King George

[mat1583]

This thread isn't meant to "bash" President Bush as most people would say. In fact I get tired of hearing that word. Just because you have a valid complaint about the policies of a President does not mean you are bashing him or her. Anywho, I doubt many of you saw the conference held by the President yesterday evening, but I did, and I wasn't very happy with what was said. Here are a few exerpts from the conference...

Q Mr. President, polls continue to show sagging support for the war in Iraq. I'm curious as to how you see this developing. Is it your belief that long-term results will vindicate your strategy and people will change their mind about it, or is this the kind of thing you're doing because you think it's right and you don't care if you ever gain public support for it? Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Look, Presidents care about whether people support their policies. I don't mean to say, I don't care. Of course, I care. But I understand why people are discouraged about Iraq, I can understand that. We live in a world in which people hope things happen quickly, and this is a situation where things don't happen quickly, because there's a very tough group of people using tactics, mainly the killing of innocent people, to achieve their objective. And they're skillful about how they do this, and they also know the impact of what it means on the consciousness of those of us who live in the free world. They know that.

And so, yes, I care, I really do. I wish -- and so, therefore, I'm going to spend a lot of time trying to explain as best I can why it's important for us to succeed in Iraq.

[...] I don't think you've ever heard me say, gosh, I'd better change positions because the polls say this or that. I've been here long enough to understand you cannot make good decisions if you're trying to chase a poll. And so the second part of your question is, look, I'm going to do what I think is right, and if people don't like me for it, that's just the way it is.

Q Quick follow-up. A lot of the consequences you mentioned for pulling out seem like maybe they never would have been there if we hadn't gone in. How do you square all of that?

THE PRESIDENT: I square it because, imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would -- who had relations with Zarqawi. Imagine what the world would be like with him in power. The idea is to try to help change the Middle East.

Now, look, part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction. But I also talked about the human suffering in Iraq, and I also talked the need to advance a freedom agenda. And so my question -- my answer to your question is, is that, imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up even more trouble in a part of the world that had so much resentment and so much hatred that people came and killed 3,000 of our citizens.

You know, I've heard this theory about everything was just fine until we arrived, and kind of "we're going to stir up the hornet's nest" theory. It just doesn't hold water, as far as I'm concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.

Q What did Iraq have to do with that?

THE PRESIDENT: What did Iraq have to do with what?

Q The attack on the World Trade Center?

THE PRESIDENT: Nothing, except for it's part of -- and nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a -- the lesson of September the 11th is, take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody has ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq. I have suggested, however, that resentment and the lack of hope create the breeding grounds for terrorists who are willing to use suiciders to kill to achieve an objective. I have made that case.

And one way to defeat that -- defeat resentment is with hope. And the best way to do hope is through a form of government. Now, I said going into Iraq that we've got to take these threats seriously before they fully materialize. I saw a threat. I fully believe it was the right decision to remove Saddam Hussein, and I fully believe the world is better off without him. Now, the question is how do we succeed in Iraq? And you don't succeed by leaving before the mission is complete, like some in this political process are suggesting.

----------------------------------------
Q Thank you very much. Mr. President, some pro-life groups are worried that your choice of FDA Commissioner will approve over the counter sales of Plan B, a pill that, they say, essentially can cause early-term abortions. Do you stand by this choice, and how do you feel about Plan B in general?

THE PRESIDENT: I believe that Plan B ought to be -- ought to require a prescription for minors, is what I believe. And I support Andy's decision.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060821.html

Thoughts, comments, concerns?

-washboard

[cheewiee]

This is when I like GW.. when he is out front, defending his policies, not hiding behind Tony Snow...

[middletree]

I am completely against this war, and as far as I know, I am the only conservative who was against it from Day One. Having said that, I don't have a problem with what he said about going forward despite what people think, for 4 reasons:

1. He was elected for 4 years. Not elected on a day-to-day basis. When we voted for him as a nation, we said we trust him to do what needs to be done for the next 4 years. Micromanaging his every move as he goes along is not part of the deal.

