So, how would you stop the War?

[righthand]

Quote by: RickSp I reminds me exactly of Nixon during the later days of Vietnam. That didn't end so well either.

Now we're on the same side but I'm not sure what "That didn't end so well either." means.

Students stopped the war. The 'made love not war' long-haired stoned males and females stopped the war and in the days when information didn't get out. Yes, with some self-preservation but mainly because they were good people. Admittedly from a long away but still the same distance as back then, I see no sign of the same preparedness to stop the rot. Why? I don't even see the question being asked never mind answered.

Why is this Irishman interested. I know that I'm living in the BEST country in the world. Not everything is perfect but in the round, nothing comes close. I could bore you with supporting details but it would lose the point of this thread.

No man is an island. In the case of economies, this is totally true. At one time our economic was so inter-dependent on the UK that the expression of them sneezing and we, well expired was sometimes close. But no more.

The Iraqi adventure for cheap oil was turned western economies near belly up. So whatever the intent starting out was, the opposite is now the case. Pre-2004 election there was dollar a gallon making bush un-electable. What are prices now. It should be firing squad and not impeachment that he's facing. Is he known to have told the truth at all. ALL LIES. And he's your president. Is there no shame left in America. You virtually hounded out of office an excellent president that obviously, the US did not deserve. The rest of the world appreciated his worth. Whatever about with ONE female, who wasn't complaining, he did not do a billionth of the harm that georgie caused you and us.

If bush was assassinated tomorrow I would not shed one tear, but I'd need first to be sure that Cheney was not then president. Frying pan to fire is nothing to how much worse that it would be. So, I'll be hoping that dick gets his first before that most hated man in the world gets his. I don't expect to be lucky once never mind twice. But just so that I've explained my agenda. Those pair of bollocks can destroy my world.

If Iran is attacked by the US or Israel then I believe that it's the end of the American dream. With that end is the end of western trade. The Wall Street Crash will pale. Oil may crash as who will afford it. The beneficiaries will be our numerous eastern 'friends'.

{This started as a simple reply. Hope it hasn't shocked}

[Sonart]

My, my, righthand.. :) that world famous Irish temper getting you all worked up, I see.

Not that I'm a fan of Dear Leader or any such, but he really hasn't actually lied about anything... unless you can point out where he has. Please, direct quotes only, no paraphrasing. That's what the right did to paint Al Gore as a liar, and I'd hate to see the left doing the same thing.

In fact, I suspect Dear Leader actually believes most of the nonsense used to justify the war in Iraq... including every new justification after each previous justification proved wrong. Remember how invading Iraq was going to send a message to the rest of the 'Axis of Evil' and intimidate them into towing the line? Well obviously Iran and North Korea, two nations with nuclear potential and very clear connections to terrorists, are obviously cowering in fear of what the U.S. will do. :rolleyes:

He 'misled' us, because he himself was misled by his willingness to believe what he's told, his lack of intellectual depth and curiosity, and his unflinching pigheadedness.

.

[righthand]

Quote by: Sonart My, my, righthand that world famous Irish temper getting you all worked up, I see.

Tempers, maybe. Emotions, certainly. The notion that as you have sacrificed some then you must sacrifice more, is abhorrent to me. That logic means you never stop sacrificing, EVER. Once the invasion started there could never be any going back. MADNESS. Only a war country could accept this logic. Even that Cindy Sheehan's lady is being spoken of as a traitor.[center]
[/center]

Not that I'm a fan of Dear Leader or any such, but he really hasn't actually lied about anything... unless you can point out where he has. Please, direct quotes only, no paraphrasing. That's what the right did to paint Al Gore as a liar, and I'd hate to see the left doing the same thing. In fact, I suspect Dear Leader actually believes most of the nonsense used to justify the war in Iraq... including every new justification after each previous justification proved wrong. Remember how invading Iraq was going to send a message to the rest of the 'Axis of Evil' and intimidate them into towing the line? Well obviously Iran and North Korea, two nations with nuclear potential and very clear connections to terrorists, are obviously cowering in fear of what the U.S. will do. He 'misled' us, because he himself was misled by his willingness to believe what he's told, his lack of intellectual depth and curiosity, and his unflinching pigheadedness.

First let me say that I know you are drawing me out and the case you put forward is not meant to be real. On that basis I'll only give one example, but its a biggie.

