NationStates Jolt Archive

The following is a letter I sent to a local paper concerning the President's speech.



To Whom It May Concern,
The speech President Bush gave on June 29th was, at best, ill-informed and misleading, at worst, a possible devastation the future of the military forces inside and outside of the United States. The President covered the so called 'progress' of the war in Iraq, noting that the sacrifice was 'worth it'. Just go ask all the soldiers returning in body bags if the sacrifice was worth it. The body bags, which, by the way, the White House has refused to allow shown on national television.

The President decided to stress the point that America's actions in the Middle East are making it an effective no-go zone for terrorists. This couldn't be further from the truth. The President continues to mislead the country with lies, saying we are making progress in Iraq. What progress? The terrorist bombings have continued at the same pace, if not strengthened. They are also becoming more and more effective in the targets hit and devastation wrought. The White House has claimed to be eliminating more and more terrorists as well. I fail to see the proof of this in the daily news. If anything, Iraq is proving to be the catalyst for terrorists, training every self proclaimed freedom fighter and insurgent who enters the country or has a gripe with the United States. Far from what the President claims, Iraq is becoming the very thing he states it isn't - a safe haven and proving ground for international terrorism.

What can we do to remedy this situation? How about an exit plan? The U.S. should have had an exit strategy going in, but it was deemed unnecessary, the Iraqis would accept us with open arms. That it is clear that they have no intention of open arms, our military and White House may want to reconsider the idea of an exit strategy. Withdrawing the troops is the best course of action the U.S. can take right now. We can protect our troops and give the Iraqi government its own chance to prove its capability. Get the troops out now, and continue to train the new Iraqi army on foreign soil. The U.S. needs to call President Bush's lies and save our military from the chronic disease of being spread too thin.

Alexander Fogleman

http://www.forumspile.com/Bump-Card_game.jpeg

Good stuff. I agree with it.

Wow, I needed something lame to read before i went to bed. That made me tired and sleepy. *YAWN*

BTW, Georgie has one of the toughest jobs in the world. Cut the guy some slack.

So, pulling out of a hostile situation would calm the hostile situation....how?

I fail to see how pulling out of Iraq will help. At all. We're there, might as well have the balls to see it through.

You realize, of course, that you're only baiting a debate for and against the war, in which both sides bicker back and forth, call each other names, and in the end, no one's minds have changed at all?

Just makin' sure you knew. ;)

BTW, Georgie has one of the toughest jobs in the world. Cut the guy some slack.

How about... No?

How about... No?

Of course, he'd cut Clinton some slack when he bombed Iraq back in the ninety's, but, when it actually accomplishes something...meh.

Just go ask all the soldiers returning in body bags if the sacrifice was worth it.
I just want to say, this is equal to that of when the Senator said that if you asked the dead firefighters who were killed in 9/11 whether or not the amendment to ban the burning of the American flag should be passed, they would say yes.

You really can't say that a dead soldier died for something he didn't believe in. Maybe they really do believe in what they are doing.

In any case, just wanted to point that out.

Wow, I needed something lame to read before i went to bed. That made me tired and sleepy. *YAWN*

BTW, Georgie has one of the toughest jobs in the world. Cut the guy some slack.

Wow. I am amazed at the intelligence of your response. And on the job front - No. Presidents do not get slack. They have the potential to fuck up a situation a lot harder than I could ever dream of.

Wow. I am amazed at the intelligence of your response. And on the job front - No. Presidents do not get slack. They have the potential to fuck up a situation a lot harder than I could ever dream of.

*hands you a cookie*

*hands you a cookie*
*eats cookie*

Wow. I am amazed at the intelligence of your response. And on the job front - No. Presidents do not get slack. They have the potential to fuck up a situation a lot harder than I could ever dream of.

Honestly, only time will tell.

Bush would go down as either among the fantastic president's in 10 years time or a failure. But he nevertheless took a step that would change the face of the earth on the war on terror.

Btw, he would fuck it up more if he pulled out now. Just think about the Iraqi's for a second as well.

Honestly, only time will tell.

Bush would go down as either among the fantastic president's in 10 years time or a failure. But he nevertheless took a step that would change the face of the earth on the war on terror.

Btw, he would fuck it up more if he pulled out now. Just think about the Iraqi's for a second as well.


I personally think he's going down as one of the worst. He hasn't been able to use press conferences effectivly (a telling sign), his party is fracturing between moderates and hard-liners, he is facing criticism from his own party, his legislation has not been passing, and he's managed to win twice with a very slim majority of voters.

Iraq is headed (as far as I can see) for a civil war no matter who is in the nation. The Sunnis and the Shiites just can't get along. Personally, I think we should divide Iraq into three seperate states, one for the Kurds, one for the Sunnis, and one for the Shiites. That way everyone can have their own little corner of the world.

BTW, Georgie has one of the toughest jobs in the world. Cut the guy some slack.

Tough?

What happened to all that mandate money he got from the last election? ;)

Tough?

