0
   

US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2005 05:45 pm
At least the torture of prisoners now shift from the US to Iraq - for the moment. It ain't gonna work; I mean security by Iraqi forces alone - not in at least five years, but probably longer. The cost to US taxpayers at $5.5 billion every month, I wonder how many will be willing to stomach this cost in two more years while social programs at home are being cut?
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2005 07:44 pm
Quote:
Mr Bush has never laid out his plans in this way before
President George W Bush has said he will not accept "anything less than complete victory" in Iraq.
In a major policy speech, Mr Bush refused to set an "artificial deadline" to withdraw US troops, saying it was "not a plan for victory".


c.i., I have not pulled up the rest of your link but I have heard and read many comments on this speech today. As I listened to the talk, my first thought was: Why did President Bush not say these things to us a year, or two years, ago? Why has he treated us like children, speaking down to us and offering only bombast and repetitive jargon about the War on Terror, a screen for his precipitate and mis-handled attack on Iraq. Suddenly, he is beginning to tell us his "plan" and aver that it has been in place since the beginning.

It may be too little, too late, for him now to assume the role of a "leader" to adults who are intelligent enough to know that they have not been told the truth. Indeed, they have been told nothing except that they should trust their president, and now over 60% of them are willing to admit that he is wearing no clothes.

I understand that we are now to be treated to three more speeches between now and the Iraqi elections, stating and re-stating his commitment to the War on Terror and connecting his war -- again and again, as if repetition would drive it successfully into our dense skulls and make a truth of a lie -- with the attacks of 9-11.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2005 07:52 pm
Kara, Do not forget that over 30 percent of Americans still believe and trust his message. I doubt that number will decrease much from the current level, because they can't admit the mistakes of this president. They will go donw with the "ship."
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2005 08:00 pm
It is a moral, ethical and legal outrage to grant the protections of the Geneva Conventions to any group of persons that repeatedly murders their prisoners and civilians.

It is a moral, ethical and legal outrage to grant the protections of the Geneva Conventions to any group of persons that repeatedly violates or abets violation of the Geneva Conventions.

The USA is morally obligated to all persons to declare to all persons that we will not grant to any group of persons that repeatedly violates or abets violation of the Geneva Conventions, the protections of the Geneva Conventions until such group of person stops violating or abetting the violation of the Geneva Conventions.
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2005 08:12 pm
c.i., they are "people of faith," in every sense of the word.

I do not believe that we should pull out of Iraq, either now, which would be totally mad, or within the next few years, until we have helped, and enforced if necessary, a super-structure of security administration for the army and the police that is not there at all at present. (And after security come all of the institutions of democracy that have never existed in that country and must surely be established by fiat if they are to exist at all.)

The dialogue that President Bush has never allowed us to be a part of is the one about how the US, the most powerful country on earth, can build a country from the bottom up or the top down, if we do not do it by force? We cannot do it by persuasion because we don't even comprehend the forces we are dealing with, which are divided, tribal, ethnically diverse, and unlikely to be forced into our box of "democracy."
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2005 08:15 pm
ican711nm wrote:
It is a moral, ethical and legal outrage to grant the protections of the Geneva Conventions to any group of persons that repeatedly murders their prisoners and civilians.

It is a moral, ethical and legal outrage to grant the protections of the Geneva Conventions to any group of persons that repeatedly violates or abets violation of the Geneva Conventions.

The USA is morally obligated to all persons to declare to all persons that we will not grant to any group of persons that repeatedly violates or abets violation of the Geneva Conventions, the protections of the Geneva Conventions until such group of person stops violating or abetting the violation of the Geneva Conventions.


Stealing is a crime. A thief is violating the law. By your logic, it wouldn't be a crime to steal from a thief.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2005 08:18 pm
Kara wrote:
Mr Bush has never laid out his plans in this way before. President George W Bush has said he will not accept "anything less than complete victory" in Iraq.

Wrong!

President Bush has "laid out his plans in this way before." He has repeatedly layed out his plans ever since February 26, 2003 (almost a month before the Iraq invasion) when he first laid out his plans to the nation and to Congress. And, he has laid out modifications and/or clarifications of those plans from time to time as conditions warranted it.

My acquaintenances and I have heard and read his speeches wherein he laid out his plans. You apparently did not.

You appear to be a persistent victim of TOMNOM (i.e., The Oxy-Moron News Opinion Media). My acquaintenances and I are not.
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2005 08:23 pm
Quote:
Kara wrote:
Mr Bush has never laid out his plans in this way before. President George W Bush has said he will not accept "anything less than complete victory" in Iraq.


I did not say this. I quoted c.i.'s reference.

Please link here any speech in 2003 that said what George Bush said today.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2005 08:49 pm
old europe wrote:
Stealing is a crime. A thief is violating the law. By your logic, it wouldn't be a crime to steal from a thief.


