President Bush: We're Sending 20,000 more troops to Iraq.

brettw22

What's weird is to dislike McCain and in the same thread be such a Bush supporter. That's almost more telling than anything else IMO..... At least McCain will try to do what's right rather than Bush's "ignore all opposition" approach........

The problem with your attempts at baiting people into this..........um........discussion?.....is that Bush IS/WAS wrong. It doesn't take different ideas to open your eyes to the fact that this country is in the down-slope because of how poorly things have been handled. You can support everything going on over there all you want, but I'd rather see the amount of money they've dumped into that shithole of a country into our own. Of course securing our country is a priority.........but not when it's handled in such a reckless fashion that we have plan after plan after plan of varying levels of "W dumb".......

Bush will ride Iraq to the end of his presidency because he knows that ball has already been rolling and he has no credibility to attempt his version of "fix" to anything else with the model he's created over there.

He IS an idiot......and I'm glad that he's getting a wakeup call from his own party lately......

shack

brettw22 wrote:

He IS an idiot.

Disagree with his policies all you want. You are in the majority. He IS NOT an idiot...wrong maybe....idiot no. IMO.

brettw22

Maybe more accurate to say that he's the dumbest one in his particular circle of friends.........but he does a pretty good job at projecting stupidity........

Demiurge

brettw22 wrote:

What's weird is to dislike McCain and in the same thread be such a Bush supporter. That's almost more telling than anything else IMO..... At least McCain will try to do what's right rather than Bush's "ignore all opposition" approach........

The problem with your attempts at baiting people into this..........um........discussion?.....is that Bush IS/WAS wrong. It doesn't take different ideas to open your eyes to the fact that this country is in the down-slope because of how poorly things have been handled. You can support everything going on over there all you want, but I'd rather see the amount of money they've dumped into that shithole of a country into our own. Of course securing our country is a priority.........but not when it's handled in such a reckless fashion that we have plan after plan after plan of varying levels of "W dumb".......

Bush will ride Iraq to the end of his presidency because he knows that ball has already been rolling and he has no credibility to attempt his version of "fix" to anything else with the model he's created over there.

He IS an idiot......and I'm glad that he's getting a wakeup call from his own party lately......

I love how you try to argue that your opinion is fact. Bush is/was wrong. Based on what?

The country is in a down-slope? We're in one of the best economies we've had in years and have completely bounced back since 9/11.

Ah well, figured with another post we'd still get nothing more than name calling. Got any of those super awesome progressive ideas yet? I'm sitll waiting to see one person give us some ideas in this thread. I'll keep baiting you with the question, but the cookie has gotten stale.

unc2701

Demiurge wrote:

Ah well, figured with another post we'd still get nothing more than name calling. Got any of those super awesome progressive ideas yet? I'm sitll waiting to see one person give us some ideas in this thread. I'll keep baiting you with the question, but the cookie has gotten stale.

Dude, people keep on posting things, and you keep on ignoring them...

ND13

I think he's looking for something original...not someone else's regurgitated ideas.

jdhdiggs

Hey now, mine was original, if a bit sarcastic!

Demiurge

unc2701 wrote:

Dude, people keep on posting things, and you keep on ignoring them...

You mean James' post? He was joking. Funny a person who agrees with the WOT was the only one who could come up with something. I think that was his point.

Demiurge

jdhdiggs wrote:

Hey now, mine was original, if a bit sarcastic!

Well, there you have it....

shack

Wrong/right/stupid/smart....it all depends on one's point of view. There are no absolutes.

unc2701

Hmmm... so no one, anywhere, has any idea how to get us out of Iraq, but Bush was right all along. Something doesn't add up.

I'll say it again, we are stuck in Iraq. 20,000 troops will not cut it. Do we accept the loss, pull out and leave them ****? You say that's not an option. The only true solution requires 100,000+ more soldiers. So until Bush grows some balls and accepts the political suicide that is the draft, Iraq will be a mess and a recruiting ground for terrorists.

warren

aaharvel wrote:

General Abizad and co., the generals on the ground that disagree with Bush, the man simply replaces them. Cherrypicking intelligence with no thought of rationality whatsoever. "I'll listen to the generals on the ground" my ****.

The man is **** clueless, as well as the people who still support his policies. Even the majority of soldiers overseas want to come home according to the new Military Times Poll.

