The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on May 4, 2007 16:19:23 GMT -5
That's why the group would have to be given veto power over the war's financing. No more money could be spent on keeping US troops in Iraq without that group's consent. The only group that can be given that veto power would be the entire Congress--I doubt they'd be able to write a law creating a group that could legally hold that power without amending the Constitution Very true. I guess what I was throwing around was a pipe dream - some way to get this war out of the hands of freaking politicians. (Rant warning!) This is a political war that was started by politicians for purely political reasons, and it will be ended by different politicians for political reasons. Somehow we have to stop this plague of political wars. I have no problem with fighting wars that we need to fight (Afghanistan is an example), but fighting a war because we want to fight is an extremely dangerous path to follow. When politicians start dreaming up places to exersize military power when it really isn't needed, bad things happen. It doesn't matter if it's a Democrat or a Republican behind the push (and they both do it). Sooner or later a political war is going to ruin this country. (End rant)
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on May 4, 2007 16:48:12 GMT -5
Read my assertion! Doesn't say the Al-Qaeda/9-11 comments were purely in the interest of accuracy. What is does say is that what he said was correct. "Since Ben Laden says Iraq is now the centerpoint of the al-Queda operation, the President was perfectly correct in stating it. " General Petraeus has specifically stated that Iraq is the "central front" for Al-Qaeda. This is not to say Al-Qaeda is the only faction causing trouble in Iraq, only that it is one of them. I don't disagree that Al-Qaeda is now involved in Iraq, or that Iraq is important to Al-Qaeda. However, the fact that Bush did not mention any of the "other factions causing trouble in Iraq" in his speech suggests that he mentioned Al-Qaeda for political purposes. While it is perhaps not "inaccurate" to mention just one faction in Iraq, doing so paints an incomplete picture of our situation there. There are many in politics who are spinning the Iraq situation for political gain (see also: the John "My central message is that I am oh so sorry for voting for that Iraq bill" Edwards Presidential Campaign). Bush did the right thing with the veto, but did the wrong thing with the spin. And that's what is so frustrating to me -- the spin was completely unnecessary and counterproductive in this instance, because a lot of Americans agree with the veto, but not with the idea that we are solely fighting Al-Qaeda in Iraq with the goal of "preventing the next 9/11." Bush and the Republicans are in serious danger of becoming this dude for me.
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,668
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on May 5, 2007 17:27:09 GMT -5
A more productive way to go about this would be to require a regular large-scale bipartisan review of the effect of the US presence in Iraq. Get the generals, experts, administrators, politicains, the lot together every 12 months or so to determine whether Iraq is better off with or without the US military presence, and make any additional funding conditional on that commission confirming that additional funding will help the situaiton on the ground. But that was done already. Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group. And the President ignored it just like he does everything else. Bush-Cheney are in serious denial. They have never acknowledged why they really went to war, or the current situation, or their enormous and tragic mistakes. Meanwhile over 3000 American soldiers have been killed and another 25,000 wounded... many very seriously. And no one knows how many Iraqis have been killed because the administration doesn't want us to. Why should American kids continue to be killed when it is quite obvious there is nothing we can do to solve the Iraqis' problems. There is no "victory". There is no side to support. all sides are fighting against one another. All we did was make it possible for Al Qaeda to join the fray. It probably will get even worse when we leave...whether that is now, in one year, in 5 years. Iraq needs to solve their own civil war themselves. We are just in the way, and giving the entire Arab and Muslim worlds more reasons to distrust and hate us... while our guys continue to get killed. We need to leave. Bush is simply trying to "extend the game" until his term is over so he can hand over this disaster to someone else, then blame them for the inevitable bad outcome. If we support the troops we should be getting them out of harm's way and bringing them home. SirSaxa, pretty much my feelings completely.
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,668
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on May 5, 2007 17:34:32 GMT -5
From the WSJ, April 23. The Gen. Jones is our own Jim Jones, class of 1966. He is being wooed by both parties for post-election duties (Sec. of Defense?).
Gen. Jones has become the ultimate catch for either party because he so well captures the current political zeitgeist on security and America's image abroad. He's a worldly, tough-minded former Marine commandant who has criticized former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's handling of the Iraq war, saying that the U.S. failed to prepare "for the day after Saddam's statue fell down." At the same time he advocates a sharply more centrist foreign policy than the Bush administration's, asserting that America's image has suffered in recent years, and must be repaired.
"I am for proactive engagement," he says in an interview in his office at U.S. Chamber of Commerce, where he is running the group's new Energy Institute. "I am for capitalizing on the fact that the United States has a history of benevolent leadership and engagement, and I want to be around to see those times develop again."
But he also has some pointed advice to Democrats when it comes to President Bush's "surge" of troops in Iraq: "Understand the fact that regardless how you got there, there is a strategic price of enormous consequence for failure in Iraq," he says. "Too much of the discussion is way too tactical. Everyone wants to be a squad leader." As chief of NATO and the U.S. European command, Gen. Jones was deeply engaged in Afghanistan but had little to do with Iraq policy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2007 8:28:36 GMT -5
Was Al Qaeda causing trouble in Iraq 4 years ago? You know...when we got there? Not anything of significance. But your question is unrelated to Bush's assertion that Al Qaeda is causing trouble today. And the best part of that assertion is that the intel is coming from Bin Laden himself. Awesome. I'm glad we're listening to him.
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on May 8, 2007 0:42:28 GMT -5
Until the Iraq strategy resembles something like what Gen. Chiarelli has proposed, we're not going to make much headway or do much good. He's talked about using money to empower the general public in Iraq and pay them (instead of contractors) to rebuild their own country, do public works projects, etc. I support this thinking. If we're going to spend money there, let's spend it addressing some real problems: Iraq needs infrastructure, jobs, and stability. Bullets and bombs won't bring stability, no matter who you're shooting them at, especially when there are so many sides hostile to each other, each trying to establish dominance. If we're going to stay we should balance our spending between security, rebuilding & public works, employment, and PR.
Benchmarks are a good way to go for a strategic process of any kind. Of course, setting benchmarks means you actually have to have a strategy. If you're going to do a job you might as well have a way to measure success.
Timelines (or deadlines, more accurately) are tricky. Then again, so is a war that is this complex and holds such a slim chance of actual success. Speaking of which, how are we even defining success anymore? Until we define the terms of success, how can we really talk about what it's going to take to acheive it? Can anyone tell me what success in Iraq would look like now? Can anyone tell me what it would take to acheive it?
Unless something changes--and soon--this is either our version of Britain's Egypt 100 years ago or the war that someone in 30 years will be calling "another Iraq" just as some have called this one "another Vietnam."
As a side note, I find it very interesting that al Qaida's #2 said the other day that they'd be bummed out if we left soon because it wouldn't give them the chance to pummel us more. Normally I would just say "who cares" because it's obviously propoganda, but it does provide an interesting dimension to the argument that pulling out would be just what al Qaida wants. Either they want more blood or they're getting into reverse psychology all of a sudden. Perhaps both.
Bando, when did you and Ben become friends again? I thought you had a falling out back in '99 when he said that "Gtown is a devil and Syracuse is the path to righteousness" and you threw down in fisticuffs.
|
|