Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

okie wrote:

So arresting criminals increases crime, so I guess lets get rid of all the police departments and DAs around the country, so crime will go away. Makes perfect sense.

Okie

That's really not the point at all. It is simply that this NIE report (leaked) has revealed that US intel agencies conclude that the war in Iraq has increased the terrorist organizations, motivations and therefore the future threat posed to citizens in the US and elsewhere.

This is a serious indictment of Bush administration policies and personnel.

What makes it even more serious is the multitude of voices before the war was begun (from intel, from state, from the military, from non-government agencies and experts, from other nations, etc) who argued against the administration planning for this war PRECISELY because this result loomed so large as a probable consequence.

0 Replies

Another consequence... the incredible cost to US taxpayers for a project which has, according to that NIE report, increased the threat of terrorism.

Quote:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-military25sep25,0,5555967.story?coll=la-home-nation

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Another consequence... the incredible cost to US taxpayers for a project which has, according to that NIE report, increased the threat of terrorism.

Quote:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-military25sep25,0,5555967.story?coll=la-home-nation

Sounds like we had better start cutting some social programs. Can't have the government spending money helping their citizens. We've got wars to fight.

0 Replies

I wonder how much more it costs to maintain a US Soldier in Iraq than it does to maintain that same soldier in Fort Riley KS or Fort Hood TX? All that has to be factored into the overall cost too.

Meanwhile, if the following is accurate, it would appear that Iraq has not yet given up despite the best efforts of anti-patriots and doomsday prophets and negative nabods to put anything related to the USA in the worst possible light.

Iraqi president asks for long-term US military presence in Iraq
Sep 25 3:11 AM US/Eastern

Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, in an interview, asked for a long-term US military presence in Iraq, saying his country will need two permanent US air bases to deter "foreign interference."
"I think we will be in need of American forces for a long time -- even two military bases to prevent foreign interference," Talabani told The Washington Post.

"I don't ask to have 100,000 American soldiers -- 10,000 soldiers and two air bases would be enough."

The president indicated the bases would most welcome in Kurdistan, an autonomous region in northern Iraq that has practiced de facto self-government since the 1991 Gulf War.

But he suggested that the Sunni Arab segment of the Iraqi population would also welcome a long-term US military presence in Iraq.

"In some places Sunnis want the Americans to stay," he argued. "Sunnis think the main danger is coming from Iran now."

The comments come as top US military commanders admitted the United States will not be able to reduce its 147,000-strong contingent in Iraq in the coming months because of spreading sectarian violence and the possibility of the country slipping into civil war.

US Central Command head General John Abizaid told defense reporters last week any previous plans to draw down US troops in Iraq had been put off until at least next spring, and the force level might even go up.

"I think these are prudent force levels," Abizaid said of the current contingent. "We'll bring in more forces if we have to
SOURCE

0 Replies

Quote:

Meanwhile, if the following is accurate, it would appear that Iraq has not yet given up despite the best efforts of anti-patriots and doomsday prophets and negative nabods to put anything related to the USA in the worst possible light.

God. The open mind at work. US intel agencies are now doomsday prophets and anti-patriots.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I wonder how much more it costs to maintain a US Soldier in Iraq than it does to maintain that same soldier in Fort Riley KS or Fort Hood TX? All that has to be factored into the overall cost too.

A hell of a lot Fox. Think of

Combat pay for the soldiers
Munitions used in combat
The cost of caring for the wounded for the next fifty years or so
The wear and tear on the equipment. It has to be fixed or replaced.
The transportation cost. Everything has to be shipped to Iraq or the surrounding area.
The additional cost to keep additional ships in the area.
The huge cost of contractors, corrupt and otherwise, to maintain the troops.
Additional fuel needed for all operations in all the services.

I'm sure there are other considerations I have missed but that should give you an example of where some of the additional cost come from.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

okie wrote:
So arresting criminals increases crime, so I guess lets get rid of all the police departments and DAs around the country, so crime will go away. Makes perfect sense.

Okie

That's really not the point at all. It is simply that this NIE report (leaked) has revealed that US intel agencies conclude that the war in Iraq has increased the terrorist organizations, motivations and therefore the future threat posed to citizens in the US and elsewhere.

This is a serious indictment of Bush administration policies and personnel.

What makes it even more serious is the multitude of voices before the war was begun (from intel, from state, from the military, from non-government agencies and experts, from other nations, etc) who argued against the administration planning for this war PRECISELY because this result loomed so large as a probable consequence.