2. He didn't say he doesn't care what people think about his actions or policies. He's saying he doesn't let the fact that people don't like him get to him. He cannot let that sway him or make him less resolute.

3. You never know how the people really think about the war. The press gives us poll results, and who knows how true they are, how accurate they are, how the questions were worded?

4. The people are fickle.

In general, he is being a leader, not a follower. I am bothered by politicians who hold their finger up to the wind to see which way the wind is blowing before they make a decision.

[mat1583]

This is when I like GW.. when he is out front, defending his policies, not hiding behind Tony Snow...

I have to give him that...he does stick to his stance. But in a way, that's why I have a problem with the statement he made. He said he cares about what the American people think, yet he obviously doesn't care that a very large part of the constituents don't agree with his policy and strategy in Iraq. He thinks that what he thinks is right is supreme.

And at least he admitted his (and his administrations') error in telling the public and the world that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. I want to point out one more thing...

North Korea has the ability to make weapons of mass destruction just as much as Iran, Russia, etc. Should we also invade those countries, take out there leaders, disrupt their government, and install a democratic form of government? By GW's reasoning, we should.

-washboard

[cheewiee]

I have to give him that...he does stick to his stance. But in a way, that's why I have a problem with the statement he made. He said he cares about what the American people think, yet he obviously doesn't care that a very large part of the constituents don't agree with his policy and strategy in Iraq. He thinks that what he thinks is right is supreme.

And at least he admitted his (and his administrations') error in telling the public and the world that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. I want to point out one more thing...

North Korea has the ability to make weapons of mass destruction just as much as Iran, Russia, etc. Should we also invade those countries, take out there leaders, disrupt their government, and install a democratic form of government? By GW's reasoning, we should.

-washboard

The fact is, Iraq was engaged in state Sponsored terrorisim, against our Allies the Isralies. Hussein proved that he was willing to use WMDS against the civilians of his enemies. He did this against the Kurds following the 1st Gulf War, and he did it against Iran in the Iran/Iraq war.

Second, Iraq was in violation of a number of UN Resolutions, and rather than being punished by those resolutions, the Oil for Food Scandal only proved that there were those in the UN helping Hussein benefit from those resolutions.

[middletree]

North Korea has the ability to make weapons of mass destruction just as much as Iran, Russia, etc. Should we also invade those countries, take out there leaders, disrupt their government, and install a democratic form of government? By GW's reasoning, we should.


Not at all. The difference is that when we had the first Gulf War, one of the stipulations placed on Saddam was that he'd rid his country of WMDs and not produce any new ones. He agreed. Therefore, when Bush was convinced that Iraq had not complied, he invaded.

Korea, etc., have not made such an agreement.

[mat1583]

Not at all. The difference is that when we had the first Gulf War, one of the stipulations placed on Saddam was that he'd rid his country of WMDs and not produce any new ones. He agreed. Therefore, when Bush was convinced that Iraq had not complied, he invaded.

Korea, etc., have not made such an agreement.

Yes, we invaded. And then when Bush realized that he didn't have WMD's, did he stop at that? Of course not. We can't start invading countries on false accusations and then use those false accusations as a reason for furthering other agendas. It's the whole idea of "whoops we made a mistake...but while we're here...". I'm add today, so I will hopefully continue with coherent thoughts later on. It's class time right now. lol

-washboard

[cheewiee]

Yes, we invaded. And then when Bush realized that he didn't have WMD's, did he stop at that? Of course not. We can't start invading countries on false accusations and then use those false accusations as a reason for furthering other agendas. It's the whole idea of "whoops we made a mistake...but while we're here...". I'm add today, so I will hopefully continue with coherent thoughts later on. It's class time right now. lol

-washboard

What do you want him to stop? The transition to Democracy to Iraq?

Hussein is still an evil man who shouldn't be in power...

[middletree]

did he stop at that? Of course not. We can't start invading countries on false accusations and then use those false accusations as a reason for furthering other agendas. It's the whole idea of "whoops we made a mistake...but while we're here..."

