20,000 more troops, how crazy is that?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Jan 8 2007, 08:31 AM) [snapback]372456[/snapback]</div>

Oy Vey!! Some of us are PARAPHRASING Nixon and some of us MISS Nixon. How far we have plummeted!! Lowered expectations are one thing, digging the well deeper another. For chrissake, this has become a nation of limbo experts all of a sudden (over 6 years).

 

Although I am a centrist (call me a left leaning Republican or a right leaning Democrat, but I think most politicians are pretty useless), I agree with my right leaning colleagues on the 200,000 troop idea. That is not a typo, someone suggested if their child was in Iraq they would want them to have 200,000 other soldiers there with them, I agree except I think a higher number would be better maybe 300,000.
The problem is that it may be too late and this is coming way to late in the game to be as effective as it would have been earlier. It is too bad that Bush chose Rumsfeld as his Sec Def and not Powell, had Powell been at defense we would have invaded Iraq with overwhelming force and been much more likely to have crushed any insurgency quickly. The whole thing has been handled pretty poorly and Bush really had the country behind him at the start and could have done whatever he wanted as far as troop levels and reconstruction funding, but Rumsfeld wanted to do things with a minimal force and never really seemed to realize the tough job ahead in Iraq. I think 20,000 is not nearly enough, if you are going to do a job, do it right, I would go for 100,000 minimum by redeploying troops from Afghanistan, Europe, and wherever else we can find them, I am not sure we have enough. I would also agree that troops be pulled form other areas of Iraq if necessary and focus on those places where the civilian casualties are greatest (this seems to be Baghdad based on news reports, but I am sure the military knows where they need the troops the most). I agree with those who think we need to finish the job, which is to bring a stable democracy to Iraq, failure is not an option, not because I want GW to look good, but because it would be bad for the country.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(maineprius947 @ Jan 8 2007, 01:37 PM) [snapback]372548[/snapback]</div>

I don't think you "bring" democracy anywhere; the best we can do is prepare fertile ground and hope it flourishes.

Honestly, as I've said before, it's interesting how our military is so good atthe act of destruction...but there is no similar force designed to *put things back together again* that has anything close to the funding the armed services receives.

So, clearly, our priorities lie with destroying things, not putting them together. That's why so many countries are concerned when we suggest "bringing" democracy to anyone. 'Cause we no longer have the financial clout or will to see the job through and provide long term reconstrutive aid over not just years, but decades.

I'm wondering, are you willing to pay for this? 'Cause that's how you tell someone's priorities are; will they foot the bill or not?

Are you willing to commit to contributing, say, $1,000 per year of your family's resources over the next 20 years, to rebuild --- NOT DESTROY --- rebuild Iraq...?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Jan 8 2007, 07:31 AM) [snapback]372456[/snapback]</div>

Just a point about the famous quote: it wasn't from Richard Nixon. It was from LBJ:

From http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/da...cronkite_w.html, quote appears next to a picture of LBJ looking at a TV about half way down the page.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Jan 8 2007, 01:58 PM) [snapback]372566[/snapback]</div>

I'm still waiting for an answer.

 

OK, I'm a little slow. Explain again how sending 20,000 teenagers with guns to the world's most violent locale will END the violence?

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Jan 8 2007, 10:31 AM) [snapback]372456[/snapback]</div>

One of the most reprehensible things about the AEI is now that it's quite clear that their Likud-inspired idea of remaking the Middle East by use of unilateral US force has failed miserably, like rats deserting a sinking ship, they're more than happy to rip into people like Rumsfeld (who was not an ideologue) and their useful idiot, Bush.

They never go after people like Cheney (whose wife is coincidently very high up on the AEI hierarchy), Wolfowitz, Feith, or any of the other myriad AEI chickenhawk neocons that have at one time or another occupied high, influential positions within the Bush Adm and have been gung-ho for an Iraq invasion for years (if not decades).

 

sso much to say,
first: the 20,000 troops are just for Baghdad which will double the number stationed there. This should produce a drastic result. (one way or another, because like you've said what's going on now ain't workin so let's try something different. If quitting is your idea of different then you have to take the blame for the crap hole Iraq will turn into without us and I don't want to hear but the idiot started it, its now time to finish it and the question you have to ask yourself is: What result?)

second: Most of the country is reletively stable, except for rare instances of violence.

third: Islam must change or YOU must change. Islam CANNOT in it's current incarnation allow you, Liberals, to exist. We must remake the middle east or stop being who we are, there is no comprimising with those in charge in the Islamic faith. The link to Sadam is that while he crushed muslims in Iraq he freely funded other islamic terrorist organizations because the instability they caused drew attention away from him!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Jan 9 2007, 08:31 PM) [snapback]373393[/snapback]</div>

I hate to break it to you, but we don't have it within our power to "re-make the Middle East." This should be painfully obvious by now, I'd think.

Actually, we don't even have it within our budget.