And I also believe if other nations would actually follow their own U.N. resolutions to actually enforce them, and support Bush's policies as he has attemtped to follow through with the above, the world would be a whole lot better off. So blame the do nothingers, not Bush.

0 Replies

Bush's Church Wants Troops to leave Iraq
Published on Monday, September 25, 2006 by Ekklesia / UK

Bush's Church Urges Pull-out of US Troops from Iraq

by Peter Spiegel

US President George W. Bush's own church has called for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and is urging direct action to end the war.

Writes Mark Schoeff Jr: United Methodist Church leaders helped launch a week of protest and civil disobedience against the war in Iraq by signing a declaration of peace in the capital, urging President Bush to pull US troops out of the country.

The Declaration of Peace, signed on 21 September 2006, is described as a call for nonviolent action to end the war in Iraq. The Washington DC event was one of 350 staged nationwide to promote the peace initiative.

More than 500 groups, almost half of them faith organizations, are involved in the declaration of peace effort, which recently retired Bishop Susan Morrison said includes "acts of moral witness to seek a new course for our country."

By signing the peace document in front of the White House, the United Methodists and other protesters also hope to influence congressional races in November 2006 by forcing candidates to outline where they stand on the war.

Speakers at the Washington DC rally accusing the President of lying about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction and launching what they called an illegal offensive.

"Our demand as a movement is to end the war now," said Bishop Morrison. The declaration calls the situation in Iraq "an endless fire consuming lives, resources and the fragile possibilities of peace."

Thirty-four protesters, attempting to deliver the peace statement to Bush in an act of civil disobedience, were arrested and charged with disorderly conduct. None of the United Methodist protesters participated in that portion of the day's activity.

The Declaration of Peace initiative provides a way for the faithful to vent their anger about Iraq, Morrison said. "There are a lot of frustrated United Methodists out there who don't know where to channel it," she added.

United Methodist clergy attending the recent 2006 International Clergywomen's Consultation in Chicago signed the declaration to "call to end this war" and made a commitment to take action to translate the call into a concrete plan for peace.

Jim Winkler, top executive of the United Methodist Board of Church and Society, said that protesting the war is similar to the church's work to promote other social movements. The church took prophetic positions on civil rights, women's rights and nuclear disarmament before Congress acted, he noted.

"It has taken time for Congress to catch up," Winkler said. "We may be seeing another example of that."

Staff members of the denomination's social advocacy agency have been meeting with congressional staff members on a weekly basis regarding policy toward Iraq. Political leaders on Capitol Hill have been divided on the Bush administration's policy, with some calling for a timetable for withdrawal and others urging a staying of the course.

"You see more and more Republicans who are uncomfortable with the position of 'stay the course,'" said Mark Harrison, director of the board's Peace with Justice programme.

But the White House asserts that Iraq would collapse if US troops leave prematurely, potentially leading to a full-blown civil war.

United Methodist leaders argue that the long insurgency in Iraq, which has resulted in the deaths of thousands Americans and Iraqis, is proof that U.S. involvement is misguided.

"Iraq is in a civil war right now because we're there," Winkler said.

Morrison agreed. "We just exacerbate what's going on." She disputed critics who claim that war protesters undermine US troops and sap their morale.

"We care deeply about the troops," she said. "We're proud of their commitment. We want them safe. We want them home."

Within individual United Methodist congregations, however, some members do not agree with the way the anti-war movement is articulating its opposition.

Differences of opinion must be respected, said the Rev Dean Snyder, senior minister of Foundry United Methodist Church in Washington. Such divisions have come up throughout Christian history.

"It's part of our discernment process of truth," he said. "But that does not change the fact that church leaders are put in positions of prophetic responsibility."

© Copyright 2006 Ekklesia

0 Replies

Shock of shocks! And these screamers, the Limbaughs, the Hannitys, the Ingrahams, dare to suggest that THEY support American ideals. They are nothing but hypocritical liars.

Quote:

0 Replies

okie wrote

Quote:

And I also believe if other nations would actually follow their own U.N. resolutions to actually enforce them, and support Bush's policies as he has attemtped to follow through with the above, the world would be a whole lot better off. So blame the do nothingers, not Bush.

First, you are turning the Bush Presidency into something akin to the classic "welfare queen" - excused from responsibility for anything at all...a mere victim...unable to succeed because of everyone else's failings. That's a tad pathetic. This is his Presidency. Everything that has happened over the last six years has been under his watch. If either he or you guys who support him had any balls at all, you'd confront these failures and these responsibilities rather than wimping out and blaming others.