But at the point, Saddam is out of power (at the time, he was hiding in a hole in the ground), and we had no choice. We couldn't just up and leave.

Look, I'm not defending the Bush policy regarding Iraq. Believe me. But I am clarifying some points that I think you're basing on errant or incomplete information.

[mat1583]

But at the point, Saddam is out of power (at the time, he was hiding in a hole in the ground), and we had no choice. We couldn't just up and leave.

Look, I'm not defending the Bush policy regarding Iraq. Believe me. But I am clarifying some points that I think you're basing on errant or incomplete information.

We destroyed (and bought out) his entire army. He was as good as dead way before we found him hiding in a hole.

-washboard

[mat1583]

What do you want him to stop? The transition to Democracy to Iraq?

ding ding ding! We have a winner! ;)

Tell me please...where has the US successfully instituted a democracy by overthrowing a dictator and at the same time bolstering the economy of that country?

Where have we failed miserably?

-washboard

[Valpo]

ding ding ding! We have a winner! ;)

Tell me please...where has the US successfully instituted a democracy by overthrowing a dictator and at the same time bolstering the economy of that country?

Where have we failed miserably?

-washboard

Japan, West Germany (before combining with the lazy east germans), South Korea

[middletree]

Tell me please...where has the US successfully instituted a democracy by overthrowing a dictator and at the same time bolstering the economy of that country?

Nowhere

Where have we failed miserably?

So you suggest leaving them twisting in the wind? Or do you want to put Saddam back in power?

[cheewiee]

Nowhere


So you suggest leaving them twisting in the wind? Or do you want to put Saddam back in power?

James,

I am dissapointed you didn't consider Japan, or Germany for that matter...

[mat1583]

Japan, West Germany (before combining with the lazy east germans), South Korea

And what is the main difference between then and now?

Whereas the world supported occupation of Japan after WWII, who is supporting our current occupation? And don't tell me that a country supports occupation just by sending troops to combat. Heck, hardly even a quarter of our own citizens believe that the occupation of Iraq is the right thing to do. But hey, GW is the big guy, and it doesn't really matter what we believe.

If you really want to debate it, South Korea's 'democracy' has hardly been successful.

-washboard

[mat1583]

James,

I am dissapointed you didn't consider Japan, or Germany for that matter...

lol, me too man :) I was actually hoping at least someone would come back with a couple answers. It wasn't a one-sided question :)

-washboard

[cheewiee]

And what is the main difference between then and now?

Whereas the world supported occupation of Japan after WWII, who is supporting our current occupation? And don't tell me that a country supports occupation just by sending troops to combat. Heck, hardly even a quarter of our own citizens believe that the occupation of Iraq is the right thing to do. But hey, GW is the big guy, and it doesn't really matter what we believe.

If you really want to debate it, South Korea's 'democracy' has hardly been successful.

-washboard


It doesn't matter who supports it... It matters weather or not the people want it..

We cannot force democracy on the Iraqi people.. The peoples in Germany and Japan were begging for it after their leaders led them to a painfully agonizing defeat. That is the difference between then and now... Then you had one ethinic people coming together for one nation.. In Iraq today, you have three groups of people who will only come together with the other two on their terms...

Then throw in the added element of foreign terrorists and you have an unstable situation..

Personally I think we (The US Military) should just secure the Iraqi Border, and let those three groups go at it...

[Evanescence]

I saw most of GW's press conferance yesterday and liked alot of what I heard...

As for the war, I was opposed to it then and am now. As I watched the news, day after day, I knew it would be a long haul and make a mess. Further, I thought we were overstepping our bounds and it would escalate into a big mess. We should have had a legitimate coalition with fairly equal numbers of troops from a lot of countries to do the task. Not paid troops from firgiven loans and other trade-offs, made to look like a legitimate coalition.

If we're gonna remove dictators, then Cuba, Syria, Iran and N. Korea should be next, right? Fact is, Saddam was an easy target and they knew they'd be in for a long haul, with the spoils going to Haliburton, Carlise etc etc. Thereis much more to this war than meets the eye....

