Bush's New Iraq Plan

[NorthSideSox72]

So, Bush is going to give a speech on Wednesday evening setting out a "new plan" for Iraq.

 

Here are some discussion questions...

 

--Will you watch the speech?

 

--What do people think it will include and not include?

 

--Which of those things do people think will be effective, if any?

 

--If you were him, right now, what would you do for Iraq?

[Texsox]

I will watch it.

It will include reasons why a timetable will not work.

It will include some poison pill where in if the Dems start to muddle too much, they will have ca ca on their faces if it fails, while assuring he looks good regardless. (A Dem would do the same thing)

It will include why Iraq is closer to controlling their own destiny.

He'll mention Nuke by name and say with him there, it's about over.

It will include a dozen examples of how were helping ordinary Iraqis who love us.

He'll applaud how Iraq gave SH a fair trial before hanging him.

It won't have any images of him landing on an aircraft hanger with Mission Accomplished in the background. That was so years ago.

[Balta1701]

He'll mention Nuke by name and say with him there, it's about over.

Aw hell, so we are going into Iran.

[jasonxctf]

So, Bush is going to give a speech on Wednesday evening setting out a "new plan" for Iraq.

 

Here are some discussion questions...

 

--Will you watch the speech?

 

--What do people think it will include and not include?

 

--Which of those things do people think will be effective, if any?

 

--If you were him, right now, what would you do for Iraq?

 

 

Watch the speech: No.

Include: More BS on how we must win this war to protect America from terrorism.

Not Include: A timetable for leaving or any comment stating that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 as well as that Saddam and Osama hated each others guts before our invasion.

Effective: Short term bump in approval rating for Iraq and about 3 more months of US citizen's patience.

If I was Him: I'd take my ball and go home. You can't force something onto people who don't want it in the first place. Admit our gigantic mistake (like a man) apologize and move on.

Edited January 8, 2007 by jasonxctf

[CanOfCorn]

So, Bush is going to give a speech on Wednesday evening setting out a "new plan" for Iraq.

 

Here are some discussion questions...

 

--Will you watch the speech?

 

--What do people think it will include and not include?

 

--Which of those things do people think will be effective, if any?

 

--If you were him, right now, what would you do for Iraq?

 

Is this part of or separate from his State of the Union? Just curious.

 

I will try to watch it.

Include: Lots and lots of thanking of the troops there and returned. Lots of diatribe about how the parties have to work together to form a united front.

Won't include: A love letter to Nancy Pelosi. Any solid exit strategy.

Effectiveness: I think this will be like a open sore...we will leave it alone and it will go away on its own (only in the face of another, equally disgusting sore).

What I would do: Man, what can he do? He has to stay the course. He's got to buckle down and figure out the best way to a) get us the heck up outta there, 2) leave Iraq in a stable place and d) do it while straddling the Republican-Democrat fence.

 

In the immortal words of Jim Carrey in Bruce Almighty: Good luck with all that.

[Balta1701]

Is this part of or separate from his State of the Union? Just curious.

Definately separate from the SOTU. This address will be almost fully about Iraq. The SOTU will be in late January, and from what we've heard so far, the rumor is he'll be talking about energy independence again for like the 5th straight year, and he'll probably spend a lot of time either trying to work with or infuriate the new Congress, depending on what he wants to do.

[NorthSideSox72]

Definately separate from the SOTU. This address will be almost fully about Iraq. The SOTU will be in late January, and from what we've heard so far, the rumor is he'll be talking about energy independence again for like the 5th straight year, and he'll probably spend a lot of time either trying to work with or infuriate the new Congress, depending on what he wants to do.

Last year's SOTU was hilarious. He preached all this energy independence stuff, sounded great, and then not 30 minutes later the white house spokesperson said, basicaly, that he didn't mean it.

 

Classic.

[KipWellsFan]

What I want to hear: How the hell we're going to hold off the Taliban in Afghanistan.

[Balta1701]

What I want to hear: How the hell we're going to hold off the Taliban in Afghanistan.

QUIET TRAITOR!!!!

[The Critic]

What I want to hear: How the hell we're going to hold off the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Dude, Afghanistan is SOOOOOO 2003....

[mr_genius]

--Will you watch the speech? Maybe

 

--What do people think it will include and not include? Probably include him wanting even more money for the war.

 

--Which of those things do people think will be effective, if any? Nothing will be effective. Lost cause IMO.