The ferocity of the attacks on internal dissenters or on those who take the administration to task for its huge failed responsibilities - or the constant portrayals of manliness and bravado...well, one day you may figure out that they aren't brave or manly at all. They are like a failed father who blamess everyone but himself and then beats his neighbor and his wife and kids to prove his macho-hood.

Quote:

"Why are we asking our soldiers and marines to use the same armour we found was insufficient in 2003?" asked Thomas Hammes, a retired Marine Corps colonel.

There's evidence of a responsible and compassionate - a real manly President, Vice President and Sec Def.

0 Replies

And you might also ask why those on a Bush supporter thread use such gross exaggerations to trash our President.

But then those who only look for a read sources that trash our President probably don't really care whether they are fair in their criticism on not.

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/12/10/military/15_10_2212_9_04.txt

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115265,00.html

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-13211.html

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2006/ss_military_01_12.html

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

okie wrote:
So arresting criminals increases crime, so I guess lets get rid of all the police departments and DAs around the country, so crime will go away. Makes perfect sense.

Okie

That's really not the point at all. It is simply that this NIE report (leaked) has revealed that US intel agencies conclude that the war in Iraq has increased the terrorist organizations, motivations and therefore the future threat posed to citizens in the US and elsewhere.

This is a serious indictment of Bush administration policies and personnel.

What makes it even more serious is the multitude of voices before the war was begun (from intel, from state, from the military, from non-government agencies and experts, from other nations, etc) who argued against the administration planning for this war PRECISELY because this result loomed so large as a probable consequence.

From an interview with Ernst Uhrlau, president of the German intelligence service:

Quote:

Theveßen: War der Irak-Krieg ein Fehler in Hinblick auf die Terrorbekämpfung?

Uhrlau: Ich sehe den Irak-Krieg unter dem Gesichtspunkt Terrorbekämpfung schon als einen Fehler. Denn Terroristen hat es vor dem Krieg im Irak nicht gegeben. Das ist ein anderer Ansatz des diktatorischen Regimes von Saddam Hussein gewesen. Islamisten wären immer eine Bedrohung für jeden Staat, der die Religion in die zweite Reihe schickt. Und Selbstmordattentäter sind nicht in der Struktur der irakischen Extremisten gewesen. Der Irak ist eine Plattform, eine Mobilisierungsplattform, und die Chance, die USA dort anzugreifen. Und so fatal es ist: Ein Sieg von Islamisten im Irak wird keiner in Europa sich wünschen können, auch diejenigen, die politisch 2003 das militärische Vorgehen noch nicht für angezeigt hielten.

Regarding the fight against terrorism, was the Iraq war a mistake?

From the perspective of fighting terrorism, I do see the Iraq war as a mistake. That was a different approach during Saddam Hussein's dictatorial regime. Islamists would always be a threat to a state who sends religion off to take a back seat. And suicide bombers didn't exist in the structure of the Iraqi extremists. Iraq [today] is a platform, a mobilising platform, and a chance to fight the USA there. And as disastrous as it may be: a victory of the islamists in Iraq cannot be desired by anyone in Europe, not even those, who in 2003 didn't regard a military intervention as appropriate.

Yep... Pretty much sums it up.

0 Replies

But whether or not it was a mistake is a bell that cannot now be unrung. We are there.

The question for the American people is whether they want to tuck and run yet again or whether they want to demonstrate that we aren't so easy this time. And there is the larger picture of the good that has been accomplished and will be accomplished once Iraq is a free and stable nation in the Middle East.

There are those who just want to bash Bush, bash America, and generally be critical about everything. They don't have a clue what should happen now. They just don't like what has happened. Ask them what Bush or America SHOULD DO and they lurch like jumping beans trying to avoid answering that question. It's easy with 20-20 hindsight to say what we shouldn't have done. What we SHOULD DO is a lot tougher.

Our true patriots and friends are ready to deal with what is and do what is the best to do with that.

0 Replies

I've said this before, and I'm going to say it again: you break it, you own it!

So the invasion has brought down all infrastructure, all the control over the country? So militias, not the government or the invasion forces, control Iraq? So Islamic fanatics roam the country freely? So Iraq is a recruiting ground for more terrorists, militants come to Iraq to train and then go back to their home countries, and it appears that Iran rather than anybody else has control over Iraq? Three years post-invasion, no such thing as an effective Iraqi army or police force exists.

