Bush Says Patience Is Needed as Nations Build a Democracy

woiyo wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

You both think we should have toppled Saddam then pulled out?

No. We had a valid "warrant" to remove the regime due to constant violations of the terms of surrender and a valid "warrent" to search and remove any WMD. We accomplished the first objective when we pulled Saddam out of the "hole". We continued our search at then came to the determination that there were no WMD.

AT THAT MOMENT, US Soldiers stopped being soldiers and became peacekeepers and traffic cops and TARGETS. Once our soldiers stop being soldiers, get them out of harms way. It is WAY PAST TIME for the Iraquis to govern themselves. If they still want to kill each other, not my problem.

Well, while I agree with most you say here, I'm not sure just pulling out is the answer. We have some responsibility to assist the new government in acheiving stability.

squinney wrote:

What of this great patience when it came to allowing inspectors to do their job? Hmmm? Where was his patience then?

Don't blame Bush for that. There was 12 years of "patience" which returned nothing prior to Bush getting in office.

woiyo wrote:

squinney wrote:

What of this great patience when it came to allowing inspectors to do their job? Hmmm? Where was his patience then?

Don't blame Bush for that. There was 12 years of "patience" which returned nothing prior to Bush getting in office.

And 12,000 Americans dead after he got into office.....

Squnney, You can't have patience when you know that the longer you wait the more you will be proved wrong.

Intrepid wrote:

woiyo wrote:

squinney wrote:

What of this great patience when it came to allowing inspectors to do their job? Hmmm? Where was his patience then?

Don't blame Bush for that. There was 12 years of "patience" which returned nothing prior to Bush getting in office.

And 12,000 Americans dead after he got into office.....

Squnney, You can't have patience when you know that the longer you wait the more you will be proved wrong.

Do all Canadians place greater value on American lives that other countries people? Or is that only something you do Intrepid?

I guess I should be grateful, but I think the millions of Iraqi lives and possibly millions of other lives in the middle east that have been saved through the sacrifice of the gallant men and women that make up the coalition are worth it.

If your so concerned about human life, how bout you head to Dufar, McG?

Well then your elected democrats who passed the legislation giving him the authority are also guilty of the "lies" you keep chirping on about.

squinney wrote:

If your so concerned about human life, how bout you head to Dufar, McG?

Why would I do that? The UN doesn't even care about that place.

Woiyo

Quote:

Well then your elected democrats who passed the legislation giving him the authority are also guilty of the "lies" you keep chirping on about.

They " congress authorized the us of force if it was needed and as a last resort. That critical point never arrived except in president Strangelove's, pardon the expression, mind.

McGentrix wrote:

squinney wrote:

If your so concerned about human life, how bout you head to Dufar, McG?

Why would I do that? The UN doesn't even care about that place.

Would you head out of upstate New York to fight the war is what I want to know?

I am anti war...I go to protests...been maced and smacked with a baton a couple of times. How come all you pro war people don't go to where the action is?

woiyo
. I guess they were under the misapprehension they were giving that authorization to an intelligent and thoughtful individual. As it turned out they gave a loaded gun to a child.

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

squinney wrote:

If your so concerned about human life, how bout you head to Dufar, McG?

Why would I do that? The UN doesn't even care about that place.

Would you head out of upstate New York to fight the war is what I want to know?

I am anti war...I go to protests...been maced and smacked with a baton a couple of times. How come all you pro war people don't go to where the action is?

Didn't you leave?I seem to recall a bunch of threads about it...

You and I both know I tried in 91, so why the coy routine?

McGentrix wrote:

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

squinney wrote:

If your so concerned about human life, how bout you head to Dufar, McG?

Why would I do that? The UN doesn't even care about that place.

Would you head out of upstate New York to fight the war is what I want to know?

I am anti war...I go to protests...been maced and smacked with a baton a couple of times. How come all you pro war people don't go to where the action is?

Didn't you leave?I seem to recall a bunch of threads about it...

You and I both know I tried in 91, so why the coy routine?

I came back, what's it to you? . Why didn't you try again? Courage of convictions and all. The way re-enlistment and recruitment is going they'll be accepting people blind cripple or crazy soon.
I was not addressing you personally but all the gung ho war people who talk the talk but don't walk the walk. Let's don't get in a sniping contest here.

That we should not have attacked Iraq is a given. However, since we did we have no recourse but to stay there and repair the damage we have done.
If we did cut and run we would leave a nation in turmoil and civil war. Ripe for another Saddam or Iranian style islamic government.

Published: May 20, 2005
The Bush administration has finally awakened to the grave dangers Iraq's new government is courting by failing to reach out convincingly to credible representatives of the disaffected Sunni Arab minority. Washington's concern helped prompt Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's urgent mission to Baghdad earlier this week. Unless her pleas for greater inclusiveness are heeded, the new government will not be able to establish the nationwide legitimacy it needs to draw significant numbers of Sunnis away from the continuing insurgency.

The implications of that are clear. As senior American military commanders now acknowledge, Iraqi forces aren't militarily strong enough to prevail over the insurgency and will not be for a long time. If Baghdad continues to shun a serious political strategy to draw away Sunni support from the insurgents, large numbers of American troops will be stuck fighting a prolonged and bloody counterinsurgency war in much of northern and western Iraq.

Such a sorry comedown from the high hopes of January's election would be tragic for Iraq. It would also be very bad for the United States. The one country it would serve quite nicely is Iran. Tehran is not eager to see a successful, broadly based Shiite democracy, which might lead Iran's discontented millions to wonder why they put up with a corrupt, repressive and economically benighted Islamic dictatorship. Tehran is also understandably distrustful of Iraq's Sunni nationalists, having fought a long and costly war against Saddam Hussein's regime in the 1980's. And as the Iranian authorities test the world's patience with their nuclear programs, they can only be relieved to see the bulk of American ground forces tied down indefinitely in counterinsurgency operations in Iraq.

Iran is already reinforcing its ties to Iraq's new Shiite leadership. Iran's foreign minister, Kamal Kharrazi, flew into Baghdad two days after Ms. Rice departed, and left yesterday brandishing a joint communiqué that blamed Saddam Hussein for that 1980's war. Moreover, the Iraqi party that has been most resistant to a more inclusive approach toward the Sunnis is the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or Sciri, the Iraqi Shiite party with the closest ties to the Iranian ayatollahs.

Sciri is just one of several parties in the current government coalition. But none of the others, including the Dawa Shiite religious party and the two secular Kurdish parties, have done much to resist Sciri's exclusionary views and vetoes of prospective Sunni nominees. As a result, qualified and representative Sunnis have been kept out of key positions in the new security forces, the cabinet and now the constitution-drafting process. Shockingly, only two Sunni Arabs were chosen to sit on the 55-member parliamentary panel named to draft Iraq's new constitution.

It is understandable that Iraq's Shiites and Kurds, who suffered so much under Saddam Hussein, are uncomfortable about letting people who served his predominantly Sunni regime back into positions of power. But unless lower- and middle-echelon Baathists are allowed to serve, much of the Sunni professional class will remain excluded from government and sympathetic to the insurgents.

Millions of Shiites and Kurds risked their lives to vote in January because they wanted to help build a better, more democratic Iraq. The intervening months have been hugely disillusioning, with polls now showing a stunning 40-percentage-point drop in public confidence since January, as politicians have squabbled, insurgent attacks have soared and public services have further deteriorated. The dream of a new Iraq will ebb away unless leaders of the ruling Shiite and Kurdish coalition reach out boldly and bravely to their Sunni neighbors.