Question: how much are YOU willing to $pend and $acrifice?

Please tell us how important this is to you. Are you willing to contribute $1,000/year for ten years? $1,000/year for 20 years? $2,000/year for 20 years? Y'all love to send in the troops, and the battle cry is always the same: "if we don't, then (insert fear message here).

But y'all never seem willing to actually make any compromi$e$ in the name of War.

Tell us how much "re-making the Middle East" means to you in dollars and cents. Personally.

Then send the check to the government.

Otherwise, we're already spending our children's inheritence...unless you're willing to pony up the money yourself, and get all of your war-willing friends to do the same, everything you say is just confrontational talk.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Jan 9 2007, 08:31 PM) [snapback]373393[/snapback]</div>

You could say the same about Christianity. Of course, that is as much of an over-generalization as the statement about Islam.

Oh, and we've already remade the Middle East. Created Israel. Overthrew the closest thing Iran ever had to a democracy. Supported various tyrants and dictators. Supplied arms to rebels and insurgents.

Wonder why they're so pissed at us ...

 

Pinto:
It's not a matter of money, it's a matter of life.

If the middle east doesn't change, we will have or be beheaded.
(actually women like you are shot in the head in soccer stadiums)

No this isn't going to happen tomorrow, but the threat is real and growing

Wave your white paper all you like the storm is coming and some of us see it and are trying to tell everyone about it (I guess its kinda what you global arming people must go through

PA
NO you cannot say the same thing about Christianity. Yes, Christianity has its nut jobs, but Christians aren't BEHEADING PEOPLE, videoing taping it and saying GOD IS GREAT!

Plus if and when a christian does something similar to what the muslims (Islamists) do, the christians are roundly denounced. NO SUCH CONDEMNATION IS EVER RAISED AGAINST MUSLIMS! Why? Ask the Dutch, because if you speak out against Islam you are killed, as a RULE, not the exception.

If there are truly "moderate" muslims out there, they have to stand up to these "radicals", which means many of the moderates will be killed, becuaause if they don't, the moderates will suffer the same fate unfortunately.

Get it through your heads: the modern incarnation of Islam and YOUR lifestyles cannot co-exist!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(PA @ Jan 9 2007, 05:53 PM) [snapback]373401[/snapback]</div>

The United States, while being a loyal friend and a good supporter of the Jewish state, did not create Israel.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Jan 9 2007, 09:12 PM) [snapback]373408[/snapback]</div>

Although all the other items in my list were U.S.-specific, the first one was not. Didn't want to try to cram too many facts and footnotes in there.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Jan 9 2007, 09:12 PM) [snapback]373408[/snapback]</div>

Technically, this is correct, but since the presidency of Harry S. Truman, a strong case could be made that the United States created the modern state of Israel (at least the state that has existed after 1947).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Jan 9 2007, 09:02 PM) [snapback]373403[/snapback]</div>

I was referring more to the "no compromising".

Yes, you're right, Christianity isn't beheading people. Blowing up people, maybe (Eric Rudolph, anyone?), but not beheading.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(PA @ Jan 9 2007, 07:18 PM) [snapback]373437[/snapback]</div>

Probably not a fair comparison ... Eric Rudolph does not enjoy support or tolerance by many (any?) Christian theologians or denominations, whereas the Muslim extremists do enjoy support from a sizeable minority of the Islamic theologians, the radical clerics who believe the Koran justifies killing infidels.

Can you find a theologian from any branch of Christianity supporting Rudolph? Not a nutcase like Fred Phelps with his 25 member church in Kansas, but a group like the Southern Baptist Convention, COGIC, RCC, etc?

You have to go back a few hundred years to find the kind of systematic support for those actions in the overall Christian community, but it did exist at one time. The reformation and the enlightenment helped temper those elements, and today Christian theology is rarely used as a pretext to violence by Christian denominations.

I wonder if there's a Mohammad Luther out there somewhere?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Jan 9 2007, 09:02 PM) [snapback]373403[/snapback]</div>

You're evading my question.

How much is it worth to you, on a yearly basis, to "remake the Middle East"? How much would you be willing to ask each of us to sacrifice for this goal?

How much will *you* contribute???

It's funny, all the hawks here are screaming "attack"...and all the doves are concerned about the morality of it all...

Meanwhile, I'm asking, "how much will these proposals cost? From where will the money come?"

How about addressing this issue, directly, for a change, and abandoning your fear messaging and abstractionist ideals?

We CAN NOT afford the things you're suggesting, at least not without significant sacrifice on an individual level...and maybe not even then.

So, how much is this worth to you?

Tell us, how much you're willing to commit, personally, to the rebuilding of Iraq...the "remaking of the Middle East" and all the other things you'd lead us to battle over?

I'm waiting!

$1,000/ten years?
$2,000/twenty years?

More?

Surely more, since it's all so important to you. Put your money where your mouth is, I dare you!