Bush's New Iraq Plan

[CaptainStrykez]

What would YOU do to "win"?

 

There is no victory in the real sense of the word. It is an occupation w/ a puppet gov't who's primary purpose is to make sure that trade coming in and out of Iraq benefits the multinationals that are in cahoots w/ the Carlyle group, etc.

 

What's being sold is the idea of "victory" by escalating so that we can pull out. There will be no real pullout, just a reallocation of troops into other countries, as is the neocon agenda.

[kapkomet]

There is no victory in the real sense of the word. It is an occupation w/ a puppet gov't who's primary purpose is to make sure that trade coming in and out of Iraq benefits the multinationals that are in cahoots w/ the Carlyle group, etc.

 

What's being sold is the idea of "victory" by escalating so that we can pull out. There will be no real pullout, just a reallocation of troops into other countries, as is the neocon agenda.

Oh good god. Now it's all about Dick Cheney and conspiracies again. That s*** gets old, real quick.

[CaptainStrykez]

Oh good god. Now it's all about Dick Cheney and conspiracies again. That s*** gets old, real quick.

 

 

What's the conspiracy? PNAC, anyone? If there's any conspiracy, it's cloaking the operation in the shroud of democracy and american security when, at best, those are extreme bastardations of those concepts. That's the conspiracy. The cold, hard facts are written down in plain view.

[Balta1701]

So *we* are dying (literally) to give Iraq back to the them. And it will be a victory when we are out?

Haven't you listened to a single word the President has said in the past 2 years? As long as we stay, we have not lost. The only defeat is pulling out.

[RibbieRubarb]

Well I guess you could call the right, the Sox, because they have been inbetween the whole time. Sit on the fastball, and give yourself a chance.

 

I hope that's the last time I see my beloved White Sox used as an analogy towards the Bush Administration.

[Rex Kickass]

Haven't you listened to a single word the President has said in the past 2 years? As long as we stay, we have not lost. The only defeat is pulling out.

 

Only if he's trying to get Iraq pregnant.

[Balta1701]

Only if he's trying to get Iraq pregnant.

At this point, that looks like a better plan than the one we're trying now. Ok everyone, new strategy; we need to get Iraq pregnant!

[CaptainStrykez]

At this point, that looks like a better plan than the one we're trying now. Ok everyone, new strategy; we need to get Iraq pregnant!

 

Well, we've been f**king it long enough...might as well.

[RibbieRubarb]

Well, we've been f**king it long enough...might as well.

 

But we can't get Iraq pregnant where we've been f**ing it! Wrong place.

 

[kapkomet]

So it's ok for Harry Reid, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, et. al to support raising the number of troops as recently as three weeks ago, and then when the president wants to do it, it's "the worst foreign policy ever"?

 

Come the hell on. It's all politics, and most of you are in the same pile of s*** that our politicians are swimming in and feeding you.

 

No matter what happens, it's never going to be good enough for you people. Period. The fact is, we're there, and we need to get it right, no matter if it was all wrong or not until today. Learn from the mistakes, fix it, and fix it right.

[Rex Kickass]

I support increasing troop size. I support escalation. If its going to be a big enough escalation that it will make a difference.

 

But the problem with this new proposal is that there's nothing new about this proposal. It's deadlines and benchmarks without reward or consequence for meeting them.

 

It's doing exactly as little as possible to let this situation not get worse... but the plan is pretty lame.

 

A "surge" is only really a surge if they come there at about the same time, but they're going to trickle in over months, not days or weeks.

 

We're relying on Iraqi army cooperation which is something we've done before and didn't work.

 

American troops under this plan will be fighting under Iraqi command - to help prop up a prime minister who is beholden to Muqtada al-Sadr, who is arguably one of the biggest stumbling blocks to sectarian peace in Iraq.

 

There may be a military solution or victory here, but not without a political victory. The other concern is that this "new way forward" completely ignores every single recommendation of the Iraqi Survey Group and a whole host of other people that the President made a pretext of listening to.

[Balta1701]

So it's ok for Harry Reid, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, et. al to support raising the number of troops as recently as three weeks ago, and then when the president wants to do it, it's "the worst foreign policy ever"?

Can you provide evidence for this being factual? Especially within the last few weeks? I've seen this fired out a couple times by Republicans in the past few days and haven't yet seen any evidence that it's true. I mean, yes, there is always Lieberman out there, but for a counter-point, in June of 06, the Reid/Levin amendment calling for the start of withdrawal by the end of 2006 received 38 of 44 Dem votes in the Senate.

 

There were certianly points at which a majority of Democrats even would probably have supported more troops, such as back in 03-04. But that certainly doesn't mean that the situation on the ground or in our army can't possibly change over the period of a number of years.

[mr_genius]

Can you provide evidence for this being factual?

 

Pelosi's new chairman of the House Intelligence Committee wanted/wants more troops.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16062351/site/newsweek/

[kapkomet]

Can you provide evidence for this being factual? Especially within the last few weeks? I've seen this fired out a couple times by Republicans in the past few days and haven't yet seen any evidence that it's true. I mean, yes, there is always Lieberman out there, but for a counter-point, in June of 06, the Reid/Levin amendment calling for the start of withdrawal by the end of 2006 received 38 of 44 Dem votes in the Senate.

 

There were certianly points at which a majority of Democrats even would probably have supported more troops, such as back in 03-04. But that certainly doesn't mean that the situation on the ground or in our army can't possibly change over the period of a number of years.

Harry Reid was quoted in an article in the Wall Street Journal yesterday that on December 17, 2006 he said he supported a "troop surge". I read it last night. I don't have the link in front of me, but the point of the article is these assholes (including Bush to an extent) playing politics with the efforts over there.

 

Rex, for the most part, I agree with your post. I think there are some "thresholds" or "benchmarks" that are not being made public that have been given to Iraq. I also think that GWB has pretty much told the Iraqi PM that this is the last time we will watch our efforts of securing the neighborhoods go by the wayside by letting the insurgency run rampant right afterwards.

[Rex Kickass]

Reid said he supported a "surge" if it was part of a phased withdrawal of troops FWIW.

 

And Kap, I don't think that the Bush administration has any secret carrots or sticks attached. We're there til we win (whatever that means), or until the next President sends them home.

[NorthSideSox72]

Harry Reid was quoted in an article in the Wall Street Journal yesterday that on December 17, 2006 he said he supported a "troop surge". I read it last night. I don't have the link in front of me, but the point of the article is these assholes (including Bush to an extent) playing politics with the efforts over there.

 

Rex, for the most part, I agree with your post. I think there are some "thresholds" or "benchmarks" that are not being made public that have been given to Iraq. I also think that GWB has pretty much told the Iraqi PM that this is the last time we will watch our efforts of securing the neighborhoods go by the wayside by letting the insurgency run rampant right afterwards.

Reid is an a**. Not much else to say about him.

 

Please note that I was a poster who, about a year ago, thought that a troop surge was one possible option that was better than the current situation. But, I meant a HUGE surge, like doubling it, if that was even possible. Otherwise, its pointless.

 

Now though, even 250k troops I think is not the best option. Better than today, but not the best.

[kapkomet]

Reid said he supported a "surge" if it was part of a phased withdrawal of troops FWIW.

 

And Kap, I don't think that the Bush administration has any secret carrots or sticks attached. We're there til we win (whatever that means), or until the next President sends them home.

I do. I think Bush has told the Iraqi PM that the American people are going soft on the issue and if they don't step up NOW, we're done, and Iraq becomes a vaccuum where they all will get killed.