Calling Bush's democracy bluff in Iraq

I have a brother who is in the middle of his second 16-month tour in Iraq in the Army... from what ive heard from him, and from high school friends who went into the military, Iraq has turned into a complete mess... and despite what FOX news may want you to believe, George W really does not have the support of our troops that people think he does, I have heard some really anti-bush stuff from die-hard republicans... of course they will vote for any republican candidate over any democratic candidate, regarless of how they feel about that republican candidate, unforunately... but I have seen pictures and heard stories that HBO would be afraid to broadcast and make Abu-Grahib (sp?) look like disneyland...

 

Either get enough trained Iraqi police, security personnel and military, alongside enough American military, to post a presense on every street corner of Baghadad (and, eventually, every corner of every city and town in the country) to stop the violence. Or admit defeat.

Immediately.

If the violence is not shut down today, then US voters will demand a pullout of US troops and Iraq will dissolve into civil war/sectarian strife/chaos. Whatever you want to call it. Iran, Pakistan, the Saudis, maybe the Syrians, will then carve Iraq up into little bitty enclaves. If it's lucky. If it's not fortunate, then groups like Al Queda will set up house in its towns and small Taliban-like governments will take over.

That's not what I want to see. Just calling it as I think it will go.

And then...

 

This is what happens when you do a half assed job due to the liberal influence. Should have "cleaned the plate" in the first place, now we have to deal with the cold left overs. IMHO, of course...

:angry:

 

I think we should stay there out of harms way and when the Sunni's start winning we help the Shiites, when the Shiites start winning we help the Sunni's. That will deplete the population and when they get tired of killing each other we take the oil and call it a day.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(imntacrook @ Apr 4 2006, 12:51 AM) [snapback]234557[/snapback]</div>

This just might work actually

 

Build three big honkin' walls, that meet in the middle, 120 degrees
apart. Then those three different sections, alternately repelling
and attracting each other, oughta generate a lot of energy. Sound
familiar??
.
_H*

 

OMG </span> I have found myself nodding my head in agreement at points from each poster here.

But consider this...

1st The Muslim/Islamic people are set in their ways and will not easily change. Sort of like that leopard and his spots.
2nd Their system is founded on using religion, political power and violence to achieve it's domination over others. The only reason they cooperate with anyone at all is to achieve a position of power.
3rd The Democrats are screwing up the next election worse than the Republicans are screwing up on Iraq. By sitting back and shrilly crying LIAR LIAR pants on fire they need to go after the Administration’s policy of trying to convert an Islamic nation into a democracy, can't be done. The Islamic concept is opposed to that form of social/political/governmental structure.
4th We should have gone in an deposed Saddam and as many of his ilk as possible got out and let the rest of that God Forsaken region/society deal with nation building.
5th Someone else want to set up the corrupt system as Saddam/Taliban? Go back in kill the leaders their ilk and then leave. They probably won’t get it for awhile but eventually they will. Kinda harsh I know. I call it tough love. Once they understand we won't put up with that type of behavior then we might help with the nation building by sending advisors, no more. To do this we really need energy dependency.
6th Democrats gotta wise up of they will find themselves on the outside looking in. This will leave the Republicans almost unfettered control over domestic and international policy which will not be beneficial to this nation. Very rarely does the American people vote in a Congress and an Executive of the same party. Yet for nearly the entire Bush term we have had that or nearly that very thing.
<span style="font-family:Arial Black">7th The Democrats came out the other day with their “Real Security†agenda for the American people. Reid and Pelosi must have been using High Schoolers in their speech writing staff. Here is what they are for . . . Unparalleled military strength, must defeat terrorism, stop the spread of WMD’s and eliminate terrorist breeding grounds as well as increase the number of military and National Guard over there by 140K. OMG the Dem’s are supporting the Republican Message!
Next up the Republicans had a nice laugh at the microphone pointing out that the Democrats proposed things that everyone favors along with policies already being pursued by this administration. Then promptly stuck a knife in the Dem’s back by pointing out that it was the Democrats that voted against the Patriot Act, against the military, and had decimated the intelligence gathering capabilities of the USA in the prior Administration under their control. A hard allegation to refute with the voting records of some of the top Dem’s. To cap this all off Reid gets back up and says that the President must never waiver in dealing with the Iraqi’s and send a clear message that we will not be there forever, at the same time Rice and the UK counterpart are over there giving that very same message to the Iraqi’s!!!! Now it looks like the Republican's are having the Democrats deliver their message for them! Good Grief is Reid and the Democratic Party unconscious? Who is leader of this party?. . . oh er… I guess that would be Dean!!! Ok never mind enough said. :lol:

Sigh, I see a dim future for the USA and I see a dim future for the Democratic Party. They are devoid of credibility, leadership, ideas and increasingly a compass to direct not only their own party but the American People. America needs two strong parties to stay strong. If the Democrats continue upon this path of self-destruction the Republicans will soon realize that they can do just about anything they please because the Dem’s will no longer be a stabilizing political force.

