Situation in Iraq. Vicks said, "The security situation is inextricably linked to politics. If you can solve some of the Iraqi political problems, the security situation becomes manageable. If you can't...all the forces in the world aren't going to change that." [The Newshour with Jim Lehrer, PBS, 12/12/06]
Lawrence Korb, Former Assistant Secretary of Defense: Korb said, "we had a chance in the beginning to send the right number of troops. We didn't, and now I think it would only make the situation worse and it would make the Iraqis more dependent on us" [Talk of the Nation, NPR, 9/18/06]
Robert Gates: Skeptical of More Troops. "According to two administration officials who asked not to be named, Robert Gates expressed his skepticism about a troop surge in Iraq on his first day on the job, December 18, at a Pentagon meeting with civilians who oversee the Air Force, Army, Navy, and Marines." [New York Sun, 12/27/06] |
So what did Bush do? Did he listen to those commanders on the ground like he said he always does in the past? Welp, no. This time, he decided to replace those commanders instead. He merely replaced those commanders and put in someone who would agree with him. And instead of focusing on actually training the Iraqi forces, we've turned on the asinine and unrealistic plan of door-to-door searches to "defeat the insurgents" ourselves instead:
| quote: | Military planners have abandoned the idea that standing up Iraqi troops will enable American soldiers to start coming home soon and now believe that U.S. troops will have to defeat the insurgents and secure control of troubled provinces.
Training Iraqi troops, which had been the cornerstone of the Bush administration's Iraq policy since 2005, has dropped in priority, officials in Baghdad and Washington said.
. . . Pentagon officials said they know of no new training resources that have been included in U.S. plans to dispatch 28,000 additional troops to Iraq. . . .
. . . U.S. officials don't say that the training formula - championed by Gen. John Abizaid when he was the commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East and by Gen. George Casey when he was the top U.S. general in Iraq - was doomed from the start. But they said that rising sectarian violence and the inability of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki to unite the country changed the conditions.
. . . President Bush first announced the training strategy in the summer of 2005.
"Our strategy can be summed up this way," Bush said. "As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down."
Military leaders in Baghdad planned to train 325,000 Iraqi security forces. Once that was accomplished, those forces were to take control. Casey created military transition teams that would live side by side with their Iraqi counterparts to help them apply their training to real-world situations.
Throughout 2006, Casey and top Bush administration leaders touted the training as a success, asserting that eight of Iraq's 10 divisions had taken the lead in confronting insurgents.
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/17104704.htm |
Our surge plan was doomed from the start. Let's remember what the Baker ISG report stated:
| quote: | Sustained increases in U.S. troop levels would not solve the fundamental cause of violence in Iraq, which is the absence of national reconciliation. A senior American general told us that adding U.S. troops might temporarily help limit violence in a highly localized area. However, past experience indicates that the violence would simply rekindle as soon as U.S. forces are moved to another area. As another American general told us, if the Iraqi government does not make political progress, “all the troops in the world will not provide security.”
http://www.usip.org/isg/iraq_study_...1206/index.html |
And let's be clear here about whos idea this "surge" is. It's not the generals on the ground. It wasn't Petraeus. It sure as hell wasn't Bush. Rather, it was Fred Kagan's from the extremist far-right think tank American Enterprise Institute. From last August:
http://www.aei.org/publications/pub.../pub_detail.asp
It is and has been a lofty, high-priced unrealistic neocon dream, one that has costed many, many lives, way too much money, embarrassment, and pride. I'm done with these heads running my country, thanks. They've done enough damage already, so much that it will likely take decades to repair.
So when yet another neocon "plan" comes around to which no one bites at it but the fringe far right (and "Independents" such as yourself, of course), to which NOT ONE ING LOFTY PLAN OR PREDICTION OF THE NEOCONS HAVE COME TO FRUITION, well gee, you just have to excuse my skepticism. History has not served them well, and my trust in them has been lost long ago.
| quote: | | Okay, what is the insurgency main goal since day one? :conf: Not to only kill Americans and our allies... not to only kidnap journalist... nor to kill Iraqi leaders and civilians... but to drive out the US and its allies :rolleyes: |
It's not just the insurgents that want us out, genious. The entire Iraqi population wants us gone too:
Please note in that link that only 10%, TEN ING PERCENT of Iraqis nationwide support a U.S. withdrawal only as "the security situation improves" (which happens to be the current Bush policy, BTW).