Saddam needed to be removed from power, but not at the hands of the US with Bush and Cheney selling it to the world with propaganda and lies. More than likley he DID posess WMDs and was a menace, but thats NOT the USAs problem. Its the WORLDS problem and if we were part of a worldwide coalition, we'd be in the right and it would have been done better.

I support our troops and think they need to stay. We started it, now we need to end it.....or at least help their country end it. It was ill conceived to begin with, borders left open, weapons stockpiles left unattended etc etc. So now we pay the price....:rolleyes: :mad:

[mat1583]

It doesn't matter who supports it... It matters weather or not the people want it..

We cannot force democracy on the Iraqi people.. The peoples in Germany and Japan were begging for it after their leaders led them to a painfully agonizing defeat. That is the difference between then and now... Then you had one ethinic people coming together for one nation.. In Iraq today, you have three groups of people who will only come together with the other two on their terms...

Then throw in the added element of foreign terrorists and you have an unstable situation..

Personally I think we (The US Military) should just secure the Iraqi Border, and let those three groups go at it...

You stole my next point! How could you? :)

-washboard

I know you may not believe me, but I was seriously going to discuss that in the next few posts. Thanks!

Take France for instance. They went through 10 years of civil war before coming to a democrazy.

[cheewiee]

You stole my next point! How could you? :)

-washboard

I know you may not believe me, but I was seriously going to discuss that in the next few posts. Thanks!

Take France for instance. They went through 10 years of civil war before coming to a democrazy.

The point remains... up until 2003, the thing stoping democracy in Iraq was Hussein, since he has been removed, a new obstruction has arrisen, the Iraqi People...

There is no way around that, it didn't have to be this way, the Iraqi People could have chosen peace.. but they didn't.. that isn't W's fault, it is theirs.

[mat1583]

The point remains... up until 2003, the thing stoping democracy in Iraq was Hussein, since he has been removed, a new obstruction has arrisen, the Iraqi People...

There is no way around that, it didn't have to be this way, the Iraqi People could have chosen peace.. but they didn't.. that isn't W's fault, it is theirs.

So now it's the Iraqi people's fault that their own country is in ruins as hundreds of innocent civilians are being killed weekly? It's their own fault that US bombs rained down on their city? It's their fault that we're occupying their country? I'm not sure exactly sure what you're implying.

-washboard

[middletree]

James,

I am dissapointed you didn't consider Japan, or Germany for that matter...
I'll give you Germany, but not Japan.

[Evanescence]

Whats the civilian death toll in Iraq?

Links anyone?

[Valpo]

And what is the main difference between then and now?

Whereas the world supported occupation of Japan after WWII, who is supporting our current occupation? And don't tell me that a country supports occupation just by sending troops to combat. Heck, hardly even a quarter of our own citizens believe that the occupation of Iraq is the right thing to do. But hey, GW is the big guy, and it doesn't really matter what we believe.

If you really want to debate it, South Korea's 'democracy' has hardly been successful.

-washboard

you plainly asked where has the US successfully set up a democracy, and I plainly answered

and i wont address the second or third part of your statement

[Howlin' Wolf]

So now it's the Iraqi people's fault that their own country is in ruins as hundreds of innocent civilians are being killed weekly? It's their own fault that US bombs rained down on their city? It's their fault that we're occupying their country? I'm not sure exactly sure what you're implying.

-washboard
its their fault that sunnis and shi'a's are destroying each other. the violence in Iraq is infighting. Iraq isnt the only country that has this problem. its our fault that we were so naive to think they would want an occupation after we disposed of Hussein.

[Valpo]

its their fault that sunnis and shi'a's are destroying each other. the violence in Iraq is infighting. Iraq isnt the only country that has this problem. its our fault that we were so naive to think they would want an occupation after we disposed of Hussein.

yeah I agree, I support dubya unlike yourself or a few others but I have been highly critical of post war planning, or lack thereof it seems, but I still agree with the premise of going in

[Howlin' Wolf]

yeah I agree, I support dubya unlike yourself or a few others but I have been highly critical of post war planning, or lack thereof it seems, but I still agree with the premise of going in
sunnis and shi'ites have been fighting since muhammad died. somebody should have informed the administration that when the Iraq fell and there was no authority in the land, the two would resume fighting.