Wildkow

p.s. I really don't see that this scenario is off by that much. I dashed it out quickly so I may be a little off but I don't think so or not by much. :mellow:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ghostofjk @ Apr 2 2006, 08:04 PM) [snapback]233999[/snapback]</div>

If the Dem's are ready to add 140K more troops to the fray how will they convince the American people to make a referendum on the war to withdraw (I'm guessing thats what you meant) or support a Democratic Congress to force Bush's hand on troop withdraw? Its not a bad idea seeings as how Bush will be a Lame Duck but now the Dem Leaderships message is opposite of that course. See there agenda for security in America titled "Real Security" the very issue they lost the last election on. But unless it is the correct referendum and that is "Democracy will never work in the Mid-East because Islam is opposed to it." But so far all I have heard is LIAR LIAR and withdraw (I sorta support withdraw now) then its bound to fail. BTW painting the Dem's as the "Cut and Run Party" DIABIOLICAL!! A sceneario I am sure they will completely miss and as far as the "Cold Blooded" decisions? I don't think the Dem's are united enough to do that.

Wildkow

 

I want to hear about a real plan for Iraq.

How about we cut out talking about the two parties (Dems and Reps, in the US) and start putting heads together? After elections are over, party talk should be dropped and the real work of governing should begin, using whatever human talent the voters have chosen to put in place.

First, someone has to be in charge of the American efforts in Iraq. Can anyone tell me who that person is? Is it Rumsfeld? Rice? Bush? General Peter Pace?

The biggest problem in Iraq is that there is no one person heading the effort. No one ON THE SCENE who sets policy, judges the day-to-day decisions, and tells all the politicians back home and the military wonks to take their opinions and go to hell with them. Paul Bremmer admits to having made little headway against massive confusion in Iraq and scattered policy guidelines from home. (He doesn't sound like a leader, but a manager.)

It took seven years of unstinting efforts to make over post-WWII Japan, with General Joe McCarthy heading the job for four of those years. Japan was completely defeated and subjugated, most of its population was starving. Iraq is still a war zone, we've never conquered it, never been in full control.

Since we have become soooo good at finding administrators willing to stand up to outside pressure to get their job done, and we're not about to send in enough troops to finish the job, I'm afraid my earlier post still stands. We'll continue to mess up in Iraq, voters will finally get peeved and pull out the troops, the country will be carved up and served to varied foreign interests in the area.

The US will try to hold control over the northern oil fields (Kurdish) but I don't know if we can pull that off since US voters are not convinced it's critical to our economy.

Sigh. Sometimes I wonder how we could allow ourselves to get so screwed up.

I don't want to debate if international terrorism will increase or decrease after we pull out of Iraq. Or what will happen to Kharzai's government in Afghanistan. The scenarios are mostly bad, many are very bad.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Spunky @ Apr 4 2006, 09:20 AM) [snapback]234651[/snapback]</div>

If I may add to your observant post.

I don't think anyone could come up with a real plan for Iraq at this time.

As the conflict now spreads into three different categories:

1. "War on Terror", perusing "Al-Quida" and other fanatical terrorist sympathizers within Iraq borders.
2. Insurgency among former Bathists and regular Iraqis tired of the outcome against the occupation of Iraq by so called "Coalition of the Willing".
3. Sectarian war, Balkanization of Iraq.

I see the Balkanization unavoidable as Kurds gaining real momentum, this may spill over to Turkey and Iran as well as into Syria. Hardly any Kurd describes himself as an Iraqi at this time within Iraqi borders, they tend officially prescribe into the interim Iraqi government, as they know it would backfire to proclaim it's sovereignty now. It's quite clever politicking and maneuvering on part KDP and PUK and time seems to benefit the outcome in their favor. The Kurdish nationalism is exploding now, look what happens right now in Turkey, Diyarbakir area with biggest clashes in some time. Turks are becoming more pissed off with the US and have been warning about this escalating possibility for the past three years, screaming at our administration for it's favorable stance towards Kurds in Iraq. Remaining parts of Iraq will become torn apart in the same way as did the Lebanon few decades back. Eventually war will become tiresome to all involved, but thousands will die.

