Iraq wants no part of more U.S. soldiers

[RickSp]

Iraq wants no part of more U.S. soldiers

As President George W. Bush challenges public opinion at home by committing more soldiers to Iraq, he is confronted by an essential paradox: An Iraqi government that does not really want them. The Shiite-led government here has not opposed more troops. Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki said as much in a videoconference with Bush on Saturday. But the government is skeptical of American intentions and is determined to push back the reach of Washington's authority to run the war the way it wants. Haidar al-Abadi, a member of Parliament who is a close associate of Maliki's, said: "The government believes there is no need for extra troops from the American side. The existing troops can do the job." "You can't solve the problem by adding more troops," said Redha Jawad Tahi, a Shiite member of Parliament. "The security should be in the hands of the Iraqis. The U.S. should be in a supporting role." Even as the extra troops are readied — more than 20,000, Bush was expected to propose — the Iraqis are drawing up their own plans.

The American people, the majority of the military establishment, and even the Iraqis oppose Bush's escalation of the war in Iraq, yet Bush insists of staying the course" with more of the same. Does anyone believe that it is a good idea to jump deeper into a civil war that we barely understand? Does anyone believe that 20,000 more troops will make any difference?

[Autolykos]

Perhaps those extra troops are needed for an ulterior goal: replace the current Iraqi government with a new one.

- Rob

[Athena]

I think want we do in Iraq should put up to a vote of the Iraqi people. Since we took the action that so disrupted their lives, we have a moral obligation to protect the people if they ask for it. But that decisions is theirs and no one else's. Let them vote on what the US does now.

[another day]

What I want to know is who are these 20,000 new soldiers and why on earth would they be willing to put their lives on the line for this cause? It has nothing to do with homeland security. It's like cleaning up the garbage for george bush.

[RickSp]

Bush's recent madness just highlights two of his oft repeated lies - that he "listens to his generals" and that the "government of Iraq is sovereign". Both are equally false.

[RickSp]

Quote by: another day What I want to know is who are these 20,000 new soldiers and why on earth would they be willing to put their lives on the line for this cause? It has nothing to do with homeland security. It's like cleaning up the garbage for george bush.

This reminds me of the advice given by Chief Hendrick to the British when they sent soldiers to relieve Fort Edward during the French and Indian Wars. He said, "If they are to fight, they are too few; If they are to die, they are too many." Putting an additional 20,000 troops will succeed only in getting more Americans killed for nothing.

[The_Genius]

With such murderous foreign policies in existence, Bush still wonders why "terrorists" target USA?

Don't get me wrong, I condemn terrorists as much as I condemn any murderer....

However, here's a shocking question...

How many innocent people died on 9/11?

May be 3000? 4000? 5000?

How many innocent people died in Iraq (a country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11)?

A lot more than 9/11 victims....

It seems silly to count the number of victims that died and terrorism can never be justified. However, who is the real terrorist?

George Bush...

[Praxius]

How about you guys pull all your troops and plop Bush in Iraq and let him fix it all himself.....

slap a hammer and some nails in his hands and get him to work.....

He might get a few boards up on some buildings before someone car bombs him..... in either case, he'd get some positive construction done and you guys would be rid of one corrupt ass in power.... the Iraqi's would get what they want, and peace all over the world would ensue.

*snickers*

[another day]

Quote by: The_Genius With such murderous foreign policies in existence, Bush still wonders why "terrorists" target USA? Don't get me wrong, I condemn terrorists as much as I condemn any murderer.... However, here's a shocking question... How many innocent people died on 9/11? May be 3000? 4000? 5000? How many innocent people died in Iraq (a country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11)? A lot more than 9/11 victims.... It seems silly to count the number of victims that died and terrorism can never be justified. However, who is the real terrorist? George Bush...

perhaps a 100 times more then on 9/11 infact.

even when you look at us casualities, his war on iraq has basically created another 9/11, resulting in another 3000 dead americans. its ridiculous...governments need to be stopped and his is at the top of the list.