Okay. Then do something about it. Start with: work on a conclusive plan. Apparently, there are not enough troops in Iraq to guarantee effective measures to rule in the violence. In Operation Desert Storm, 660,000 coalition troops were in Iraq, and didn't attempt to take over the country. Now, you have 145,000 US troops (constituting over 90% of the occupation force) in Iraq, and seem to expect that's enough to handle the civil war that's raging there. Therefore, send more troops. If recruiting numbers go down and you don't have enough personnell, introduce the draft in the States. Only when the situation is safe enough for Iraqis to enlist in the police and army forces without risking to be blown up right at the recruiting office, you will ever be able to hand over control to the Iraqis. If America can't do it alone, try to get more nations on board. The quagmire in Iraq is a threat to all Western nations, and if the Bush et aliter hadn't continously pissed off their allies, many would have committed more troops/forces/money/personnell/supplies to reign in the violence in Iraq. If you don't believe this, take a look at the countries which are currently engaged in Afghanistan. So talk to the other Western countries. If that's not enough, try to get a UN resolution for peacekeeping troops. If you think the UN is a toothless tiger and nobody commits troops anyways, take a look at the countries which are currently sending soldiers to Lebanon. Arm your troops appropriately. BS like "you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want" doesn't cut it.

Then, let's talk about diplomacy. How come the US still refuses to even talk to Iran? What happened to the "road map" in Israel? And how can you expect other nations to follow obligations and international treaties, if the US President denounces international agreements on biological weapons and on torture and refuses to sign up for an international court to try war criminals? How can you expect support when all you do is continously bash countries who dare to offer a different perspective on international problems than the US one?

That stuff about "you're either with us or with the terrorists" sounds mighty good when you stand on a pile of rubble and call for revenge, but it's utterly useless as a guideline for international politics and diplomacy.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

... international politics and diplomacy...

I'm certainly older than you are, oe, but if we had used those two terms related to USA at school (and especially at university) :wink:

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

I've said this before, and I'm going to say it again: you break it, you own it!

So the invasion has brought down all infrastructure, all the control over the country? So militias, not the government or the invasion forces, control Iraq? So Islamic fanatics roam the country freely? So Iraq is a recruiting ground for more terrorists, militants come to Iraq to train and then go back to their home countries, and it appears that Iran rather than anybody else has control over Iraq? Three years post-invasion, no such thing as an effective Iraqi army or police force exists.

I disagree. The Iraqi army and police force are coming along nicely. They aren't ready to handle it all yet but they're already handling a lot of it.

Okay. Then do something about it. Start with: work on a conclusive plan. Apparently, there are not enough troops in Iraq to guarantee effective measures to rule in the violence. In Operation Desert Storm, 660,000 coalition troops were in Iraq, and didn't attempt to take over the country. Now, you have 145,000 US troops (constituting over 90% of the occupation force) in Iraq, and seem to expect that's enough to handle the civil war that's raging there. Therefore, send more troops. If recruiting numbers go down and you don't have enough personnell, introduce the draft in the States. Only when the situation is safe enough for Iraqis to enlist in the police and army forces without risking to be blown up right at the recruiting office, you will ever be able to hand over control to the Iraqis. If America can't do it alone, try to get more nations on board. The quagmire in Iraq is a threat to all Western nations, and if the Bush et aliter hadn't continously pissed off their allies, many would have committed more troops/forces/money/personnell/supplies to reign in the violence in Iraq. If you don't believe this, take a look at the countries which are currently engaged in Afghanistan. So talk to the other Western countries. If that's not enough, try to get a UN resolution for peacekeeping troops. If you think the UN is a toothless tiger and nobody commits troops anyways, take a look at the countries which are currently sending soldiers to Lebanon. Arm your troops appropriately. BS like "you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want" doesn't cut it.

I am always one to agree that overwhelming force is the only way to conduct war. I think we would have been more likely to have done that if every use of force we have used had not been criticized by our European 'friends' and the Leftists in this country. I wish we had ignored the critics and just did it, but the administration bowed to public pressure with disastrous results. (Source: just re-read this thread with all the links that have condemned the USA every time it has gotten really tough.)

Then, let's talk about diplomacy. How come the US still refuses to even talk to Iran? What happened to the "road map" in Israel? And how can you expect other nations to follow obligations and international treaties, if the US President denounces international agreements on biological weapons and on torture and refuses to sign up for an international court to try war criminals? How can you expect support when all you do is continously bash countries who dare to offer a different perspective on international problems than the US one?