Let's not distort what I am saying so that one can comfortably disagree with it.

The Geneva Conventions are the law for all those who are signers of those conventions. The USA is a signer. The terrorists murdering their prisoners and civilians in Iraq are not signers of those conventions, nor are they obeyers of those conventions. No signer of the Geneva Conventions is legally obliged to abide by those conventions in a conflict with those who are not signers of those conventions and/or repeatedly are violators of those conventions. Therefore the USA is not legally obliged to abide by those conventions in a conflict with those who are not signers of those conventions and/or repeatedly are violators of those conventions by murdering their prisoners and civilians.

Therefore the USA is not legally obliged to abide by those conventions in a conflict with terrorists in Iraq who are not signers of those conventions and repeatedly are violators of those conventions by murdering their prisoners and civilians.

So lets modify your attempted analogy to fit the situation I am discussing.

Murder is a crime. A murderer is a criminal. By my logic, it would not be a crime to kill a person who is attempting to murder me and other civilians. It is one's moral obligation to kill a person who is attempting to murder one and other civilians.

Perhaps you think that ruthless. I think that couragous.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2005 08:54 pm
ican is the judge, jury, and executioner. Clean.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2005 08:56 pm
Totalitarian.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2005 09:01 pm
c.i.wrote : "ican is the judge, jury, and executioner. "
who would want to bother with due process or perhaps democracy - much too bothersome. don't you agree ? hbg
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2005 09:15 pm
Kara wrote:

I did not say this. I quoted c.i.'s reference.

Please link here any speech in 2003 that said what George Bush said today.

Sorry that I misunderstood your post.

Here's a link I happen to have readily available that we were recently provided by another poster here, Walter Hinteler. On the page following the titlle page you will find a reference to what Bush said 2/26/2003 and is saying now.

Quote:
"The following document articulates the broad strategy the President set forth in 2003 and provides an update on our progress as well as the challenges remaining."
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/iraq_national_strategy_20051130[1].pdf
PDF-file Source: National Security Council
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2005 09:35 pm
Yeah, all part and parcel of good American-style democracy.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2005 09:42 pm
hamburger wrote:
c.i.wrote : "ican is the judge, jury, and executioner. "
who would want to bother with due process or perhaps democracy - much too bothersome. don't you agree ? hbg

OK, I'll bite!

What would you do if a person were attempting to murder you and other civilians?

Call the cops on your cellphone and pray they get there in time to stop your murder?

Run like hell and hope he has bad aim at your distance from him?

Promise to vacate his holy places?

Offer to buy him a mansion?

But what the hell, say you run and he misses you, but only kills a half dozen other civilians you don't even know, ok?.

At least that many civilians would have probably been killed in auto accidents within a year anyway, right?
0 Replies
 
Mortkat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2005 12:23 am
ican -You are aware, I am sure, that reflexive Anti-Americanism is the style among the left wing and its sycophants. Those who are not in the USA do not have the information necessary to judge the situation correctly.

The left wing( self hating and therefore hating America) has always been negative. They predicted we would lose in World War II. They predicted that we would never be able to match the Soviets and paraded around with signs reading--"Better Red than Dead"and now they predict we will not win in Iraq.

They are all American "PATRIOTS"
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2005 02:34 am
And the right wing are blind, ignorant fools. The same stupidity that saw Vietnam end in disaster will also see Awreck end in disaster. The US have made the same mistake now that you made then. That one day the US has to pack up and go home. But having seen the US lumber from one disaster to another under the shrub, it's not really surprising.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2005 06:19 am
Why do the conservatives hate America?
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2005 06:57 am
Reality verses rhetoric.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/30/AR2005113002255.html

President's 'Strategy for Victory' Does Not Address Problems

By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 1, 2005; A21


Quote:

President Bush's "strategy for victory" catalogues progress in Iraq over the past 32 months, but also omits or glosses over complications, problems and uncertainties in the most ambitious U.S. military intervention since Vietnam.

Analysts agreed with Bush that a politically motivated withdrawal could embolden extremists to believe the United States will "cut and run in the face of adversity"-- and risk the implosion of a strategic oil-rich country. But they disagreed with key assessments made by the administration on Iraq's military, on how important the U.S. mission in Iraq is to promoting democracy in the broader Middle East, and how much of Iraq has been rebuilt.

Little is new in the 35-page document, titled "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq," which covers three broad fronts: security, political development and economic issues. The interpretation it yields depends heavily on viewing the glass half-full rather than half-empty -- and doing so in defiance of daily suicide bombings, abductions or deaths. Unspoken is the critical element of the timing of the strategy's release.