I suppose we must first set parameters as to what is a lie. If you believe in God and I say God does not exist, is that a lie? To you it's a lie to me its not. You cannot prove God exists and all the mega-shouting will not change that. Yet if 99.99999% believed there was a God, then I'd be very stupid - and I'm not - to continue saying there was no God. So what?

Well my proof that BUSH IS A LIER is the same as the above God thing.

A major justification of the war Saddam's connection with 9/11. He MIGHT have genuinely have believed there was a connection at one time. Early evidence was that he was WRONG. He set up Commissions to delay the issue. All eventually stated there was no connection between Saddam and 9/11. For their future promotions ambassadorships etc it was in their interest to find the evidence if there was ANY. NONE. ZERO. I believe that he always knew it was a LIE. He's LYING now and he'll LIE tomorrow.

The only alternative is that on TWO occasions you have 'elected' the BIGGEST GOBSHITE in History. Yes there have been Big Gobshites before, but not elect by 'all' the people. If he does not know that he's lying then he's brain dead. His handlers must tell him before every briefing "Please, please please don't mention Saddam and 9/11 in the same sentence." Maybe they should try some reverse psychology, but that needs a function brain to work. Regan had al least the excuse of old age. Bush is just a dumb young man, you choose.

Need I say any more. Well just WMD to be going on it.

[monty of ll]

There's no doubt that there were many lies told to justify the Iraq war. To believe that Bush wasn't complicit in those lies would mean that he was out of the loop or was himself lied to in order to bring him onside to justify the war. Or he is just plain stupid. Now obviously he's not the brightest bulb in the house but I can't accept that he's that stupid.

IMHO it would be just too Orwellian to believe that Bush was out of the loop and wasn't aware of the lies and I think it would be provable that he wasn't. The Nigerian yellow cake issue is just one example where there were undoubtedly lies told to justify war and someone needs to be held responsible. And of course the WMD lies which need complete and total dedication to the cause for one to be able to digest all those!

So isn't the question rather, was Bush out of the loop or was he complicit in all the lies and fabrications?

[Sonart]

Quote by: righthand First let me say that I know you are drawing me out and the case you put forward is not meant to be real. On that basis I'll only give one example, but its a biggie.

I first began becoming politically aware as a teenager, during the early Vietnam years, and my first debates were naturally with my parents. My dad taught me that most folks believe what they believe for what they see as good reasons and if you really want to debate them you need to know what you're talking about. My mom was a different animal... she saw everything as totally black and white, which led her to believe some rather amazing nonsense about those she disagreed with. I used to end up arguing awith her about the Black Panthers, black rioters, student protesters and other radicals, not because I supported them but because I thought it was important to understand what they're positions really were, and not just the lies invented about them to make them look even worse.

You can't defeat someone ideologically unless you truly understand where they are coming from.

That's why Bush telling Americans that al-Qaeda is attacking us because they "hate freedom" is so stupid.... and harmful. It has nothing to do with their "hating freedom", and until we understand why they oppose us we'll never make any headway in stopping them.

The same applies to opposing Bush and Company. Bush really hasn't lied to us and if we think we're going to catch him on perjury or something, then you're simply playing into their game. Take your big example... Iraq and 9/11. Has Bush ever said Iraq was involved with 9/11? No, not once.

Has he implied it? You bet, all the time. So one could say he's cynically and intentionally misled Americans into supporting his war. If you want to call that lying, go ahead, but Dear Leader and Rumsnamara have been scrupulously careful not to say anything that was knowingly non-factual.

Quote by: Monty The Nigerian yellow cake issue is just one example where there were undoubtedly lies told to justify war and someone needs to be held responsible.

What were Bush's 16 words again? “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .” Kindly point out the lie. After all, the British Government did indeed learn that Saddam had sought uranium in Africa. Bush simply failed to mention that further investigation showed that those efforts resulted in a faudulent hoax and got nowhere.

So once again, Bush has not lied, he's "misled". And that's my beef with the guy... whether he truly believed the case against Saddam, which I think he did, or whether he's pursued his path out of a sense of deep moral conviction, which I think he has, he's misled us... and I mean that in two senses... 'misled' as in lead us to believe things that weren't accurate and 'misled' as in led us badly, through bad policy, bad planning and bad judgement.

That's why I want him impeached for criminal negligence, not perjury.

.

[Hermes]

You do not "stop" a war. You either win or lose.

You can also surrender and bow to your enemy and become a slave.

We will "win" Iraq and evacuate the territory.