What 'road map' in Israel. The United States has a long standing history of not doing business with terrorists or people who have pledged to destroy us. When Iran announces that it wishes to be friends with the US and Israel, we'll talk.

That stuff about "you're either with us or with the terrorists" sounds mighty good when you stand on a pile of rubble and call for revenge, but it's utterly useless as a guideline for international politics and diplomacy.

And this is exactly why we haven't used overwhelming force to get the job done. Lines like:

Quote:

That stuff about "you're either with us or with the terrorists" sounds mighty good when you stand on a pile of rubble and call for revenge, but it's utterly useless as a guideline for international politics and diplomacy

You say what we should do, and then condemn us if we do it. I am not excusing the administration and DOD for bowing to that kind of stuff and I think they have bowed to it and I do think the results have been disastrous.

I also question the motives of those who proclaim what we should do while demonstrating they have no intention of doing it themselves or even helping. But realistically a huge pile of rubble we left in Germany and Japan certainly turned things around in both places. Can anybody say that the German people and Japanese people and the world is not better off because we were willing to create those piles of rubble?Sometimes when diplomacy fails, the bigger gun is the best way to go.

0 Replies

If more Europeans would see the light in terms of the threat as it looms, and help enforce their own U.N. resolutions, as Bush has attempted to do, the situation would be far better than it is.

0 Replies

foxfyre wrote

Quote:

But whether or not it was a mistake is a bell that cannot now be unrung. We are there.

How convenient to brush off the immense idiocies and incompetencies which got us where we are. As if those same people can suddenly be counted on to act with wisdom or with honesty now.

Quote:

The question for the American people is whether they want to tuck and run yet again or whether they want to demonstrate that we aren't so easy this time.

Thoughtless cliche and false dilemma. Per the NIE report, a far more appropriate and immediate question is whether the American people will support an administration so unable to either properly analyze situations or to plan and execute workable strategies or whether they will replace them with people who actually give a damn about anything other than authoritarian power.

Quote:

And there is the larger picture of the good that has been accomplished and will be accomplished once Iraq is a free and stable nation in the Middle East.

"Larger good" meaning, one supposes, torture, near bankrupcy, constant deceits to American citizens, corruption, hundreds of thousands of dead people, maimed US service men and women... all to achieve a result which is defined by the NIE as a greater expansion of terrorists networks and individuals.

Quote:

There are those who just want to bash Bush, bash America, and generally be critical about everything. They don't have a clue what should happen now. They just don't like what has happened. Ask them what Bush or America SHOULD DO and they lurch like jumping beans trying to avoid answering that question. It's easy with 20-20 hindsight to say what we shouldn't have done. What we SHOULD DO is a lot tougher.

Oh yeah, what now needs to be done ain't an easy path. This isn't unringing a bell, this is trying to remake a bell from shattered bits. But your unstated implication that the present crowd have a plan which is not merely a slogan for PR consumption, or that they have a plan any more likely to succeed than what they've done so far is pathetically blind to the real world.

Quote:

Our true patriots and friends are ready to deal with what is and do what is the best to do with that.

America's real friends will do whatever they can to rid the US and the world of the worst and most dangerous US administration in the nation's history. That's number one. Nothing much positive is going to take place until that step is done.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I am always one to agree that overwhelming force is the only way to conduct war. I think we would have been more likely to have done that if every use of force we have used had not been criticized by our European 'friends' and the Leftists in this country. I wish we had ignored the critics and just did it, but the administration bowed to public pressure with disastrous results. (Source: just re-read this thread with all the links that have condemned the USA every time it has gotten really tough.)

Complete and utter BS. You claim that in 2003, Bush and Rummy only sent some 220,000 troops tops to take over Iraq, because the Europeans and the left urged America not to go to war at all?

Your question was what should be done in the current situation (civil war in Iraq, country a recruiting and training ground for terrorists, Iran/al-Dawa/Shiite influence over the country growing, etc. etc. etc.). You got my answer. I've never said anything to the contrary.

I did believe it was a grave mistake to go to war with Iraq at all, but going and doing it in such a dilettante way merely brought about the situation we are facing today.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

If more Europeans would see the light in terms of the threat as it looms, and help enforce their own U.N. resolutions, as Bush has attempted to do, the situation would be far better than it is.

Just a question for better understanding: what do you mean with "own UN resolutions" as opposed to "UN resolutions"?

0 Replies

Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know