Insurgency will continue, no matter what US will do in Iraq. We can only further antagonize the Iraqis by making more errors and snapping here and there. Do re-visit classic scenarios taken from Pontecorvo's "Battle of Algiers" that are being screened at all the time in Pentagon for the highest ranking military analysts within USA.

I'd like to see progressive transition into more clandestine operations in Iraq just to target Al-Quida fanatics and eradicating terrorits with very low profile. Occupation will not resolve insurgency nor sectarian war, it only escalates it and further destabilizes Iraq.

We need a miracle coming out of this one.

 

You guys just don't get it do you?

There won't be any glimer or hope of anything approaching total peace until the Israeli/Palestinian situation is effectively resovled.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, what we're looking at, is nothing but a continuation of a thousand year old Crusade.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Apr 4 2006, 01:23 PM) [snapback]234784[/snapback]</div>

EUREKA :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Condi and Jack Straw can blather and posture all they want but if peace is not forced upon Iraq (could we please start with Baghdad) immediately then all elections, talking and pretty pictures are not worth a damn.

Spinning does not win wars, nor is it effective against fanatics.

It might well be too late for the "several hundred thousand troops" Gen. Shinseki, then Chief of Staff of the US Army, estimated (in early 2003) that would be needed to make and keep the peace in Iraq, to do the job.

Wolfowitz (mathematician and political scientist, an academic, very experienced diplomat and sporting quite the chest-full of civilian medals), then Secretary of Defense, now head of the World Bank, blew off that estimate before Congress.

There were rumors that Shinseki's authority during his last year as COS was undercut by the Adminstration.

Hope Shinseki can be persuaded to enter the political arena or otherwise continue to serve his country. Hey, maybe he could leave retirement and head the Iraqi rebuilding efforts? Hmm.

 

Spunky it was Gen. Douglas MacArthur. Some good points too.

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Apr 4 2006, 09:41 PM) [snapback]235045[/snapback]</div>

:lol: :lol:



Had to go bakc and read Spunky's post, can't believe I missed it first time. Joe McCarthy may well have been an early homegrown terrorist (if you count witch hunts terrorism), and I bet Wisconson would just as soon forget him. :lol:

 

I just wanted to say that when we speak of Ayatollah Ali Al Sistani, we MUST remember that he is an Iranian and he still holds Iranian citizenship.(he has lived in Iraq for about 20 years now) Now lets start the think tank again. After all of the brain storming going on, how many of you knew that Sistani was an Iranian? How does this change things? Why should it matter? And the 64 dollar a barrel question is, "How did our oil get under their sand"? Although Sistani has been our GO TO GUY for calming the Shia insurgency (especially the King of all Gingivitis, Muqtada al Sadr himself) and his Mahdi army, what makes people think that he has Iraqs best interest at heart. He cannot. His focus is religious. He is just another fundamentalist religious bearded wierdo proclaiming a divine connection to the prophet Mohammed. How can someone with a religious agenda help secularize and win the hearts of the natives with democracy in mind? Sounds to me like the more we stay, the longer we'll be there. Kind of like De Ja Vu all over again, ya know?

Lots of people say that we Democrats don't have a plan. OK then, for lack of a better plan or a plan at all, then let's have a look at the Neocon plan.

Rose parade in Baghdad for the American troops....

No pictures of the caskets at Dover Air Base....

Mission Accomplished: Major Combat operations are over......

No pictures of the caskets at Dover air Base.....

Tax cuts for the rich while the bravest Americans spill their blood on foreign soil.....

No pictures of W and Abramoff.......

Since so many people are getting rich over this war, I am glad that there will be more seats in heaven because of this. You know, the Bible says that it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven. Now that we know there will be better seating in heaven, we should all vote for permanent tax cuts. This would mean that there will be far less neocons in heaven than anyone could ever have use for. No lines at the Bagel and Cream Cheese counter too.......but seriously folks, if overcrowding in heaven is anything at all, then I say we should make sure that not one more of Americas bravest sons and daughters die in Iraq.

And now a bit of humor for my friends on both sides of the aisle...

The difference between Clinton, Bush and Jane Fonda is, Jane Fonda actually went to Vietnam....

American Democrat
05 Prius 48 MPG Average
reducing my dependency on American oil one goofy little car at a time......

GO BIG ED ON AIR AMERICA

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tleonhar @ Apr 4 2006, 11:09 PM) [snapback]235061[/snapback]</div>

Oh my god! What a clunker. :lol:

Sorry about that. My mother (she lived through WWII and all the turmoil of the age) would have never forgiven me!