 

--If you were him, right now, what would you do for Iraq? Secretly support another dictator to take over Iraq. Seriously, I have no idea. I guess we need to try to win this, even though i doubt it is possible. Actually I'd like to hear from Nuke to see if the situation over there is better than the media tells us. Hopefully it is.

Edited January 9, 2007 by mr_genius

[NorthSideSox72]

Actually I'd like to hear from Nuke to see if the situation over there is better than the media tells us. Hopefully it is.

Nuke will be giving us some diary entries, which will be quite cool.

 

I think you will get differing opinions on things over there. For me personally, I know two military folks and one journalist who have spent a lot of time over there. They all describe the situation as some form of miserable or another. Yes, there are the occasional good stories. But they seem to be the exception to the rule.

[mr_genius]

I know two military folks and one journalist who have spent a lot of time over there. They all describe the situation as some form of miserable or another. Yes, there are the occasional good stories. But they seem to be the exception to the rule.

 

 

Yea, that sounds about right.

 

I know this idea is kind of radical, but I would support us looking into breaking up Iraq into 3 smaller countries, one for each major ethnic group. That could make things even worse though, they might start invading each other.

 

Edited January 9, 2007 by mr_genius

[Balta1701]

Yea, that sounds about right.

 

I know this idea is kind of radical, but I would support us looking into breaking up Iraq into 3 smaller countries, one for each major ethnic group. That could make things even worse though, they might start invading each other.

 

They could invade each other and that wouldn't be that different from what we're seeing right now. The 3 problems though are these:

 

1. The actual migration; these are simply not homogeneously distributed areas. You can't draw very solid lines on the map and say "this area is sunni, this is shi'ite". There are general regions where one group or another is a majority, but in order to get to the ethnic groupe point, basically you're running the India/Pakistan option. If we designate an area as going to 1 sect, we are therefore forcibly removing every single person of another sect from that area. And probably ending a lot of lives in the migration.

 

2. The Sunni state would be a guaranteed disaster. The Northern and Southern parts of Iraq are the parts with the oil; the parts that would go to the Sunnis would be a desert with very little in the way of resources to stimulate economic activity. Basically, we'd be setting up a state which is virtually guaranteed to turn into a failed state, and it just would happen to belong to the same sect of Islam as Al Qaeda.

 

3. Iraq's neighbors. They just aren't nice people. Iran thus far has strongly opposed a Kurdish state, as has Turkey. The creation of one could draw in both militaries. Any Shi'a state would be even more friendly with Iran than the current government, and any Sunni state would draw close with the Saudis. And if a conflict did break out even between the small ones, it could wind up being an Austria-Hungary and Serbia type situation, where their religious brothers decide to join the conflict.

[NorthSideSox72]

Yea, that sounds about right.

 

I know this idea is kind of radical, but I would support us looking into breaking up Iraq into 3 smaller countries, one for each major ethnic group. That could make things even worse though, they might start invading each other.

 

The UK did that with India/Pakistan/Bangladesh. It was quite painful at the time, but eventually, it sort of worked. Weird thing is, India still has a lot of Muslims, and Pakistan has a fair number of non-Muslims (but its still majority Muslim). India has been a model for religious peace, but Bangladesh has been an economic failure, and Pakistan is constantly dancing on the edge of falling to extremists. So, using that historical model, there could be some positive and some negative to the idea.

 

I still think the best possible plan involves the U.S. pulling back into, and working with, Kurdistan - which would become its own nation. Turkey and Iran don't like the idea of an independent Kurdistan because of the ethnic Kurds within their own borders, and fears of guerilla action. But, U.S. presence there would negate some of that effect. Further, with US security forces much more dense in Kurdistan, and a relatively (key word: relatively) stable nation to go home to, many Kurds in Turkey and Iran would likely "come home". The rest or Iraq can find its own way to whatever end it wants to, but at least the new Iraq and Kurdistan would both have oil reserves. The US would just want to trade assurances of stability for pipeline access from Turkey to get the oil out.

[Balta1701]

What I want to hear: How the hell we're going to hold off the Taliban in Afghanistan.

We're going to do it by moving even more key troops from Afghanistan to Iraq as part of the surge.

 

See, we'll retreat from Afghanistan completely, and the Taliban will be so confused they'll all just surrender.

[Balance]

Meet the new plan!!!

 

Same as the old plan.