[Evanescence]

sunnis and shi'ites have been fighting since muhammad died. somebody should have informed the administration that when the Iraq fell and there was no authority in the land, the two would resume fighting.

Thats common knowledge actually, it should have been clear...

Not to be a pot-stir'r, but maybe Bush doesn't care how long it takes. As long as there is destruction, there will be rebuilding. As long as there is rebuilding, there will be higher dividends and profits paid on their stocks...

Down with war profiteering!!! :mad:

[mcgreen311]

The point remains... up until 2003, the thing stoping democracy in Iraq was Hussein, since he has been removed, a new obstruction has arrisen, the Iraqi People...


Which begs the question of whether or not democracy is right for the country as a whole, or at least right now.

[cheewiee]

So now it's the Iraqi people's fault that their own country is in ruins as hundreds of innocent civilians are being killed weekly? It's their own fault that US bombs rained down on their city? It's their fault that we're occupying their country? I'm not sure exactly sure what you're implying.

-washboard

Yes, it is the Iraqi's people's fault that they feel the need to blow each other up...

The Iraqi People were handed a country to run... They don't seem to want to run it, they are too busy butchering and blowing each other up...

[cheewiee]

Thats common knowledge actually, it should have been clear...

Not to be a pot-stir'r, but maybe Bush doesn't care how long it takes. As long as there is destruction, there will be rebuilding. As long as there is rebuilding, there will be higher dividends and profits paid on their stocks...

Down with war profiteering!!! :mad:

Perhaps Bush doesn't care how long it takes, because it is inevitablly better to have infighting than leaving a corrupt man in power, making money off the backs of the oppressed, through illegal gains made by the corrupt UN and their flawed oil for food programme....

The fact is, had the UN actually worked the Oil for Food Programme, instead of profiting over it, Hussein would have caved much sooner, or would have been removed by his own people. The UN Enabled Hussein to remain in power FAR FAR longer than he would have been able to maintain it, had he not had the finances tunneled into his security forces via the Oil for Food Programme...

[HotWireD]

I am glad I saw this thread. I have been getting confused recently by references to 'King George' and 'King George the II'. I was starting to think it was a veiled reference to the people, or the government of the United Kingdom - King George being the regent during the War of Independance!

My mind has been put at ease :)

[Valpo]

my biggest gripe with blaming the administration or "the west" in general for third world secretarian violence is the impossible standard the west and America especially is held too yet we write off the middle east as uncivilized or lunatics, case and point president of iran: He gets up there day in and day out sqwaking about the destruction of Israel and its written off and he isnt made to answer his astonishing comments, infact he gets a cute makeover from cbs, but if someone of the west makes a comment that we need to do racial profiling in terror security, for example, then theyre heralded as out of touch and bigoted, ignorant, you name it, and this impossible standard, as wella s the double standard the west is held to over the rest of the world is just as much racism as the KKK as far as im concerned

[kiwisongbird]

North Korea has the ability to make weapons of mass destruction just as much as Iran, Russia, etc. Should we also invade those countries, take out there leaders, disrupt their government, and install a democratic form of government? By GW's reasoning, we should.

-washboard[/QUOTE]

Watch this space!!!! Oh, yes this is a sarcastic comment! - How do we know these places won't be next....

[mat1583]

you plainly asked where has the US successfully set up a democracy, and I plainly answered

and i wont address the second or third part of your statement

My question contained more than just that...but anyway. Why not address it? The Iraqi people don't want US occupation, the insurgents don't want US occupation, US citizens don't want US occupation in Iraq...what's there to debate?

And this may be an aside, but I have a feeling that the death of Castro won't go over very well in Cuba (when he does die). There's bound to be a vacuum of power once he leaves, and I don't think it will be very peaceful.