And the Iraqi leaders wanted a timetable for our withdrawal as well, back in November of 2005:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1122/dailyUpdate.html
As well as last summer in '06:
http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestat...ld/14823067.htm
You think they've changed their minds since then? And by going by your logic, does that mean that ALL Iraqi citizens are terrorists/insurgents, including the Iraqi leaders, since they want us gone as well?
| quote: | | But not to forget.... Americans dont like long wars. |
No, Americans do not like endless wars with no end in site with no set goals to achieve that truly mark progress.
| quote: | | But we cannot act in favor of our enemy. |
The "enemy" being the Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias that have lived there and fought each other far before the West was ever involved in their affairs?
Or are you referring to al Qaeda, who at the time of our invasion had no operational ties to Iraq and only after we invaded did they take the opportunity to come in and help create chaos?
Whom do you mean by "enemies"?
| quote: | | , I dont know if Dems are just playing stupid... but do you know what a withdrawal mean? 1. Let Iraq be a central/invitation and haven center for all terrorist organizations. |
Which is why their plan along with the Iraq Study Group calls for specific training of Iraq troop forces as well as targeted forces on al Qaeda cells. It seems you are having some difficulty understanding what the actual plan of the Democrats and the ISG truly is.
| quote: | | 2. Let them take over Iraqi resources so they can finance their operations towards the West and let them take jihad to the West |
The flip side of that argument is if the Iraqi government realizes that we won't continue sacrificing our military men and women for the job that they need to do themselves, then perhaps they'll finally start stepping up to the plate and start governing themselves a bit better. Considering absolutely nothing has worked in the past, considering our history of "surges" in the past have only brought more violence, I'm inclined to think a new strategy that's not created by the idiot neocons will likely be a bit more successful.
Again some history on past "surges":
1. Last June in 2006, Bush sent in 7,000 troops into Baghdad to secure it better:
http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscent...rm.aspx?ID=3213
To which Bush had to concede did not go well:
| quote: | After some initial successes, our operations to secure Baghdad have encountered greater resistance. Some of the Iraqi security forces have performed below expectations. … I know many Americans are not satisfied with the situation in Iraq. I’m not satisfied, either.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...0/20061025.html |
Nor did Ambassador Khalilzad:
http://www.csis.org/images/stories/..._transcript.pdf
Nor did Gen. Caldwell:
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/m...tion/index.html
And that was just the most recent example.
| quote: | 3. A regional conflict between Iran, S. Arabia aiding different sects in Iraq etc... 4. A more instable ME and more importantly the US can kiss the ME good bye.
Wow all those things dont sound too bad... :rolleyes: |
Ya know, I'm just curious, since you've seemingly agreed and supported this war, I've got a question for you. It's one I've asked a number of Bush supporters, so here it goes:
Given the fact that hardly any predictions made by this Administration and its supporters have come to fruition about this war in Iraq, why the do you think you have an ounce of credibility to make any predictions about the situation in the future? Given your support to the group that's been wrong on almost all accounts with this war, what on earth should compel anyone to start believing your predictions now?
And lastly, again I wonder, do you think it's okay for Bush to call for a timetable of withdrawal against Clinton back in 1999? |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
We cannot help install peace and civility to a government and leader that engages in this type of behavior:
| quote: | BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraq's prime minister has created an entity within his government that U.S. and Iraqi military officials say is being used as a smokescreen to hide an extreme Shiite agenda that is worsening the country's sectarian divide.
The Office of the Commander in Chief has the power to overrule other government ministries, according to U.S. military and intelligence sources.
Those sources say the 24-member office is abusing its power, increasingly overriding decisions made by the Iraqi Ministries of Defense and Interior and potentially undermining the entire U.S. effort in Iraq.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/01/iraq.office/ |
This is not the place our military need to be caught up in. We're stuck in the middle of a civil war between religious factions, and we're aiding the side that's in leagues with Iran and installs shadowy agencies like this.
No thanks. Tap us out of this one, please. |
|
|
|
|
