junior's stumbling speech

For all of you that continue to b**ch and moan and pile on President Bush only one has suggested a plan of his own.

One advocated for complete withdrawl which even the ISG did not recommend for obvious reasons - but only one stepped up to the plate.

It is so easy to monday morning quarterback - but it seems the current disease the has infected the Democrats is running rampant here too - all words - no actions - no responsibilities. This time however, now that the Dems are in TOTAL control of the government the people will expect more than lip flapping - the only question which STILL remains is what if anything is their plan. My hunch is its alot like your guys plans - non existant. And that will lead to problems for the Dems I am sure.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Jan 11 2007, 03:27 PM) [snapback]374251[/snapback]</div>

Yeah, that we can run the country more poorly than Saddam (whose legacy was war, sanctions, war) really says something to the average Iraqi about the superpower status of the US.

And I can't imagine Bush ever resigning, as that would be tacit to admitting a mistake.

And the civil war is likely to only get bloodier. Most of the oil reserves (79%) lie in the southern Shia regions. Partition will also disrupt oil pipelines. So it's not just a regular civil war, but one sitting on top of a gold mine. Once the Iraqis have finished kicking us out, they'll eventually come to some bloody resolution themselves, hopefully held back from full score genocide by their nearby allies Iran (Shia) and Saudi Arabia (Sunni).

The 20,000 more troops are probably there to stabilize things long enough so that some oil laws can be passed by the existing government and contracts drawn up with the big multinationals. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/09/world/mi...bad&ei=5070

And yes, that's cynical. But then again, we've never invaded Myanmar even though we've had sanctions on them since 1988 and they also failed to have attacked us on 9/11.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 11 2007, 03:28 PM) [snapback]374295[/snapback]</div>

In the first place, a lot of republicans are more than a little irritated with Bush so people who pile on Bush, as you put it, aren't necessarily democrats. Second, I'm not a democrat. Third, the democrats are not in total control of the government. They have a very thin margin in both houses and that keeps them from being able to override Bush's vetoes.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 11 2007, 03:28 PM) [snapback]374295[/snapback]</div>

What's your plan?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JackDodge @ Jan 11 2007, 03:36 PM) [snapback]374303[/snapback]</div>

They could easily stop the money flowing like they did in 1975 to end the Vietnam War.
If they want a "redeployment" or withdrawl that is all they have to do - if they want to stand up that is.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Jan 11 2007, 03:46 PM) [snapback]374309[/snapback]</div>

Are you asking because you need advice? Or that you do not have one yourself? Seriously, tell me your thoughts that if you were President and could do anything you wanted given the current middle east situation you would do the following........

Thanks

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 11 2007, 05:15 PM) [snapback]374333[/snapback]</div>

Translation: My plan is to ask about your plan. :blink:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 11 2007, 04:15 PM) [snapback]374333[/snapback]</div>

No, because you kept asking others for their plan. I'd like to hear what's on your mind, or are you just asking other folks questions so you can get dbermanmd ego points by pissing all over their plans without offering any suggestions of your own. Thanks!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Jan 11 2007, 04:22 PM) [snapback]374344[/snapback]</div>

Sure, with limited time...

several options:

1. take a side - the shia's, stop with overwhelming force sunni violence. set the down, take them out, cause pain and suffering until they realize their only option is talking or dying.

2. relax rules of engagement. if they were civilian clothing, fire from behind women and children or use mosques - hit back and damn the people or buildings in the way.

3. stop at all cost the flow of support from syria and iran - allow us forces lattitude to interdict in these countries.

more later

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 11 2007, 04:30 PM) [snapback]374357[/snapback]</div>

Thanks

 

just to clarify a few things (from like 2 hours and 1 page ago) since i've been stuck in meetings:

MarinJohn, i completely agree with you that examinations have to be made, odds wagered before we send troops anywhere - there's no point to needlessly wasting their lives in a war that can't be won. HOWEVER, we're at the point now where we are stuck in this war, and there's no point in dwelling on the past and what *should* have been done.

I also realize that it's not just congress that doesn't agree with the president, and that his plan may not be the best (or even good). You say he's had free reign so far... well, that was with a republican congress to support him. This is pretty much the first acts we've seen from the democratic congress in response to the war - like i said, you have to pick a point where you start asking them what the plan should be, instead of just shooting down plans that come from the white house. We probably aren't at that point just yet, but if things keep going this way, we will be.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 11 2007, 12:15 PM) [snapback]374178[/snapback]</div>

There's a huge difference between have military advisor's and trainers assisting an ally of the US and launching a war. We had no combat operations in Vietnam until after we were attacked. And yes, we were attacked... I find it oddly hilarious that you first state we were there (as military advisor's ONLY) before the GOT incident (the one in which we were attacked), then proceed to say we weren't attacked...

As for "joining our allies that were attacked by Iraq"... who? Keep in mind we're talking about the current war, not the one that ended back in 1991 after Kuwait...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Jan 11 2007, 01:59 PM) [snapback]374385[/snapback]</div>

We weren't attacked. I typed Gulf of Tonkin into Google and ALL of the first hits on the screen were of this nature - I had to scroll WAY down before reaching references that were geographic (which a query that was no more than a place name would normally have brought up FIRST). I hadn't realized anyone still thought the Gulf of Tonkin incident was real - but then, that's what the Internet's best at: remedial education!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 11 2007, 01:15 PM) [snapback]374178[/snapback]</div>

I have an excellent plan. The thing is, though, I'm having trouble locating a time machine with adequate capacity ...



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JackDodge @ Jan 11 2007, 01:50 PM) [snapback]374216[/snapback]</div>

Don't tease me like that!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 11 2007, 04:30 PM) [snapback]374357[/snapback]</div>

1. So you think we should side with the sunnis(the insurgents who are killing our soldiers) or the shia(the puppets of Iran)? Neither option is a good one.

2. Couldn't we achieve this by pulling out our troops and nuking bagdad?

3. How are we going to do this? We don't have enough troops for a "surge" much less engaging 2 additional nations. Unless of course you're advocating nuking them. That's what you really want right?

 

When Bush leaves office his "legacy" will be set. He will have no power to "spin" what history writes about him.

I doubt he's thought that far ahead.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jan 11 2007, 05:18 PM) [snapback]374475[/snapback]</div>

The last three words of that sentence were superfluous, and the first three words were unnecessarily indefinite. "Thought" and G.W. are as alien to each other as the Andromeda galaxy is to a dung beetle.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(PA @ Jan 11 2007, 07:13 PM) [snapback]374445[/snapback]</div>

:lol: the thought hit me like a bolt of lightening. it was like 'oh my god, he's going to end up resigning'.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Jan 11 2007, 04:23 PM) [snapback]374395[/snapback]</div>

Do some real research...

Even reading your linked article, it doesn't debate that the first attack happened, only the second. Like i've said, there were quite a few similarities between Iraq and Vietnam, mainly because the public was lied to in both cases before entering the war... However, the big difference was Vietnam was already at war well before we sent combat troops over there. Iraq was not. In Vietnam, we were assisting an ally, while in Iraq we were seeking bloody revenge against the wrong people with falsified claims of WMD's.