-washboard (signing out for tonight, i'm exhausted)

[Pouye]

I believe it has been highlighted in this thread that before our invasion, Iraq DID possess weapons that could kill a lot of people at once (WMD's). Since the gulf war, Saddam had been defiant of the USA and the UN. His gutsy war on Israel and invasion of Kuwait in 1991 showed the world that he was willing to do whatever he wanted to do. Israeli intelligence continued to press the USA to keep inspectors in Iraq. When the inspector were given trouble, the USA didn't really push it hard enough, and finally Iraq had many months. It was assumed that during those months that they would stockpile weapons.

This cannot be proven, but my guess was that during the non-inspector months, the majority of the weapons were moved into Syria (whatever weapons there were). The rest could still be hidden in Iraq, with a snowballs chance in hell of finding them in that huge country. Saddam continued to be defiant, because he knew darn well that the Israelis and the USA were suspicious of him, and the typical reaction to suspicion when you ARE NOT guilty of the thing they are suspecting, is to be brash. That is human nature.

I don't believe Saddam ever dreamed that Bush would actually invade and go as far as he did, even capturing the big cheese himself in a hole. I think Bush shocked Saddam. But at the same time, I believe Saddam is smiling in his cell, while eating steak. He knows the situation in Iraq. He knows how two main factions (Sunnis, Shiites) are both wanting control. Saddam managed to do what was nearly impossible through utter terror -- to put the minority Sunnis into power, and hold on to it.

Just to keep things straight, Sunnis are a majority in the Arab and the Muslim world. In Iraq, Shiites are a majority. The vast majority of Kurds are Sunnis. Turkmen are mostly Sunni.
Within the Arab population of Iraq, the Sunni and Shiite doctrines are not related in any way to any ethnic or racial differences.

The invasion, and the beginning work in Iraq went better than planned, except that no WMD had been found. Bush was confident that they would find some, but it simply hasn't happened on any large scale (there were a few unconvincing smoking guns...). However, once there, the only thing to do was finish the job. I will fault Bush for not sending enough troops. I think he underestimated the amount of resistence from not only the factions within Iraq, but also (mostly) Sunni Muslims (of the radical type) that poured into Iraq to help their "brothers". Bush needed AT LEAST to double the size of the forces there to do the rebuilding and government change he wanted to establish. Hindsight is always 20/20, however. If he would have sent twice the number of troops to begin with, I think things would look a little differently in Iraq right now. At least the borders would have been better secured. It would still be a messy business, but having a greater force would keep the unrest manageable, as well as make it harder to "pick off" those who are working in the cities.

Was going into Iraq a good idea? Bush and his admistration, as well as Israel (who were afraid of a second wave missile attack), thought it was time. He got approval from his administration, and basically used US influences in the region (some not so positive) to secure some support for what he wanted to do. He also convinced (sometimes with whatever means necessary) quite a few countries other than those directly in the region to join with the USA in various ways. It is not true that the USA went into Iraq alone, or only with the British. It is true that he failed to gain the support of many key nations, however.

Right now, Bush is simply trying to hang on to his stated mission -- which he stated to finish from the very beginning. War weariness is setting in (as it always does), and the American people are not very willing to send more troops or anything. They know that civil war will likely break out as soon as our troops pull out, and the long term mission has not gone as planned.

Actually, Bush is stuck, and his speech, which I thought left a bit to be desired, was basically a stall tactic. He knows that while he is in office, he has a responsibility to the Iraqi leadership that the USA has attempted to form and strengthen. He knows that an early pullout (desireable, considering the casualties rates of US troops and Iraqi security forces, not to mention the civillians) would undermine the entire process. An early pullout would certainly leave the gap for civil war. Sunnis would like to be back in control, and because a majority of Arabs in the Arab world are Sunnis, they will be willing to help to make this a reality. The Shiites, however, know that at present, they have the upper hand (including the Kurds). They will not let go of this upper hand easily, and they will continue to support the US "tailored" government so as to remain in power and to implament some of their agendas.

