Are We Safer Today?

I don't think so Frank. I don't see us evacuating Iraq until a stable government is in place with a well trained, well armed army and police force to keep order where it needs to be kept.

0 Replies

So, if we're really optimistic, maybe in about ten years then?

0 Replies

See that light at the end of the tunnel?

We only have to make it that far . . . come on campers, let's hike ! ! !

0 Replies

McG, my 'good point' was directed to au's comment about terrorists returning the favor, which I had not thought of. I should have been more specific.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Creation of Homeboy Security Dept has helped somewhat

More effective CIA and FBI and local intel gathering.

Not sure what the Homeboys are doing to make us safe. I hear they can now have AK47's, so perhaps THEY are safer.

As for the intel gathering, we don't have anything to tell us that is improved. It's all Top Secret.

I have found several friends / neighbors making this claim, but they are unable to tell me how we are safer, what has been done to make them feel that way other than when they fly, and no one is concerned about the Patriot Act... The one thing they can site as making us safe.

0 Replies

My red brothers have been fighting for homeland security since 1492. It's a losing battle. Custer died for your sins. We shall over-run, someday.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

I don't think so Frank. I don't see us evacuating Iraq until a stable government is in place with a well trained, well armed army and police force to keep order where it needs to be kept.

We'll win the "war on drugs" first.

And the "war on poverty."

And we ain't never gonna win neither of those wars either!

The evacuation...when it comes....and it will come....is going to be a nightmare.

0 Replies

I disagree with your opinion Frank. I guess we will have to wait and see.

0 Replies

McG

How much chance do you think there is that a stable government can emerge from a nation where the three major components are at war with each other. And that is not even considering the religious ingredient. Remember the country of Iraq and it's boundries was a British abortion.

0 Replies

I think pretty good depending on how forceful and cooperative the government leaders can be.

If the Shia, Sunni and Kurds all have the ability to have equal say in the future of Iraq, and they can stimulate the economy and destroy the terrorist infrastructure, they will have a very successful government.

But, if each ethnic group does nothing but vie for control of the whole, then it may not work out that well. It's up to the people of Iraq to determine. we have shown them the path to the future. we can only guide them, but it is ultimately up to them to chose to follow it.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I do rather think hopping on the choppers for a ride out to an aircraft carrier will seem, in retrospect, a good deal easier than filling up the Bradleys and the Humvees for a hundred+ mile drive to the Kuwait border . . .

Set...I truly hope I am wrong on this one...but I have an ache in the pit on my stomach every time I even cursorily think of disengagement.

Fact is, the occupation is getting more tenuous by the day. More and more Iraqis are being emboldened to lash out.

It will be hell getting out....and it is hell staying there.

But...for people so harebrained as to expect the populace to greet our troops by strewing flowers before them....I suspect this is merely a minor inconvenience on the way to an election.

0 Replies

I don't think they'll have Ambassador Martin to get them out of this one.

I don't even know if he's living but I have that image of the last American occupiers of Viet Nam making their exit literally being lifted from the ground by helicopter going aloft before everybody's feet were on board.

They used to have remarkable live coverage in the day.

Then came the boat people.

Now, will the camel people head for a land bridge across the Bering strait? How fast is global warming working?

Maybe I'd better only put a half a tank in the GIANT CAR. Forty Gallons please.

0 Replies

Quote:

I think pretty good depending on how forceful and cooperative the government leaders can be.

If the Shia, Sunni and Kurds all have the ability to have equal say in the future of Iraq, and they can stimulate the economy and destroy the terrorist infrastructure, they will have a very successful government.

But, if each ethnic group does nothing but vie for control of the whole, then it may not work out that well. It's up to the people of Iraq to determine. we have shown them the path to the future. we can only guide them, but it is ultimately up to them to chose to follow it.

Please read the above keeping in mind the phrase

"It's not our fault."

This is, I think, a first look at the

"We gave them a shot at freedom and they turned it down."

spin.

(Shake head sadly. Is that a tear?)