And that's not unamerican to say this. Standing to up to incompetence for the good of the country is what being an American is all about.

This guy is a worse President than Nixon or Carter.

Amen aaharvel, Amen.

Demiurge

unc2701 wrote:

Hmmm... so no one, anywhere, has any idea how to get us out of Iraq, but Bush was right all along. Something doesn't add up.

I'll say it again, we are stuck in Iraq. 20,000 troops will not cut it. Do we accept the loss, pull out and leave them ****? You say that's not an option. The only true solution requires 100,000+ more soldiers. So until Bush grows some balls and accepts the political suicide that is the draft, Iraq will be a mess and a recruiting ground for terrorists.

I'll make it easier. What's the Democrat plan on Iraq?

ND13

There really is only one real solution to the Iraq situation........

Let the military do what it takes to gain control. Quit tying their hands with politically correct ****.

It really is that simple.

Demiurge

ND13 wrote:

There really is only one real solution to the Iraq situation........

Let the military do what it takes to gain control. Quit tying their hands with politically correct ****.

It really is that simple.

Yepper.

PhantomOG

ND13 wrote:

There really is only one real solution to the Iraq situation........

Let the military do what it takes to gain control. Quit tying their hands with politically correct ****.

It really is that simple.

My only question is what then after we gain control? As soon as we leave or start downsizing all this crap will just start up again. Or at least that's what the pessimist in me believes.

markmarc

I wonder what $300 billion would have done towards energy independence, and $57 billion towards securing our borders and ports have accomplished towards freeing us from their oil?

unc2701

markmarc wrote:

I wonder what $300 billion would have done towards energy independence, and $57 billion towards securing our borders and ports have accomplished towards freeing us from their oil?

No ****, dude. That's what I've said from the start, but too late for that.


"Let the military do what it takes to gain control. Quit tying their hands with politically correct ****. "

Is that not more or less what I said? 20,000 troops isn't what it takes, Bush is just scared to say what it's going to take. He's the commander in chief. He's the one that needs to take charge of this situation.

brettw22

Spin is cute, isn't it? If it comes from a bush supporter it's not regurgitated but if it comes from a non-supporter it is? Ridiculous.......

Bush is wrong in how this started, in how it's going, and how he wanted it to keep going. Got Hussein.....great.......want a cookie for doing something that wasn't even in the realm of the scope of this thing? Not from me......It might have been a necessary thing overall, but I'm not going to give him props because he completely lied to get it done.

I don't care what the reported economy status is.....bush has racked up so much debt it's mind boggling.....If that doesn't play into how "great" our economy is as of late, so be it, but I personally won't ignore it away like they'd want us to. I don't know exactly what he's so great at, but he sure knows how to write a blank check.......How many hundreds of billions have we spent on this war and how the hell does the debt of this country not get factored into how we're doing?

I do find it humorous that people **** and moan that the media only reports negative of the war. First of all, if there was a lot of positive about how this war was going, I suspect that W's approval rating wouldn't be the dumpy 32% it is. (I know, I know......they probably asked weak questions).....

I think it's also amazing how little we actually see of the thousands of soldiers that are coming home permanently disfigured. Of course there are going to be injuries involved in a war.......but how many of them are being put on TV to actually show the everyday joe the actual price that's being paid for the civil war we're involved in at this point and still wanting to fund?

I don't have the answers on what is or is not needed at this point. I'm not a war strategist and I don't have the slightest idea of what goes into coming up with those numbers based on pentagon intelligence, soldier training, goals, etc. Also, don't let my inexperience as a war planner kid you into thinking I can't look at the situation as a whole and say w is/was wrong (if you need an IMO at the end of this so you can digest it not as fact, so be it)......

ND13

I believe that if the insurgents got to really see our military's "REAL" capabilities, they'd fold like a cheap tent. We'd also leave a permanent military presence there. Hell, we have permanent military posts all over Europe, Asia and other parts of the Middle East, so setting up an Airbase, an Army post, and a Naval port wouldn't be out of the norm for us, in nations we've either defeated or defended in war. We'll be the one's rebuilding their infrastructure anyways, so I have no issue with us taking a few thousand acres for future military use.