[Nurf]

Quote by: Athena I think want we do in Iraq should put up to a vote of the Iraqi people. Since we took the action that so disrupted their lives, we have a moral obligation to protect the people if they ask for it. But that decisions is theirs and no one else's. Let them vote on what the US does now.

When a country is at war, there is no such thing as moral obligation, to a certain point. I don't believe that the US should police the world, but we went into Iraq for a reason, and that reason was to replace their leader and rebuild their government. If we pull out early, nothing good will happen. All the president is doing is staying in Iraq until the job he set out to do is done.

[Nurf]

Quote by: Praxius How about you guys pull all your troops and plop Bush in Iraq and let him fix it all himself..... slap a hammer and some nails in his hands and get him to work..... He might get a few boards up on some buildings before someone car bombs him..... in either case, he'd get some positive construction done and you guys would be rid of one corrupt ass in power.... the Iraqi's would get what they want, and peace all over the world would ensue. *snickers*

Thanks for the input, foreigner.

[bishop]

Quote by: RickSp Iraq wants no part of more U.S. soldiers The American people, the majority of the military establishment, and even the Iraqis oppose Bush's escalation of the war in Iraq, yet Bush insists of staying the course" with more of the same. Does anyone believe that it is a good idea to jump deeper into a civil war that we barely understand? Does anyone believe that 20,000 more troops will make any difference?

some new interpretations of bush's speech feel that it's more about being a pretext for war with iran, than a plan to solve the unsolvable situation in iraq. he did state that he was moving in new patriot missile batteries, as well as naval support - and it's painfully obvious that these weapons have nothing to do with battling the insurgency.. and just today, we raided the iranian consulate, which as you know is legally understood as being an invasion of iranian sovereign territory.

i think bush is baiting iran to do something that he can use as an excuse to enlarge the war to include iran..

[Athena]

Quote by: RickSp Iraq wants no part of more U.S. soldiers The American people, the majority of the military establishment, and even the Iraqis oppose Bush's escalation of the war in Iraq, yet Bush insists of staying the course" with more of the same. Does anyone believe that it is a good idea to jump deeper into a civil war that we barely understand? Does anyone believe that 20,000 more troops will make any difference?

Bush has explained, the danger of the US not winning in Iraq is, terrorist control of oil.

Bush & Cheney are about oil. Reagan was about oil. Eisenhower was about oil. These are Texas backed Republican candidates, and it is about oil, because if we loose control of oil, the US economy will crash, and no will be talking about what a great nation the US is.

Personally, I hate the media for remaining ignorant of oil and therefore, ignorant of what Texas backed politicians are really about. I am curious about why Bush denied invading Iraq is about oil, and why he now tells us we must win in Iraq so the "terrorist" don't bet control of oil. Why should we care who controls Arab oil if it is not our economy on the line? Why does the reality about oil and our economy seem a taboo subject?

[Athena]

Quote by: Nurf When a country is at war, there is no such thing as moral obligation, to a certain point. I don't believe that the US should police the world, but we went into Iraq for a reason, and that reason was to replace their leader and rebuild their government. If we pull out early, nothing good will happen. All the president is doing is staying in Iraq until the job he set out to do is done.

Who says when it comes to war there is no moral obligation? I guess it doesn't matter who says that, but a justification of such a statement is in order. We went into Arab territory for oil. Period. The US has been on an immoral course since 1920's when it was aware that the consumption of oil would sooner or later lead to economic disaster and war. The US knowingly remained on the path of economic disaster and war, or at least should have been aware of this reality, because there is no excuse for not being aware of it. How is it justified to claim there is no moral obligation directly tied to staying on a path of war and then actually engaging in war, killing thousands of people and spending the last of national wealth, making this dying country a debtor country?

[RickSp]

Quote by: Nurf When a country is at war, there is no such thing as moral obligation, to a certain point. I don't believe that the US should police the world, but we went into Iraq for a reason, and that reason was to replace their leader and rebuild their government. If we pull out early, nothing good will happen. All the president is doing is staying in Iraq until the job he set out to do is done.