We are moving on, bringing civilization to the places that need it most and leaveing tens of millions of freemen in our wake.

How much does that suck...?

[righthand]

Quote by: Sonart I first began becoming politically aware as a teenager, during the early Vietnam years, and my first debates were naturally with my parents. My dad taught me that most folks believe what they believe for what they see as good reasons and if you really want to debate them you need to know what you're talking about. My mom was a different animal... she saw everything as totally black and white, which led her to believe some rather amazing nonsense about those she disagreed with. I used to end up arguing with her about the Black Panthers, black rioters, student protesters and other radicals, not because I supported them but because I thought it was important to understand what they're positions really were, and not just the lies invented about them to make them look even worse.

Your arguments with your Mom remind me of my similar ones with persons of simple faith - belief with no knowledge. It was great for honing argument skills. But I conclude it was morally wrong of me. Slackening important beliefs to prove that I knew more, was wrong on a purely personal basis. Indeed, I might hope that there is a God, but I wont be losing sleep either way.

You can't defeat someone ideologically unless you truly understand where they are coming from. That's why Bush telling Americans that al-Qaeda is attacking us because they "hate freedom" is so stupid.... and harmful. It has nothing to do with their "hating freedom", and until we understand why they oppose us we'll never make any headway in stopping them. The same applies to opposing Bush and Company. Bush really hasn't lied to us and if we think we're going to catch him on perjury or something, then you're simply playing into their game. Take your big example... Iraq and 9/11. Has Bush ever said Iraq was involved with 9/11? No, not once. Has he implied it? You bet, all the time. So one could say he's cynically and intentionally misled Americans into supporting his war. If you want to call that lying, go ahead, but Dear Leader and Rumsnamara have been scrupulously careful not to say anything that was knowingly non-factual. .

Yours is a very good argument. Your discussing proof of a lie is for a court situation, which would be like proving God.

Now remember my God case above. "I suppose we must first set parameters as to what is a lie. If you believe in God and I say God does not exist, is that a lie? To you it's a lie to me its not. You cannot prove God exists and all the mega-shouting will not change that. Yet if 99.99999% believed there was a God, then I'd be very stupid - and I'm not - to continue saying there was no God. So what?" Put it this. If everyone believes that white is now black, the 'new' black, then white IS black. It doesn't matter that you are right, you are 'wrong'.

Now here's the thing. Most, say 80%, of those listening to georgie believe now that he is lying. Your dicesting of this to a 'beyond reasonable doubt' doesn't matter. What people hear and believe is what's important. So the more time he bullshits and people don't believe him, then the shorter will be his days. The multitude of untruths is what will matter.

Remember "well my proof that BUSH IS A LIER is the same as the above God thing" above. Why the SCUTTERS are lashing out at Cindy Sheehan is because they are really really hurting about how their 'hero' has let them down so badly. They lash out at the messenger. Shades of prophet in your own land. Her's might be a damp squib but equally it could snowball. Nobody else seems to be doing much!

[Sonart]

Quote by: Hermes You do not "stop" a war. You either win or lose. You can also surrender and bow to your enemy and become a slave. We will "win" Iraq and evacuate the territory.

Well, things certainly must seem more cut and dried up there on Mt. Olympus, Hermes. Been talking to Ares, have you? Exactly how do you plan to "Win" in Iraq? I mean beyond simply landing Dear Leader on a carrier somewhere and announcing, "We Win! Mission accomplished!".

Oh yeah, I keep forgetting... the insurgency is in its last throes... The Iraqi army and police are shaping up real good... The constitution will be in place any day now... Syria and Iran are completely intimidated and cooperating fully...

.

[Hermes]

>> Exactly how do you plan to "Win" in Iraq?

We will stabilize the safety of the civilian population as best we can while the Iraqis form a government and a viable security mechanism. Then we will evacuate the premises and leave them to decide as freemen on their future.

Same as Germany and Japan. It is not like it has never been done before, though many here seem to see an American failure and the return of the Iraqi population to tyrannical rule as the only possible "victory".

Shame on you all. I have relatives on the ground in Iraq at this moment, they are not opressers, invaders or rulers; they are good men trying to turn around a bad situation that is not Americas fault. We should send the bill for this disaster to the UN.

The rest of your post is nonsense, and deserves no response.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: righthand So, how would you stop the War? I suppose we must first set parameters as to what is a lie. If you believe in God and I say God does not exist, is that a lie? To you it's a lie to me its not. You cannot prove God exists and all the mega-shouting will not change that. Yet if 99.99999% believed there was a God, then I'd be very stupid - and I'm not - to continue saying there was no God. So what? Well my proof that BUSH IS A LIER is the same as the above God thing.

#1
One (among others) of the key U.S. objectives in Iraq, is : the steady oil supplies, while
that oil is a crucial factor in any state's existance.

Off Topic
#2
You can not prove God's non-existance.

God is dead - Nietzsche.
Nietzsche is daed - God.

#3
Syllogism. (See #2).

[Gorgo]

Quote by: Hermes We should send the bill for this disaster to the UN

Again. This is an illegal war. Blaming it on anyone other than the criminals that invaded Iraq is just nuts.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Gorgo Again. This is an illegal war. Blaming it on anyone other than the criminals that invaded Iraq is just nuts.

Address your findings to all these states' representatives who signed U.S. Resolution #1441. They have provided any state with all the power and available means (that may be used) to enter Iraq.

[SteveA]

That's why Bush telling Americans that al-Qaeda is attacking us because they "hate freedom" is so stupid.... and harmful. It has nothing to do with their "hating freedom", and until we understand why they oppose us we'll never make any headway in stopping them.

I agree totally. It makes it sound like if we were less free they wouldn't have attacked us. That's silly thinking.

Look at how most riots start up in cities ... it's not from too much anarchy, it's from a lack of anarchy and the desire for people to be free. Usually when you see a riot start somewhere it's because government blew chunks on something then didn't handle it right, pisses off some people and other people come along for the ride. The same thing is happening in Iraq and could happen with this incident at the ranch. People give their allegience not unconditionally but upon good faith in the intentions of the people granted it. We've been at war for over 4 years, spent hundred of billions of dollars with probably at least 20,000 people dead (counting "enemy" casualties) and when the mother of one of these casualties wants something more than mere words and sacrifices herself, not for her own sake, there's nothing she can gain by standing there, but for the sake of everyone else going through this, many people see it as somehow unpatriotic - as if she couldn't possibly be honest in her intentions, and many people don't even realize that maybe a lot of our troops there and Iraqies feel the same way. She's representative of many people and the fact that some people have gone to support her is necessary.

The same applies to opposing Bush and Company. Bush really hasn't lied to us and if we think we're going to catch him on perjury or something, then you're simply playing into their game. Take your big example... Iraq and 9/11. Has Bush ever said Iraq was involved with 9/11? No, not once.

Even if we were lied to it wouldn't be anything particularly novel. There's plenty of manipulative information out there but we do little in expecting honesty from the media or government, so it's something we've brought on ourselves really. But changing that does mean to hold people accountable for their actions.

Many people supported Bush as the president and I voted for him the first time but it could have been someone else in the office and likely something similar would have happened. We've got bigger issues than what a single person, in a position of power, that we placed there, does. He can't do anything without a lot of congressional support and we somehow put these guys in office who vote 100 to 0 for a new national ID card (I know some people want such a nationalize indentification system and more screening of people inside the country but I don't think 100 to 0 is representative of any popular views for the subjects of this ... but we'll likely go along with that too etc.)

No you can't blame Bush anymore than most anyone else. He's just an easy target.

[righthand]

righthand So, how would you stop the War? I suppose we must first set parameters as to what is a lie. If you believe in God and I say God does not exist, is that a lie? To you it's a lie to me its not. You cannot prove God exists and all the mega-shouting will not change that. Yet if 99.99999% believed there was a God, then I'd be very stupid - and I'm not - to continue saying there was no God. So what? Well my proof that BUSH IS A LIER is the same as the above God thing. Quote by: Rainbow #1 One (among others) of the key U.S. objectives in Iraq, is : the steady oil supplies, while that oil is a crucial factor in any state's existance. Off Topic #2 You can not prove God's non-existance. God is dead - Nietzsche. Nietzsche is daed - God. #3 Syllogism. (See #2).

"#2 You can not prove God's non-existance."
Is this a case of double negative or some word game?
Are you saying "You can prove God's existance". If so then belief in God is out. Is like
Delay proves GOD does NOT exist that I had so fun with.

DeLay goes on in great detail to state the case of the separation of church and state. The point is no matter how good his argument on the legalities and so on, nothing will persuade an intellectually challenged person that if it's not there then its not meant to be there. (God talk) It's the same for the atheist - he cannot see God therefore he/she doesn't exist. Perfect logic on both sides. So what's the point. GOD IS NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION EITHER. Ergo, using DeLay logic - GOD DOES NOT EXIST. Equally so for witches, leprechauns, afterlife, brain-dead lobbyists and so on. None of them are in the Constitution. But remember this is only DeLay logic. It has little to do with the real world. So in the real world... God cannot be in the Constitution. Belief in God is a matter of FAITH. To be in the Constitution, proof would be required as to the existence of God. So, no God in the constitution. All this is as obvious as hell(?) to me and I'm sure it may be old hat to many. But some have a DeLayed reaction and never get the point. The article continues with...How can America continue going forward when it appears to spend most of its time checking back to the beginnings of its short history for the answer to everything. What it could achieve if it's head wasn't stuck up it's a** for every move, which should be forward but in reality is backward.

Now I sure there was some reason why you quoted me "righthand So, how would you stop the War?" but I fail to make any connection and your three points. Now your points were extraordinary interesting, really extraordinary, but connected to "So, how would you stop the War?", I don't think so. I'm sure you will tell us of some deep meaning. I'm fascinated awaiting your reply. Please sent your reply to "georgie porgy bushie, c/o gorgeous george galloway, respect, england." Thank you.

I'm sure you have some great ideas for the thread. It's "How would you stop the War?"

[righthand]

Quote by: SteveA Look at how most riots start up in cities ... it's not from too much anarchy, it's from a lack of anarchy and the desire for people to be free. Usually when you see a riot start somewhere it's because government blew chunks on something then didn't handle it right, pisses off some people and other people come along for the ride. The same thing is happening in Iraq and could happen with this incident at the ranch. No you can't blame Bush anymore than most anyone else. He's just an easy target.

Excellent post.

Your point about the riots reminds me of the early days of Baghdad. I've mentioned it in posting #7 of the thread.

On the strong man point, I have asked the question already about after the capture of Baghdad. US soldiers in the main stood about while Iraqis looted their hospital, schools, museums, anything. Why. Under Martial Law it is perfectly acceptable to shoot looters. It's one of the few times that summary execution is OK with me. Five, ten dead looters would have indicated to all that the US was in charge. Iraqis would have understood too. As it was it was downhill all the way thereafter. It was never explained why. It's clear Rumsfeld didn't send enough to do the job - yet he kept his - but it doesn't explain the inactivity of those there. Now I know that's off this thread but Saddam is reasonably justified in putting down a rebellion using reasonable force. Reasonable force is a very heavy instrument in US interpretation when the force is US, even against its own citizens. So while all the belated bleating about Saddam's excesses. What were countries doing when it was happening. That's about the only time that it matters. Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia to save them from Pol Pot is one occasion that there was purpose. Who had the strength and means to do something then?

The Iraqi after Saddam well understood strong governance. It stuck me then that it sent out the most appalling message that looting of schools, hospitals and so on was OK under US rule. I don't think you have recovered from this bad start. If you had, once you started that way, continued the gentle approach as the English did, then it may have paid off.

No, you changed radically to the brute force tactics. They'd had Saddam for God's sake. Did you think you could out brutal him! Every car became a target, every door to be kicked in, every female room to be invaded, every male manacled and tortured in notorious prisons. And the list goes on and on. You choose to ignore that Saddam was theirs and on many levels preferable to the US infidel. No matter how much you tell yourselves how much good you have done, it will never never ever be appreciated or understood by the Iraqi.

You think and talk of bringing civilization to the oldest longest civilization in history aside from the Chinese. On cultural terms, the US is a wasteland compared with Iraq. Worse, all the excuses you had for invasion were LIES. Shame on America for a century! I don't know of a worse fit-up job in history. Like all LIES, the TRUTH will OUT. Who's playing. NOT the liars, no, in bigger and better jobs. No, innocent brave foolish idealistic young boys and girls enticed by greedy bastards to kill mostly innocent Iraqi.

Bush logic: the sacrifice of so much American blood would be in vain if we don't spill more American blood. Translation: The OIL is not flowing yet, but if we stick at it the rewards will be huge!!

You have no excuses. You allowed the same to continue for decades in Palestine, actually promoted by you. You'll achieve in Iraq what you will achieve in Palestine. Iraq will divide in three non viable state-lets, always fighting. One will join with Iran. In time every barrel of OIL will cost you more than its worth.

SOLUTION:
PH #25;
RH #30 ALL WHITE CHRISTAN TROOPS OUT. ALL MUSLIN TROOPS IN.
RH #30 Its Indians, Pakistani, Indonesia, Central Asians Stans, UK Muslims, North African, Central African, anywhere that is NOT white nor Christan.

{If I'm sounding desperate with the message it because we are getting more and more hits from SCUTTERS, who are into the practice of splattering crap, often containing brain matter, to cover as wide an area as possible. They've invaded "Hiroshima - US State Terrorism to end WWII" and are turning up here.}

[Sonart]

Quote by: hermes We will stabilize the safety of the civilian population as best we can while the Iraqis form a government and a viable security mechanism. Then we will evacuate the premises and leave them to decide as freemen on their future.

Let me answer this way... at the beginning of the war, the administration made a variety of predictions regarding the war's outcome. We, on the other hand, those of us opposed to this war from the beginning, made a set of conflicting predictions. Examples: they predicted that we be greeted by cheering throngs and no resistance, that we'd be out in 6 months, that the campaign would be paid for by Iraqi oil, that we have Iraq's infrastructure up and running with a year, etc. etc. We, on the other hand, predicted that the occupation would become stalled by an unending insurgent conflict, fueled by Muslim jihadis from throughout the Muslim mideast, that would cost us lives, treasure and make the U.S. a global pariah, without an end in sight.

Seeing as how virtually nothing the administration promised in Iraq has come to pass, and nearly everything we predicted has, perhaps you'll forgive me if I simply don't believe your scenerio will come to pass.

Quote by: hermes Same as Germany and Japan. It is not like it has never been done before, though many here seem to see an American failure and the return of the Iraqi population to tyrannical rule as the only possible "victory".

The difference being that Germany and Japan made a rather magnificent and nearly successful effort to conquer and rule the world, but were themselves conquered and completely surrounded by vast populations of their former victims who hated them. They had no insurgencies and no friendly neighbors to supply them had they existed.

Iraq, on the other hand, was threatening no one when we invaded, and is surrounded not by enemies but by vast populations of angry Muslims who support the Iraqi insurgency and hate us.

Quote by: hermes Shame on you all. I have relatives on the ground in Iraq at this moment, they are not opressers, invaders or rulers; they are good men trying to turn around a bad situation that is not Americas fault. We should send the bill for this disaster to the UN.

Yes, I'm sure our boys and girls over there are the salt of the earth, doing their duty for gawd, country and each other. I have nothing but respect for the courage and duty of America's service men and women. But supporting our troops is not the same thing as supporting a flawed, ill-conceived policy. The UN didn't get us into this mess, LBDubya and Rumsnamara did... the UN advised strongly against it.

The lessons of Vietnam, Beirut Airport, Somalia, and the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan all pointed to the same conclusion... pinning our troops down occupying a large, hostile nation, surrounded on three sides by even more hostile populations, in a corner of the world were terrorism is a practised art form and many a young Muslim's only desire in life is to die killing Americans, was a BAD IDEA.

Hermes, you have every right to be proud of your relatives now serving their country. I'm proud of them for you. But you also have every right to be, and damn well should be, angry as hell at the criminally negligent incompetence of this administration's policies and the danger they've placed your relatives in, with no concept of how to end that danger.

Quote by: hermes The rest of your post is nonsense, and deserves no response.

What, the parts where I point out that nothing in Iraq is going the way it was supposed to, that Iraq is getting worse, not better, just like we've always told you it would? Whatever you say, Hermes. :rolleyes:

.
_________________

[oranged]

As I've said before, America is conquering Iraq. I think the only way is not to stop the war but to turn it in a different deriction. Attack people who really are terrorists. Not Iraqi "Insurgents" who are defending their freedom. They will stop fighting, when America stops trying to secretly expand it's empire.

[righthand]

Sonart Let me answer this way... at the beginning of the war, the administration made a variety of predictions regarding the wars outcome. We, on the other hand, those of us opposed to this war from the beginning, made a set of conflicting predictions. Examples: they predicted that we be greeted by cheering throngs and no resistance, that we'd be out in 6 months, that the campaign would be paid for by Iraqi oil, that we have Iraq's infrastructure up and running with a year, etc. etc. We, on the other hand, predicted that the occupation would become stalled by an unending insurgent conflict, fueled by Muslim jihadis from throughout the Muslim Mideast, that would cost us lives, treasure and make the U.S. a global pariah, without an end in sight. Seeing as how virtually nothing the administration promised in Iraq has come to pass, and nearly everything we predicted has, perhaps you'll forgive me if I simply don't believe your scenario will come to pass. Iraq was threatening no one when we invaded, and is surrounded not by enemies but by vast populations of angry Muslims who support the Iraqi insurgency and hate us. Yes, I'm sure our boys and girls over there are the salt of the earth, doing their duty for gawd, country and each other. I have nothing but respect for the courage and duty of America's service men and women. But supporting our troops is not the same thing as supporting a flawed, ill-conceived policy. The UN didn't get us into this mess, LBDubya and Rumsnamara did... the UN advised strongly against it. The lessons of Vietnam, Beirut Airport, Somalia, and the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan all pointed to the same conclusion... pinning our troops down occupying a large, hostile nation, surrounded on three sides by even more hostile populations, in a corner of the world were terrorism is a practised art form and many a young Muslim's only desire in life is to die killing Americans, was a BAD IDEA. Hermes, you have every right to be proud of your relatives now serving their country. I'm proud of them for you. But you also have every right to be, and damn well should be, angry as hell at the criminally negligent incompetence of this administration's policies and the danger they've placed your relatives in, with no concept of how to end that danger.

"NY NY So good they named it twice." Well the same applies to this post.

Bush logic: the sacrifice of so much American blood would be in vain if we don't spill more American blood.
Translation: The OIL is not flowing yet, but if we stick at it the rewards will be huge!!

"Hermes, you have every right to be proud of your relatives now serving their country." If anything does happen to his relatives, he can be certain of one thing - the C-in-C will not be at the funeral. Every dead soldier is an embarrassment to him. Dead heroes are out. If on the remotest chance they are invited to visit, DON'T GO. Reading another mothers words what ..

she encountered was an arrogant man with eyes lacking the slightest bit of compassion, a President totally "detached from humanity" and a man who didn’t even bother to remember her son’s name when they were first introduced. Instead of a kind gesture or a warm handshake, Sheehan said she immediately got a taste of Bush arrogance when he entered the room and "in a condescending tone and with a disgusting loud Texas accent," said: "Who we’all honorin’ here today?" ... "The whole meeting was simply bizarre and disgusting, designed to intimidate instead of providing compassion. He didn’t even know our names," said Sheehan. "Finally I got so upset I just looked him in the eye, saying ‘I think you can imagine losing someone. You have two daughters. Imagine losing them?’ After I said that he just looked at me, looked at me with no feeling or caring in his eyes at all."

[center]Mom, Who Lost Son In Iraq, Talks About 'Disgusting' White House Private Meeting With Bush
[/center]

[rmnunez]

I think how to get out of the mess has nothing to do with how the US got involved or whether it was illegal. The facts are the way they are, how to get out of it derived from them. My suggestion would be improved reconstitution of the local forces, renewed offensives against the 'insurgents' and assorted terrorists, but I think there needs to be more local control too.

I'd like to see the Bushian viceroy enunciate a clear policy of power transfer to entities of government which successfully assume responsibilities, and find it backed with actions on the ground. If the health ministry advances in delivering their services, the US has to give them more reconstruction dollars, they get to hire more people and assume greater responsibilities. Likewise for the education, police or public safety, military, customs and borders, water, electrical, highways and such. In provinces were governors had proven more adept at promoting alternatives to insurgency, more authority would flow, Coalitioneers would move behind the scenes and gradually relinquish any control.

I see a dynamic situation where the insurgency to some extent is fed by dissatisfaction with quotidian circumstance which could be improved with adequate employment and infrastructure, which is held back in part by the insurgency.

[xshakes]

Because we can not go back in time, we must handle the situation we have now. I would double the amount of troops in Afghanistan. I would at least double the troops in Iraq and double the construction companies taking part in Iraq (including French, Germans, Spanish, or whomever wants to get paid.. Give them 6 to 9 months to control/build what they need. Tell them that we will buy all the barrels of Oil they can pump out of the ground at two-thirds of the current value for 2 yrs. To recoupe (sp?) our loses and build up their economy. During that 2 yr run up, mandate that all SUV's and Large trucks be converted to Biodiesel and open refueling stations/pay truck stops and gas stations to carry Biodiesel. After that they are on their own. Because getting off of Oil will keep us from being held hostage to an unstable region of the world.