jdhdiggs

At this point, a realistic strategy is to start leveraging other militaries in the area. Broker a deal with Isreal (They won't have troops, but they would need to be kept in the loop or they might get a bit jumpy), Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi where their militaries would move in and help train the Iraqi's and maintain peace. This is the "boots on the ground" surge needed. 100,000 troops? Probably not, but being of the same religious and ethnic group would relieve tensions so 50,000 plus the US troops would be sufficient (A total guess)

All of those countries have the means to help, unfortunately they are Sunni and not Shia. Limit their support to Baghdad and the NW. Bribe them with USD and/or military support to get their co-operation

Now you must court Iran or obliterate it. In this case, I would see what it would take for them to withdraw their militia's from the areas and let things get settled. Perhaps even offer them to move formally into Iraq as a military force in less populated area. Move the current US troop levels into the SE region of the country to maintain peace and keep an eye on Iranian's. (keep your friends close, your enemies closer)

Now, you already have a multinational arab force providing peace with US air support and the big stick should they not behave. The US should then be able to begin withdrawing troops to a level comparable to those stationed in South Korea. Supplement that with a token UN force. Have the Arab armies withdraw as the Iraq army re-equips and re-trains.

There is a lot of risk in the plan, but I know the Sunni players would play the game, now would Iran? Does the US have the balls to leverage ally's in the region and move in other militaries that the insurgents can disguise themselves as?

In the end there are two facts:
1). We do have to win there in some manner or fade into the background on the world stage.
2). US forces can not maintain the peace without overwhelming force while arab based troops can.

Based on that and the lack of will/support in the US for a all US force, we would have to do something like this to "win" and get are boys home in a reasonable time period.

tonyb

markmarc wrote:

I wonder what $300 billion would have done towards energy independence, and $57 billion towards securing our borders and ports have accomplished towards freeing us from their oil?

Would have gone to the higher ups special interests....you know,like building a highway to an island off Alaska that has a population of 24 people.Stuff like that.Borders?We are with ya on that,too bad congress has no intention of doing anything about it.All those years without a war....did we spend that kind of money seeking alternative energy?Nope.As soon as we get in a war,all of a sudden you think congress needs that money.HAHA.

unc2701

Good write up JDH. In the absence of all that other stuff what does 20,000 troops accomplish?

Has Bush even attempted to try something like this? Don't say his hands are tied, he can propose anything he wants, but all he comes up with is 20,000 troops.

Right now, he's the REMF putting the small guys in the line of fire without a real plan.

ND13

It's ridiculous to blame everything on Bush. I do believe it was both parties that allowed this situation to start in the first place. Now that it hasn't gone as everyone thought it would, supporters start jumping ship lke the rats they are.

I'm not a Bush fan, but I'd still rather have him than Kerry.

My comments about regurgitated ideas goes for both party's supporters.

unc2701

ND13 wrote:

It's ridiculous to blame everything on Bush. I do believe it was both parties that allowed this situation to start in the first place. Now that it hasn't gone as everyone thought it would, people start jumping ship lke the rats they are.

I'm not a Bush fan, but I'd still rather have him than Kerry.

My comments about regurgitated ideas goes for both party's supporters.

Fine, but back to the original question, what good is Bush doing right now (or as of Wednesday?)

ND13

unc2701 wrote:

Fine, but back to the original question, what good is Bush doing right now (or as of Wednesday?)

I think he's doing what he believes he can get approved at this juncture. If he asked for more troops, now, they'd balk. If the 20k can make some sort of progress, then asking for more in say...6 months, would be easier.

tonyb

I think it's also amazing how little we actually see of the thousands of soldiers that are coming home permanently disfigured. Of course there are going to be injuries involved in a war.......but how many of them are being put on TV to actually show the everyday joe the actual price that's being paid for the civil war we're involved in at this point and still wanting to fund? Gotta love the liberal talking points....thousands should be paraded on national Tv to show us sheepish citizens how bad the war is.More people die every day from murders, drunk drivers etc.Than in this war.Nobody cry's for them.Maybe we should parade their mangled bodies on TV.Fact is Brett,more die in a month,in our own town of chicago,than do in this war.So don't cry about casualty's.I am not a 100% Bush supporter either.He did do some things wrong,but also some right.Support our troops,our president,get the job done and come home,bottom line.

jdhdiggs

In response to Brett’s #140 post by paragraph:

Second: Why was he wrong? Hindsight is 20/20. A lot is being made about different intelligence estimates or cherry picking them and the generals. The fact is, at the time he made the decision, it was the correct one based on a majority of the reports. Several generals said that Rumsfeld’s plans would work, one didn’t want to go along with it and they were wrong to get rid of the squeaky wheel? Did he knowingly lie, or was he given bad information? Notice all the agencies and people on both sides of the aisle that supported him to start with had the same information.

