Exit strategy?

joefromchicago wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
IMPEACH BUSH!

First sensible thing Finn has said in a long time.

Actually, there was, only about a week past, one brief shining moment (it had the smell of Camelot about it) when finn floated free. He was, true, on killer pain killers but I'm hardly one to nitpick whatever way god sets to his miracle-making.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
IMPEACH BUSH!

First sensible thing Finn has said in a long time.

Now if we can only get you and CI and Frank to say something senisble.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

finn

Just type "government secrecy" or some such into google news and watch the fireworks. Your assumption that this administration is not unique is mistaken.

Well, if an academic such as yourself finds a google search so persuasive, then who am I to disagree?

I have to admit that it is difficult to defend my positions in the face of a scholar who has the capacity and willingness to conduct exhaustive and irrefutable research.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

amen.

Given up CI?

Not surprised.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
IMPEACH BUSH!

First sensible thing Finn has said in a long time.

Actually, there was, only about a week past, one brief shining moment (it had the smell of Camelot about it) when finn floated free. He was, true, on killer pain killers but I'm hardly one to nitpick whatever way god sets to his miracle-making.

Finn transcends on opiates and on cola. Would that you could follow blatham. Until then you are mired in your Liberal wallow. Fear not though: follow the enlightened, and you too can reach Paradise.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
IMPEACH BUSH!

First sensible thing Finn has said in a long time.

Now if we can only get you and CI and Frank to say something senisble.

I must say that the irony here is just too, too precious.

0 Replies

amen

0 Replies

Quote:

Finn transcends on opiates and on cola.

For the opiates, I can hook you up with some Vancouver celestials (also handy if you need a railroad). Canadian prices, of course, so likely more attractive than the opiate pricing to be found in Crawford or New Orleans.

0 Replies

Exit Strategy
I do not even foresee any exit strategy being relevant at this point or not until three years are up because of the political environment. Zarqawi made statement recently that he foresees the US retreating soon. The current admin has too much arrogance to pull out, and it is obvious that the admin will do anything to keep the conflict going including political stunts (i.e. recent speech followed by bogus terror threat from IZ to validate speech).

The only viable exit strategy at this point is unfortunately get the constitution legitimatised, train the local nationals in security and then start disbursing US assets from the new "sovereign state". We are locked into nation building at this point, unless there is a regime change in the US. Look how long the nation building in AF has been going on! We are in it for three more years, at least.

If it were a viable option, at this point, I would just pull out cold turkey and let a civil war run its course. Then we could just support the side that we think would most likely support our interest the best in the future! That is what this is all about anyway, influence, ideology, and serving national interests.

0 Replies

What has Bush accomplished by flying to New Orelands on Air Force 1 to look at the damage - after he asked Americans to cut back on the use of fuel. This guy is an idiot.

0 Replies

There might be some hope:

Leaders in Iraq Agree to Change in Constitution

By ROBERT F. WORTH
Published: October 12, 2005
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 11 - Iraqi political leaders said they had agreed to an important last-minute change in the draft constitution on Tuesday evening in exchange for a promise by some prominent Sunni Arab leaders to give public support to the document in the nationwide referendum on Saturday.

Forum: The Transition in Iraq
The change would create a panel in the next parliament with the power to propose broad new revisions to the constitution. In effect, the change could give the Sunnis - who were largely shut out of the constitution-writing process - a new chance to help redraft the document after elections in December.

The agreement was a major victory for American officials, who had spent weeks urging Iraq's Shiite and Kurdish leaders to make changes that could soften Sunni opposition to the charter and forge a broader consensus. The Americans had voiced fears that if the constitution passed over strong Sunni opposition, more would turn toward violence.

The breakthrough came as insurgents continued their intensified campaign to create chaos, carrying out at least a dozen attacks across Iraq that left at least 42 people dead and dozens wounded. The biggest attack, a bombing in Tal Afar, killed at least 27.

The constitutional change would need to be approved by the National Assembly, which will convene on Wednesday for that purpose. That is likely to be a formality, as the lawmakers generally follow their party leaders.

"This will give a new chance to the people who were not present in the writing of the constitution," said Alaa Makky, a senior member of the Iraqi Islamic Party, Iraq's best-known Sunni political group, which had until now been urging its members to vote against the document. "We think this may be the beginning of a new era, and we think it is a great success."

0 Replies

For all the talk about government secrecy, etc, the important facts of this Iraq situation were outlined by ebrown and Xingu.

A) We measure victory when a democratic government of Iraq feels it is able to defend itself and asks us to leave.