"There's a lot that the administration's critics won't disagree with, but it's late," said Robert Malley, director of the International Crisis Group Middle East program. "I don't think the president has the luxury of time to implement a sound policy, both because of the stress on the military but also because of the problem of the trust of the American public and political elite."

On security, Bush said more than 120 Army and police battalions are in the field -- about a third "in the lead" -- in a huge leap from 18 months ago, when the Pentagon junked its initial approach to training and started over.

But the rising numbers mask lingering Iraqi weaknesses and have not curbed insurgent attacks. "There's been an increase in the number of Iraqis in training, but more Americans are dying and violence is increasing," said Lawrence Korb, a Reagan administration Pentagon official now at the Center for American Progress.

Bush noted that Iraqis are now in charge of tough areas in Baghdad -- but failed to mention that the capital is still far from safe, with many major streets vulnerable to attack. He praised the Iraqis' combat performance in the recent Tall Afar offensive -- but left out that Iraqi logistics were in shambles and that each platoon of 20 was led by a U.S. Special Forces officer.

Bush yesterday described his strategy as "clear, hold and build." But in practice, the military has come under fire for too much emphasis on chasing insurgents around the country and not enough on securing areas that have been cleared of enemy fighters. U.S. and Iraqi troops have often had to return to fight in towns where they had fought before.

Military commanders have acknowledged lacking sufficient forces to hold some towns previously cleared of insurgents. But they say that situation is rapidly improving as the ranks of Iraqi forces grow.

On the political front, the new strategy document says staying the course in Iraq is the key to the fate of the greater Middle East. If the United States left before the mission was finished, it said, "Middle East reformers would never again fully trust American assurances of support for democracy and pluralism in the region -- a historic opportunity. . . forever lost."

But a new public opinion poll to be released tomorrow finds that 77 percent of those surveyed in six countries -- Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, all U.S. allies -- say Iraqis are worse off than before the war began in 2003.

On democracy, 58 percent believe the U.S. intervention has produced less democracy in the region, said Shibley Telhami, author of the annual survey, a joint effort by the University of Maryland's Anwar Sadat chair for peace and development, and Zogby International. Almost 70 percent said they do not believe democracy was the real U.S. goal in toppling Saddam Hussein.

"So the consequences of the war are all negative from their point of view," Telhami said.

Bush's emphasis on military strategy also "violates" the first rule of counterinsurgency, which is politics first, said Brookings Institution analyst Michael O'Hanlon. "I didn't see much effort to improve the constitution, where things like equitable oil revenues are critical and are not yet in the constitution or assured. . . . The president seems to dwell on the technical military training issue, which is important but is not enough to constitute the core of a strategy."

On Iraq's economic future, the document says reconstruction of a country battered by war and starved by a dictatorship and international economic sanctions is key to winning over Iraq's 25 million people to the U.S. vision of a new Iraq.

But in a striking rollback from an earlier, more optimistic position, the administration says Iraq has the "potential" to become prosperous and self-sustaining -- without specifying a time frame. In 2003, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz said Iraq's oil revenues "could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years. . . . We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon," he told a House committee.

Oil production is slightly down from a year ago, the new strategy acknowledges.

On issues that affect daily life, unemployment is 25 percent to 40 percent, while the average amount of electricity output is lower than in October 2003 because insurgents have been able to repeatedly destroy cables and distribution stations, according to the International Crisis Group.

"If you don't have sufficient security to find out what the reconstruction needs are and deploy security teams to protect engineers, you can't do the work to rebuild the country," said International Crisis Group Vice President Mark Schneider.

Bush's strategy report cites International Monetary Fund figures that Iraq's per capita gross domestic product rose to $942 in 2004 and is expected to rise to more than $1,000 this year.

But in its September World Economic Outlook, the IMF also notes that Iraq's new government "faces daunting medium-term challenges, including advancing the reconstruction of the country's infrastructure, reducing macroeconomic instability and developing the institutions that can support a market-based economy."



Until the security is improved, not worsened as it is, progress can't really be made except on a superficial level. That is simply an undeniable fact.
0 Replies
 
Kara
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2005 09:15 am


ican, I had already seen this document. What does that have to do with my comments about the president not articulating his direction, policy, and strategy to the people of the country? If he had made the speech two years ago, or even a year ago, that he did yesterday, I believe that support for his war would be much stronger, if still faltering because of the failure to outline any credible reason for going to war and failure to admit mistakes made in the early prosecution of his war and during its course, such as de-Bathification that supplied the insurgency, undersupply of troops, lack of equipment and armor.

Every time I hear him or Rumsfeld defend our inadequate number of forces in Iraq, a deficit that has cost our country and the Iraqis thousands of lives, I see red. They say that the amount of troop strength is determined by the commanders on the ground and those commanders have not asked for more troops.

Have you ever heard of a commander ask his chief for more troops?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/24/2025 at 01:46:40