[Balta1701]

Troops from the 82nd airborne are already arriving in Iraq. 800 by tommorrow supposedly.

 

Thankfully, the President was open and honest and happy to deal with Congress in a bipartisan way in this matter. He ignored the opposition on both sides.

 

There are also not nearly enough armored vehicles for the newly arriving troops.

[HuskyCaucasian]

some one please correct me if I am wrong here, but sending in 20,000 troops to secure a SINGLE city seems a little flawed. That's like sending in the national guard to defend Springfield when Joliet and Schaumburg are getting attacked by insurgents. It just doesn't work that way. ONE city does not stabilize a country.

[Texsox]

some one please correct me if I am wrong here, but sending in 20,000 troops to secure a SINGLE city seems a little flawed. That's like sending in the national guard to defend Springfield when Joliet and Schaumburg are getting attacked by insurgents. It just doesn't work that way. ONE city does not stabilize a country.

 

Well we sent in 100,000 troops to one country to stop terrorism,in this country, so this seems just as logical.

[Balta1701]

Sam Brownback comes out against Bush's escalation plans. Brownback is in the 08 running for the Republicans, so it might be worth asking which way he thinks the winds are blowing.

 

Seriously, Congress has to be able to do something to at least force Mr. Bush to show some progress rather than just dumping people in. Sen. Kennedy's proposal to prevent more forces from being moved to Iraq without Congressional approval ought to have a veto-proof majority given how many Republicans have given opinions in the negative on this.

 

Well we sent in 170,000 troops to one country to stop terrorism,in this country, so this seems just as logical.

fixed that for you.

[kapkomet]

Sam Brownback comes out against Bush's escalation plans. Brownback is in the 08 running for the Republicans, so it might be worth asking which way he thinks the winds are blowing.

 

Seriously, Congress has to be able to do something to at least force Mr. Bush to show some progress rather than just dumping people in. Sen. Kennedy's proposal to prevent more forces from being moved to Iraq without Congressional approval ought to have a veto-proof majority given how many Republicans have given opinions in the negative on this.

fixed that for you.

"ESCALATION". Nice buzzword of the day.

[Rex Kickass]

Escalation is exactly what it is. A surge implies a temporary thing.

[Balta1701]

"ESCALATION". Nice buzzword of the day.

I will call it a surge when I have some indication as to exactly when it will end. Doesn't even need to be a date, just a benchmark would do fine. Some suggestion that it might actually not be a permanent troop increase other than saying it won't be. Congress may well be able to attach enough strings to the funding to turn this into a surge rather than an escalation, but from having read the speech last night, thus far, there is nothing that makes it temporary other than Mr. Bush saying that it is.

 

And considering that last night he also openly threatened Iran and Syria, with no suggestion of any diplomacy at all any more, he's also threatening even further escalation.

Edited January 11, 2007 by Balta1701

[kapkomet]

I will call it a surge when I have some indication as to exactly when it will end. Doesn't even need to be a date, just a benchmark would do fine. Some suggestion that it might actually not be a permanent troop increase other than saying it won't be. Congress may well be able to attach enough strings to the funding to turn this into a surge rather than an escalation, but from having read the speech last night, thus far, there is nothing that makes it temporary other than Mr. Bush saying that it is.

 

And considering that last night he also openly threatened Iran and Syria, with no suggestion of any diplomacy at all any more, he's also threatening even further escalation.

So Balta, let me get this accurate. Let's "talk" to Iran and Syria, both of whom want to destroy everything we stand for. Let's "talk" to Iran, who openly says they want nuclear weapons. Let's "talk" to all these people who don't give a rat's ass about how we live in a free society when they oppress and kill their own people who dare have disagreements with their philosophical points of view. Let's "talk" to people who say the holocaust never existed. YEA! Let's BE NICE! :) Please.

 

Let's also ask the question another way. Semantics aside, how come we never see a poll from CBS asking "do you want to win the war in Iraq"? I bet that answer is a resounding yes. But we can't show THAT in the arena of public opinion, now can we?

 

It IS a surge, because as the president said, none of this is a blank check for an unlimited period of time. Somehow, you don't want to ever listen to that, do you?

 

So, do YOU want to win the war in Iraq?

 

(waiting for the quibble of "what's winning"?) - and yes, I have an answer, and so did the president last night, if you wanted to listen to it. Most of you do not want to listen to it, because you don't agree with what "winning" is.