Right now, Bush knows he has made two mistakes. He should have waited to invade (or not invaded at all and wait until Saddam really did have WMD), and he should have sent way more troops. I have a hunch that Bush was actually hoping that more troops would come from the international community. When they didn't, he should have sent another huge wave, but by that time things were running full speed ahead and actually going quite well, considering the situation. It took awhile for the Sunnis loyal to Saddam (and those who were simply against the Shiites) to regroup and organize. But once they started to do this, the USA wasn't prepared to deal with the long term occupation with the amount of soldiers on the ground. Now we are paying dearly with large loss of life.

Now the clock is ticking down on Bush. He really thought he could pull things together in his last term -- at least have the troops out and a strong Iraqi security force in place, so that the Sunnis and Shiites do not break into civil war. I have a feeling he knows the clock is running out, and war weariness is at his throat, as well as all of the critics.


Here are Bush's grim options:

First option at this point is to ask for a bunch more troops to finish the job (which may not be approved, and would inferiorate the war weary public).

Second option is to continue on with what is there (including allowing our US soldiers to be picked off). This is difficult, but it may still yet postpone a civil war if the Iraqi security forces are built up enough.

The third option would be to pull out very soon. The public and the administration in general want our troops out. It would seem wise at this point, since we aren't really accomplishing our objectives, and the stability of the country doesn't seem to be getting better, but worse. It may be time to pull out, but I don't think Bush will so quickly abandon the infant government in Iraq, and there are still things that need to be settled.

I'm pretty sure Bush jumped into this knowing it would be the end of his popularity. This was his "last hurrah" (last term), and I think he really wanted to make a firm dent in the "war on terror" which he now is calling his "freedom agenda". Saddam is in jail. Iraq is no longer a threat. Afghanistan is no longer an Al-Qaida safe haven. The USA is tired of monarchical rulers and mullahs in this region of the world. At his heart, I believe Bush does believe that establishing democracies is the path towards ridding the Middle East of powerful Mullahs, Kings and Dictators. However, it is very questionable if the Muslim factions want democracies, or even know how to function through democratic processess.

I respect Bush, unlike many people. He has led this country through some very difficult waters and times. He does what he says he is going to do, even if it costs him. He admits when he is wrong. He might not be the most wise president, but he does seek counsel and has tried to do what he thinks is best for the American people. He pulled us out of horrible financial times before (and especially after) 9/11 by doing the very thing his opposition thought was crazy (tax cuts). He has launched trade agreements and has tried to bolster growth through trade. He has made some mistakes, but like all mistakes, they don't seem like mistakes at the time you make them.

I think his popularity will return many years later. It's a tough world we live in today. Wars everywhere, and tough times. I'm not so sure anyone else would have done better, to be honest, if faced with similar circumstances.

Rock

[Valpo]

I think his popularity will return many years later. It's a tough world we live in today. Wars everywhere, and tough times. I'm not so sure anyone else would have done better, to be honest, if faced with similar circumstances.

Rock


this is kind of how I feel, President Lincoln was asolutely despised when he was elected and he did more to disrupt civil rights in this country than Bush ever has....plus anyone with an operational brain knows the left never gave Bush a chance since he "stole" the election in florida, theyll just keep crying and complaining about that forever

[ObiShawn]

The Iraqi people don't want US occupation, the insurgents don't want US occupation, US citizens don't want US occupation in Iraq...what's there to debate?That isn't completely factual. What the media reports and what is true are completely different things.

The Iraqi people don't want US occupationI have mentioned a few times before that I have a friend in the Marines and one in the Army, they both tell me that every town they go to, the civilians are constantly thanking them and showing their appreciation. Surely they do not speak for the entire Iraqi population, but it is not as black and white as to say "They don't want us there."

the insurgents don't want US occupationOf course, I coulnd't agree more. Only a fool would argue this.

US citizens don't want US occupation in IraqThis is just like with the Iraqi people, it is divided. Some think would should be there, some don't; I even know people that do not agree with the war but do not support US withdraw because we need to finish what we started.