We went to Iraq for a reason? We went to Iraq becuase Bush wanted a war in the worst wayand that is what he has gotten. What right did we have to invade a country that never attacked us? And if you claim that we have no "moral obligation" then why should we continue in what is obviously a bloody disaster? Why move from failure to debacle?

For anyone paying attention, the latest escalation is opposed by those that the right wing claims that we are supporting:

In Baghdad, Bush Policy Is Met With Resentment

Iraq’s Shiite-led government offered only a grudging endorsement on Thursday of President Bush’s proposal to deploy more than 20,000 additional troops in an effort to curb sectarian violence and regain control of Baghdad. The tepid response immediately raised questions about whether the government would make a good-faith effort to prosecute the new war plan. The Iraqi leader, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, failed to appear at a news conference and avoided any public comment. He left the government’s response to an official spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, who gave what amounted to a backhanded approval of the troop increase and emphasized that Iraqis, not Americans, would set the future course in the war.

[RickSp]

Quote by: bishop some new interpretations of bush's speech feel that it's more about being a pretext for war with iran, than a plan to solve the unsolvable situation in iraq. he did state that he was moving in new patriot missile batteries, as well as naval support - and it's painfully obvious that these weapons have nothing to do with battling the insurgency.. and just today, we raided the iranian consulate, which as you know is legally understood as being an invasion of iranian sovereign territory. i think bush is baiting iran to do something that he can use as an excuse to enlarge the war to include iran..

I agree. Bush is pushing for a larger and more dangerous war to include Iran and possibly Syria. The man appears to want to start a new world war. What is the definition for criminal insanity?

Ahmadinejad is charged with being one of the students who seized the US embassy in Teheran in '79. Now that we are raiding consular offices and holding Iranian consular officials effectively as hostages, I wonder if the right wingers see the parallels or the irony. Probably not. Those folks aren't big on either history nor irony.

[Fonceai]

What amazes me is that he and his administration are the only ones thinking it's a good idea.

He fires his top military leaders to appoint new ones.

And he wants thousands and thousands of Americans in an area of the world that has been priming itself for a very large conflict that is just about to reach critical mass.

I truly feel bad for the Iraqi people.

They are split into three groups, the Don't-Cares, the Get-Outs, and the Please-Stays

The DCs knew their place in Saddam's dictatorship and lived their lives quietly. Very few DCs were victims of the random abuse we always heard about.

The GOs are the ones fighting us, and their numbers are growing as more Iraqi families lose members who were innocent bystanders.

The PSs are the ones who were black-bagged and beaten, and all those other atrocities about which we heard.

When the small minority (the PSs) want democracy, but can't overthrow the existing government or get support from the DCs, the country clearly isn't ready for government reform.

Yet American troops are dying over there for the Exec. Branch's foolishness.

[Autolykos]

@Fonceai

Don't forget that some of the "Please-Stays" are the ones who want(ed) to usurp power for themselves.

- Rob

[bishop]

Quote by: fonceai What amazes me is that he and his administration are the only ones thinking it's a good idea.

all the more justification for congress to do everything in its power to neuter bush asap.

at the end of the day, the decision to enlarge the war is bush's - just as the decision to invade iraq was bush's.. the military is his toy, and he loves playing with his toys.

it's downright frightening how this insane idiot just does whatever he wants with complete disregard for what the public wants. despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of the country is against the current course of the war, and wants to see us begin to withdraw from iraq - bush, as usual, does the exact f'ing opposite and decides on escalating the conflict and potentially enlarging the war to include iran... this psychotic sob is the most dangerous man on the planet as far as i'm concerned.

[Autolykos]

Perhaps you haven't noticed, Bishop, but Bush tends to ignore things he doesn't like. Thus I have little faith that Congress will be able to restrain him.

- Rob