Third: The economy has been great since the bottoming out of the 99 recession and 911 impacts. One of the strongest in history. His tax policies actually worked and the government continues to take in record revenue. I do agree that he has too much of a blank check approach and his (and RINO) approaches to domestic policy have been horrid.

4th/5th Um, do you even watch the evening news? I see one to two stories every night about soldiers families and the horrors they go through. Sheehan is on the news at least weekly. There is A LOT positive about this war. I have talked to Saudi’s and Iraqi’s who hate the US, but like what we are doing for Iraq. Have you heard any story on it? The nightly news is: “X soldiers killed, Y wounded. Here’s a grieving mother in Ohio, just reminding you that everyone hates Bush so you need to as well. The economies tanking BTW…” Yeah, no spin at all…


UNC: I think it (20,000) is too little too late, but I do know that the other countries are ready to step in for their own interests if the US leaves completely. The US does need to maintain a “big stick” presence until the Iraqi army can stand on its own. That doesn’t mean we can’t leverage other allys in the area.

Have you ever heard of force on force modeling? These modelsare used when the military decides how many of what kind of troops go into a region. Unfortunately, a lot in that work is based on assumptions that can really eff up the results such as we had to use force on force models to plan an assault on Russia (in grad school) and we ended up with B-52’s penetrating the airspace in trailing formation at altitudes low enough that farmers could pick them off. Needless to say, a zoomies assumption was WAY off on some items. I would guess that a bunch of people made some bad assumptions and FUBAR’d the situation.

What I’m guessing they missed was Syrias co-operation with Saddam and Al-Quida along with Irans military support. Now, they are probably assuming that the enemy will see how stubborn we are and start to lose there will while the Iraqi’s build their own force. Just a guess.


Anyways, have fun kids, its happy hour!

ND13

tonyb wrote:

I think it's also amazing how little we actually see of the thousands of soldiers that are coming home permanently disfigured. Of course there are going to be injuries involved in a war.......but how many of them are being put on TV to actually show the everyday joe the actual price that's being paid for the civil war we're involved in at this point and still wanting to fund?Gotta love the liberal talking points....thousands should be paraded on national Tv to show us sheepish citizens how bad the war is.More people die every day from murders, drunk drivers etc.Than in this war.Nobody cry's for them.Maybe we should parade their mangled bodies on TV.Fact is Brett,more die in a month,in our own town of chicago,than do in this war.So don't cry about casualty's.I am not a 100% Bush supporter either.He did do some things wrong,but also some right.Support our troops,our president,get the job done and come home,bottom line.

Bingo!!! All this internal strife is doing NOONE AT ALL(except for certain political figures) any good whatsoever. We need to unite and get the job at hand accomplished, with a positive outcome. If that takes more troops and $$$, then so be it. We'd spend just as much in the long run, if we continue on the current path, then we would by stopping the ****-footing around and taking the necessary steps to give our military the tools needed to finish the job quickly and with precision.

aaharvel

Well let's talk about what the alternative to direct military engagement would might look like then. Up until now the forum's collective thinking has revolved around a choice between more of the same versus giving in to inevitable chaos. Like Demi said, it's the inevitable chaos alternative that needs to be looked at, even if it's from the mind of a laymen.

Would Sunni insurgents and al Qaeda celebrate with a lovefest if we "cut and run" (i prefer to call it admiting to the reality that some cultures just aren't meant to be changed- and that's the price that's paid in trying to reflect our practices on another) OR... would the Sunnis immediately turn the violence immediately upon the jihadists? I think the latter. Afghans may be get pushed around by the Taliban- but Iraqi Sunnis won't put up with that ****. IMHO.

Would the insurgents, after getting what they wanted upon the US leaving, simply throw the towel to any neighbor with strength? Say... Iran perhaps? Hell no. Not when there's so much at stake. Culture clashes, ideological religious destinies, the keys to one of the world's largest oil supplies... you get the idea.