And this may be an aside, but I have a feeling that the death of Castro won't go over very well in Cuba (when he does die). There's bound to be a vacuum of power once he leaves, and I don't think it will be very peaceful. Without a doubt, your "feeling" holds quite a bit of weight and there is a high probablility that you are correct, but when everyone thought Castro was going to die, wasn't his brother set up to take his place?

[Howlin' Wolf]

this is kind of how I feel, President Lincoln was asolutely despised when he was elected and he did more to disrupt civil rights in this country than Bush ever has....plus anyone with an operational brain knows the left never gave Bush a chance since he "stole" the election in florida, theyll just keep crying and complaining about that forever

its amazing at all the conspiracy theories coming out the leftist camps

[Mugirl04]

This is when I like GW.. when he is out front, defending his policies, not hiding behind Tony Snow...
exactly

[Pouye]

There is a group of Iraqis who DO want the occupation. They are the ones involved in the newly established government and they are trying to get enough of a security force trained and established to keep the new government. However, the Sunnis (in general) have always been opposed to the new government. I think most of the trouble you see in Iraq is caused either by Sunnis in Iraq (the minority), or Sunnis outside Iraq who do not want the Shiites to have any power over them in any form. They simply cannot see how a minority can actually have influence in Iraq through a democracy.

Many Sunnis didn't like Saddam. Some did, because he made their lives cushie... but they knew he was a little over the top, and feared him. What the Sunnis were hoping for is that the USA would topple Saddam, and then leave. That way they could move the person they had lined up into power, and start fresh. The Shiites were delighted that the USA toppled Saddam. They saw it as a victory for the Shiites. They are the ones mainly behind the newly established government, and most of the Shiites want the USA to stay long enough so that they can firmly control Iraq with enough security forces (the majority of which are Shiites).

This is a nightmare for the Sunnis, not only in Iraq, but all over the Arab world. They want Sunni ways and laws to be established in this bastion of bossom of the Middle East. The USA, in there mind, are simply on the side of the Shiites, and they do not like what they would call the Shiite/Big Satan coalition.

Bush was hoping that the Sunnis would learn to use the democratic process and work with the Shiites, since the Iraq's Sunni and Shiite populations are really not that far apart as far a population goes. In fact, according to some estimates, it is like 45/55 (Shiites barely have the majority). However, these two Islamic systems are really incompatible in the minds of many (especially the Sunnis), hence the fighting between them. My guess is that when the USA goes, the Sunnis will continue their violence against the Shiites as long as it takes to regain power -- and they will have the support of the majority of Sunnis in the Muslim world. My hunch is that the Shiites will now be significantly difficult to fight, and they may abandon the democratic government and simply do what Saddam did... enforce their power their way.

There is no inherent reason that the USA should support the Shiites over the Sunnis, aside from the fact that many Sunnis are still loyal to Saddam. In Iran, Shiites are the majority; and also in Lebanon, Azerbaijan, Yemen, and Bahrain. Most of the rest of Islam is Sunni majority. It isn't nice to mention, but Shiites have a higher birth rate because their faith allows adultery (or what they call fixed-term temporary marriage - which is now banned by the Sunnis, and is called Mut'a), and this practice is even encouraged for assention in their faith.

Hizballah are made up of Shiites, so there is no inherent reason to support Shiites over Sunnis. Shiites only make up 11% or less of all Muslims, and are considered by most Muslims as a blot on Islam. Like Protestants and Catholics, they are trying to patch up relations. In Iran, it is the Sunnis who are most persecuted.

Rock

[Howlin' Wolf]

make no mistake...arab rulers rule with an iron fist. even the moderate ones like bashar in syria and abdullah in jordan. i am beginning to think it would be better to leave so that they can rule their way.

[Evanescence]

Well, I think we all can agree on this point:

We'll be dealing with Iraq on some level for the next 6-10 yrs and won't see a significant troop withdrawal until Bush is out of office. We might see a 25% TOPS reduction, but its gonna take another midset, Rep or Dem to get them all out of there.

Meanwhile, keep investing in Haliburton and Exxon, their stocks keep going up and up and up and....:rolleyes: