Whether you agree or dont agree with us going to war in Iraq in the first place there is no doubt that we can not afford to not achieve our objectives in Iraq now. This is different than Vietnam in that if we pull out of this situation without a stable Iraq that can survive the fate of our country lays in the balance. If we fail here then we have opened up ourselves and the world to pandora's box of Terrorism. The stakes are simply that great. Having said this then we must win and do it at all costs. I am in favor of sending 500,000 to 600,000 American troops to Iraq to take over the borders and regain the neccesary control so that the Country infrastructure can be built on solid ground. We simply dont have enough troops there to do that now. And until we do their will be places that cells can hide and hit and move with terror strikes . If we pull out without our objectives being met and let the Iraq govt. fail then God help the world. Because it will be a matter of time before Nuclear bombs reign down from terror networks and our world will never be the same. Pay the costs now whatever they may be because the cost down the road in human life will far exceed the costs of the money needed to be spent to win now . "Peace at the expense of freedom is neither Peace nor Freedom" J.F. Kennedy It is time now for America to suck it up and finish what we started and do it the right way. We can argue over whether the war should have been fought in the first place later. Right now President Bush do what it takes to win and do it now. Quit playing around and kick some ass. So then we can bring our boys and girls home and be proud of their sacrafice .
Absolutely. Especially since the objectives keep changing. So far we have gone through: 1. We must enforce the UN inspections 2. We must rid Saddam of WMD's 3. We must defeat the terrorists pouring into Iraq 4. We must establish an American-style democratic government 5. We must establish order and stability in Iraq 6. We must train the Iraqi Army Having accomolished none of that, currently the administration's objective is "Turn it all over to the Iraqi Army before the end of the year." I'm quite sure the objective will continue to evolve. How exactly? Iraq is in no shape to do anything but try to unite as one country or divide as three countries. What threat does Iraq pose to us? Zero. Al Qaida is the real threat and they are still out there, Iraq or no Iraq. We have already failed here. When you are in a hole, you don't dig it deeper . . . you dig out and regain all of your options. At all costs? Are you serious? Iraq is a dustbowl, third-world fleabag of a country. We don't need it. We win by leaving this friggin mess for the rags to sort out. We have bigger, more important fights coming up, not only with Al Qaida but with realnuclear powers like Korea, Pakistan, and Iran. Not to mention the escalading friction with China. I would be with you 100% if this was 2003. But it is too late to preserve the infrastructure that was there, which was what should have been done. It's time to reassess and redeploy our best asset, the military, and not squander it in an unwinnable occupation of people that hate us. The generals say that we are too depleted in infantry brigades to assemble a 500,000-man army at all right now. It would literally take over a year to pull off and could not be maintained very long. In any case, any politician advocating throwing all of our remaining troops into Iraq the way its being mismanaged now couldn't get elected dogcatcher. Well, that's a stretch that the administration hasn't even made. Its hard to see any cause-and effect there. What objectives are you talking about? What exactly constitutes victory in Iraq? We entered the fourth year of this war yesterday and conditions are worse than they were when Bush declared the Mission Accomplished in 2003. We are nowhere close to any rational "victory" or even have a plan for one as far as I can see. Well, most of America disagrees, fortunately. Iraq is an expensive and humiliating distraction from the real fight that you speak of. We will need our human and economic resources for threats down the road. This is no time to waste them. Iraq is the wrong mission, the wrong country, and the wrong enemy.
The Iraqi people dont hate us. But pull out and leave them to the despicable people that will be in charge if we leave and they will do more than hate us then. I will agree we have bungled this mess from the first Iraq Kuwait war and now we are stuck dealing with our bad decisions left over with even more bad decisions in this war. I just know that we either fight these people there now or we fight them later with them getting more and more support. When the sh@t gets tough you have to decide if you want to quit and run or dig in and pay the price to succeed. In this type situation the most committed wins.
If only we could figure out what it means to "win." Seems that would be an objective clearly defined prior to invasion, yet we still have no idea what it means to "win." That's simply bizarre. Democracy? Self-rule? Civil war? Cheaper oil prices? Humanitarian improvements? Regional stability? Regional volatility? Who knows? We didn't in '03, and three years later we still don't. I would never advocate spending a dime on anything if a basic objective and plan is not established first. Of course that's when spending my own money, not burning through other people's money.
Well it's not like these aren't related. The UN inspections were for WMD's, which based on some "intelligence" we supposedly believed he had. So we took down Saddam, which gave us the chance to set up a democracy there (which was probably the real goal from the get-go) - and this then required stability and a trained military. I think the goal is quite precisely defined - have a stable democracy in the Middle East capable of defending and taking care of itself. The real problem is not "what is the goal?", but rather whether this goal is even possible. Agree with all these points. Calco, and many like him, are making a relationship between terrorism and Iraq that simply isn't there to the extent they believe.
A debatable point to say the least. I'd say that the usual American has very little knowledge on the subject aside from biased news accounts and they simply believe what they want to. I think some Iraqis hate us and want us gone regardless, some love us and think we're doing a good job, but most dislike us and want us to leave as soon as possible - although they understand we can't just up and leave. Fight what people? Why will we fight them later? In general, I agree. However if the goal is unattainable, if you start off in a competition/war whatever that cannot be won because you strive for something that cannot be done, then it doesn't matter how committed you are. So the question is, Can this war be won?
If you cant figure out what winning looks like then you havnt been paying attention. Set up a functioning Government. Train an Iraqi Army that can handle the security and safety of the Iraqi people. And defend against the Iran's and others of the region. So that our troops can come home.
The best part of the press conference was when Bush shut up that old hag, Thomas. They need to put that old crone on radio. I've got HD and it's a little too much to handle right after a meal.
I understand, but these people have been fighting each other for 1,000 years. Only the ruthless iron boot of Saddam kept them apart recently and it would take another ruthless boot to keep them apart now. When we do leave, whether next year or in ten years, these people are still going to have to fight this out. It just ain't our fight. I agree as far as the international criminals of Al Qaida are concerned. But we can't just go around kicking Arab asses at random and think we are addressing the problem. How do we succeed when we don't know how to define success? This administration thought that all it took was a democratic vote to make a country a democracy. Then the Palestinians elected Hamas and the Lebanese elected Hezbollah. Now the administration is finally coming around to the conclusion that should have been reached long ago. Set some deadlines and force the Iraqis to deal with the situation themselves. They have already set a goal of 30,000 troops to be withdrawn by December. It is time for the Iraqis to step up and it is increasingly obvious that they will not do it unless forced to. We are not running from anything. We have proved we can take down a country in weeks and occupy it for as long as we want to. When we leave, it will be because we want to leave, because it is in our best interests to do so, and it will be on our own terms. I agree. What I am saying is that our committment to the best interests of the United States of America far outweighs any committment to the lousy political policy of the George W. Bush administration.
:lol: On this we can agree. Helen Thomas is way past her time and is an embarrasment to a press conference.