Look I may not be on the front lines, but like Demi said, they're approximately 10-20 ppl here that honestly follow current events on a daily basis, and I'm one of them- regardless of the simple dismissiveness by those who disagree with what I have to say. And I know that whatever the alternative to Bush's war that's being rationally and thoughtfully discussed, whether here at Club Polk or at the dinner table or on Capital Hill, it's past due. It's been past due.

So here we go.. beginning with "the speech":

The most glaring contradiction was the implied threat to walk away, or whatever Bush and his supporters want to call it these days.. "Cut & Run", "Flip Flopping" (which is ironically what Bush and over half of Republicans are now doing... whoops) etc, etc.. We seem to be saying to Maliki's fledgling government- "Hey, you guys better step up or else we're leaving (cutting and running, whatever.)" This, after a few sentences saying that we can't leave the place without a victory. Soooo... quick review based on the word of Bush:

We can't leave Iraq without a victory.
But unless Maliki and the Iraqi army get their act together, there is no victory.
If they don't get their act together, we'll leave anyway.

Now.. is everybody paying attention? :rolleyes:

The speech's strategy is this: There's a fledling democracy in Iraq, and it's defending itself from Holy Warriors, and the sectarian violence that ensues. According to Bush, it is therefore required that we send more trrops to defend this fledgling government. Well I'm not buying it. Iraq doesn't need more American troops.. it needs the Iraqi government and it's troops to step the f--k up. General Abizad and other commanders on the ground know this. They relay this thread of common sense to President Bush back home- and what does he do- retires them. Literally. Why? Because that's not what he wants to hear. Cherrypicking intelligence, and our troops are left to pick up the pieces.

The reality facing us is that as time goes by, it's becoming apparently obvious to most anyone with a brain that the government that Bush describes in his speech does not exist. The reality of the Saddamn Hussein hanging (and make no mistake i'm glad the ****'s dead), is that Maliki and his body of government appear to be nothing more than a front for Shiites factions. It's also becoming apparent that the future of the new Iraqi government lies in the hands of the Shiite death squads. That is why there is a civil war going on over there- and anyone who doesn't think there is a civil war needs to pull their head out of their **** ASAP.

Regardless of our intentions, which are noble, democracy is not going to happen there unless a miracle happens. It's simply the difference in culture and having Bush ignore his generals on the ground, the popular opinion at home, and reality in general is placing the lives of American soliders at great risk in a civil war that continues to escalate.

In the end, it all comes down to the next few months. Bush is asking for America more time, and in essence more American casualities. The President imo is in complete and utter denial, disbelieving the overwhelming evidence on the ground over there- and since 2003 it's transformed beyond all recognition. He doesn't want Iraq to be his legacy- who would- and I believe that he has every intention of putting this off and giving it to the next poor sap who inherits the office.

The path to victory for him and his neo-conservative supporters is this- Democracy vs. terror. His way of thinking and his supporters unwillingness to face reality and instead to blame it on a media that merely is reflecting public sentiment- or on a party that for 6 years now has not been in control of one federal branch of government is still of no surprise to me. And that's just sad. If this was 2004 all over again, it would make sense from a political vantage point. But this is not 2004. All of the ones that were accused of being anti-American, not patriotic, TERROR SUPPORTERS, or liberal wimps- have thus far been proven right. And we were right. And Bush was disastrously wrong. He and his supporter clung and continue to cling to this disproved strategy, either from the 911 commission, the Baker report, to his own generals who out of spite were forced to retire. And all of this was supported by the Republican right regardless. And I say no more.

SO- now to my suggestion of what we should do. Withdrawl. Bring the troops home. But not for the reason you might think. Yes, withdrawl will bring about a full-scale regional war- and that's what I think needs to happen. And it will happen regardless. If we leave, the civil war will continue. If we stay... the civil war will continue. Either way, we get entrenched. If we leave, we face them another day- BUT in the process we'll benefit by pitting them against each other and in the process this will help to destabilize Iran within the region. Either way, we get enmeshed in the brutal civil war that's been fought in that region 400 years before this country was even founded.

That's the s--thole we're in guys. And it's not because of some dopy liberal from California that no one even knew about until FOX News started rifiling off her name just before November. It's not the mainstream media who's echoing the sentiments of the popular opinion. And it's certainly not the ones who had the courage to be against this war since day one. I was one of them. No, it's because this president and his foreign policies have taken us there.



That's my frustration.
That's my suggestion.
Now i'm done with this thread.