Joe

0 Replies

C'mon Joe! Are you so jaded to believe the possibility of a democratic government in Iraq is impossible? I believe it can be, but not until everyone in Iraq realizes that it is up to them.

Were it up to me, three new provinces/states wouold be created ran by a representative government elected by those states. Then, the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shias would all be able to say the rule themselves, yet had a federal government to keep track of things like national defense and Oil production for the entire country.

I am not making excuses for anyone.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

C'mon Joe! Are you so jaded to believe the possibility of a democratic government in Iraq is impossible?

Anything is possible. The possibility exists that Iraq will become a democracy...and lead the Arab world into concord with Israel.

But my guess is Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein have a better chance of being guests of honor at a Texas barbecue hosted by George Bush.

(Jeez, maybe I oughta have used a different ending to that smartass remark. If GWB and his band of thugs could make a buck out of it; he'd host such a function. But you get my drift!)

Quote:

I believe it can be, but not until everyone in Iraq realizes that it is up to them.

Aha! You have finally hit on the problem with trying to force democracy down people's throats.

There is, you realize, a fairly decent chance that Iraq will NEVER be governable without a strongman like Saddam...and there is even a better chance that, considering our ill-advised war, the strongman will have to be much less likable and much less reasonable than Saddam was.

Quote:

Were it up to me, three new provinces/states wouold be created ran by a representative government elected by those states. Then, the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shias would all be able to say the rule themselves, yet had a federal government to keep track of things like national defense and Oil production for the entire country.

C'mon!

Quote:

I am not making excuses for anyone.

Egad, McG...if anyone on A2K is "making excuses for anyone"...you are!

I love ya, buddy, but you are a rationalizer par excellence...an excuse maker for George Bush and his incompetent handlers.

0 Replies

If you offend a cross section of muslims from Morrocco to Djakarta - the battle you will encounter could conceivably go on forever. And if the Americans kill 10 muslims for every American who dies from sniper fire or from being in the wrong place like near a police station - pretty soon no more Americans.

Think of the numbers. And we aren't even talking about a draft yet which will be the next logical step. Do we feel safer?

Have them send Morley over to your table and goose him. Then you'd feel Safer.

0 Replies

http://csmonitor.com/2004/0917/csmimg/cartoon.jpg

0 Replies

padmasambava wrote:

If you offend a cross section of muslims from Morrocco to Djakarta - the battle you will encounter could conceivably go on forever. And if the Americans kill 10 muslims for every American who dies from sniper fire or from being in the wrong place like near a police station - pretty soon no more Americans.

Think of the numbers. And we aren't even talking about a draft yet which will be the next logical step. Do we feel safer?

Have them send Morley over to your table and goose him. Then you'd feel Safer.

Bear in mind that the majority of Muslims are already offended by the fanatics killing other muslims.

0 Replies

When the Marines surrounded Falluja, the car bombings in Baghdad virtually ceased. The crew at the Pentagon (the civilian side at any rate) must be purblind. The "insurgency" was largely based in the Sunni tribal regions. Thanks to Sistani, who very obviously has no love for us, the Shi'ites have been largely quiescent--but the poverty of the Shi'ites in Sadr City is such that this cannot last--Muktada Al Sadr has already exploited it to keep the ranks of his militia full. Sistani's moderate position depends upon the January elections. The Sunnis do not intend to allow for peaceful elections. The Shi'ites will not suffer Sistani's restraints if they do not get what Sistani has called for. This is a powder keg, the fuse is burning rapidly, and the Shrub is going around the country bragging about his credentials as a "war president" . . .

. . . and the band played Nearer My God to Thee . . .

0 Replies

Dear Frankie we get your drift. By the way, the Terror Index was created after 9/11 on Bush's watch. Safer? With all you girly patriots backing your Commander-in-Chief and all those "thugs" wearing American uniforms? Safer? After we have you safe in internment camps and castrated, maybe.

0 Replies

Are We Safer Today?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know