B) Trouble is, the democratic government we seem to be putting in there is pro-Iranian.

That's the basic flaw in the whole Bush plan. For example, the Iraqi intelligence service does not evern report to the Iraqi government-it reports to the American forces. Why? Because the Iraqi government is too pro-Iran!

Now, if the newly elected Iraqi government, which owes it's very existence to the USA, is already embracing the Iranians, what are they going to be like when our troop strength is reduced? They are going to be even more openly pro-Iranian.

The Shiites have been put down by the Sunnis since 780 AD, when, their leader, Hussein, (grandson of Muhammad), was slain by forces loyal to one of the deceased Muhammad's generals. The relationship between Shiites and Sunnis today is somewhat akin to the relationship between Catholics and Protestants 200 years ago-not good at all. Lots of hatred on both sides.

Iraq and Iran are the only two countries on earth where the Shiites are in a numerical majority. Is it any wonder that this Iraqi government, or any Iraqi government that gets elected, will be close to Iran? How can they not be.

The American people have become disheartened by this war because of length, and the government pronouncements which have little connection to reality. The American people haven't even come to grips with the fact that when the dust settles, the government we installed will be Iran's close buddy.

Wonder what is going to happen when that fact sinks in?

0 Replies

Actually, not really sure what is wrong with the IZ democratic government being different than that of the US western flavor. There are geographic, ethnic, and cultural factors involved in this equation. Check out the CIA factbook, not many democratic governments are the same in structure and etc. Besides getting involved in the Mid-east in the name of national interest has done nothing but caused problems (i.e. terrorism)

0 Replies

Yardsale:

Having Iraq government different from US is not so bad. However, going through all this to install a government that is buddy buddy with Iran, one of our worst enemies, is clearly intolerable.

0 Replies

kelt, That in addition to the fact that Islam will be the guiding force for their "democracy." They talk about equality for women, but we know better, don't we?

0 Replies

Don't forget the Iran Contra affair. Ayatollah Khomeni let the American hostages go when Ronald Reagan became president. There is something cooking between the Iranian theocracy and Republicans.

0 Replies

Joe -- it seems the Senate is starting to agree with you.

Today, the Washington Post wrote:

For the past three years, President Bush has set the course on U.S. policy in Iraq, and Republicans in Congress -- and many Democrats, too -- have dutifully followed his lead. Yesterday the Senate, responding to growing public frustration with the administration's war policy, signaled that those days are coming to an end.

The rebuff to the White House was muffled in the modulated language of a bipartisan amendment, but the message could not have been more clear. With their constituents increasingly unhappy with the U.S. mission in Iraq, Democrats and now Republicans are demanding that the administration show that it has a strategy to turn the conflict over to the Iraqis and eventually bring U.S. troops home.

Full article

0 Replies

When and how the US will exit Iraq - indeed, whether they will - probably depends not just on the political landscape but also on why they actually went there in the first place. We'll recall that about one month in, a US general involved in the campaign revealed that the intention was to maintain military bases there.

Claims that the US went in specifically for moral reasons (to stop murder and oppression and to bring freedom) ring hollow given a history of ignoring civil and human rights tragedies in the past and in the present. The predictor for US military involvement is NOT moral issues, but rather issues related to strategic visions and access to resources deemed essential for the US economy.

Folks do lie about this stuff. Iran/Contra for example. So we simply cannot trust an administration's PR statements regarding motive. Information that turns up, usually later, through government investigations, reporters' legwork, historians' research, the belated admissions of principals involved, whistleblowers' revelations, etc give us a more accurate understanding. One key element certain to gain the attention of analysts will be Iraq's oil.

Yesterday, a WH document turned up which demonstrated that the major oil company execs who testified before Congress last week and who denied meeting with Cheney's energy task force in 2001 had lied through their sparkley white caps in their testimony.

Quote:

WASHINGTON -- A White House document shows that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force in 2001 -- something long suspected by environmentalists but denied as recently as last week by industry officials testifying before Congress.

The document, obtained this week by The Washington Post, shows that officials from Exxon Mobil Corp., Conoco (before its merger with Phillips), Shell Oil Co., and BP America Inc. met in the White House complex with the Cheney aides who were developing a national energy policy, parts of which became law and parts of which are still being debated.

In a joint hearing last week of the Senate Energy and Commerce committees, the chief executives of Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp., and ConocoPhillips said their firms did not participate in the 2001 task force. The president of Shell Oil said his company did not participate ''to my knowledge," and the chief of BP America Inc. said he did not know.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/11/16/record_oil_leaders_energy_panel_met/

0 Replies

Exit strategy?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know