What happened to all that mandate money he got from the last election? ;)

Spent on inaguration day :(

Personally, I think we should divide Iraq into three seperate states, one for the Kurds, one for the Sunnis, and one for the Shiites. That way everyone can have their own little corner of the world.

And then they can all go to war with each other. Nice. :rolleyes:
Oh, and Turkey will never allow an independent Kurdistan.

And then they can all go to war with each other. Nice. :rolleyes:
Oh, and Turkey will never allow an independent Kurdistan.

Kind of like the Arab states would never allow for an independent Jewish state.

Turkey can suck it up and deal. If worst comes to worst, the US can just pay them off.

Since all three groups want to rule themselves, I make the bold assumpton they would get themselves under control (requiring several decades) before they got to bombing each other.

There is absolutely nothing more pathetic and pointless than a liberal posting a political discussion topic to a predominantly liberal audience. You're just preaching to the choir, nothing more. Seems like all that venom could be directed to a more constructive outlet. You'd think.

There is absolutely nothing more pathetic and pointless than a liberal posting a political discussion topic to a predominantly liberal audience. You're just preaching to the choir, nothing more. Seems like all that venom could be directed to a more constructive outlet. You'd think.
Well someone didn't read the first post.

It's going to his local paper. ;)

There is absolutely nothing more pathetic and pointless than a liberal posting a political discussion topic to a predominantly liberal audience. You're just preaching to the choir, nothing more. Seems like all that venom could be directed to a more constructive outlet. You'd think.

LMAO

Have you ever been to a predominantly conservative message board?

Talk about pathetic and pointless. :rolleyes:

But he nevertheless took a step that would change the face of the earth on the war on terror.
Yep, he actually managed to increase the risk of terrorist attacks.
As to the war on terror - it's an unwinnable war. It is not even clearly defined. Any terror? Fundamentalist terror? Islamic terror? One country's freedom fighter is another country's terrorist. At what point would such a war be won?

The whole "War on Terror" rhetoric is just a smoke screen for the people at home to pursue political, military and economic aims. This rhetoric lulls us into a false sense of security ("Be not afraid! Action has been taken"), but in reality has not made us more secure, only less free!

Btw, he would fuck it up more if he pulled out now. Just think about the Iraqi's for a second as well.
I think invading Iraq was a stupid mistake, if you consider the amount of Iraqis killed, Sadam would have had to rule for some time to achieve that. Will it be positive for the Iraqis in the long term? I honestly don't know.

I do agree, however, that to pull out now would be not only wrong, but a crime. He messed it up, now he has to face the consequences, i.e. don't leave before some sort of stability is reached.

I feel sorry for the soldiers who have to fight (and to die in) a war that was decided by people who sit safely in air conditioned war rooms back home. I wish these soldiers a safe return to their loved ones.

The following is a letter I sent to a local paper concerning the President's speech.



To Whom It May Concern,
The speech President Bush gave on June 29th was, at best, ill-informed and misleading, at worst, a possible devastation the future of the military forces inside and outside of the United States. The President covered the so called 'progress' of the war in Iraq, noting that the sacrifice was 'worth it'. Just go ask all the soldiers returning in body bags if the sacrifice was worth it. The body bags, which, by the way, the White House has refused to allow shown on national television.
Good point. I feel the same way, but the question, whether the sacrifice is worth it should be posed mainly to the men and women making that sacrifice as well as their families.

The President decided to stress the point that America's actions in the Middle East are making it an effective no-go zone for terrorists. This couldn't be further from the truth. The President continues to mislead the country with lies, saying we are making progress in Iraq. What progress? The terrorist bombings have continued at the same pace, if not strengthened. They are also becoming more and more effective in the targets hit and devastation wrought. The White House has claimed to be eliminating more and more terrorists as well. I fail to see the proof of this in the daily news. If anything, Iraq is proving to be the catalyst for terrorists, training every self proclaimed freedom fighter and insurgent who enters the country or has a gripe with the United States. Far from what the President claims, Iraq is becoming the very thing he states it isn't - a safe haven and proving ground for international terrorism.
While it is proving to be a training ground for international terrorism, I wouldn't go so far as to call it a safe haven. The fact that a weapons cache was recently unearthed shows that there is difficulty in maintaining a logistical base for terror.

What can we do to remedy this situation? How about an exit plan? The U.S. should have had an exit strategy going in, but it was deemed unnecessary, the Iraqis would accept us with open arms. That it is clear that they have no intention of open arms, our military and White House may want to reconsider the idea of an exit strategy. Withdrawing the troops is the best course of action the U.S. can take right now. We can protect our troops and give the Iraqi government its own chance to prove its capability. Get the troops out now, and continue to train the new Iraqi army on foreign soil. The U.S. needs to call President Bush's lies and save our military from the chronic disease of being spread too thin.

Alexander Fogleman
I totally disagree with exiting Iraq at this point of time. I do not consider the Iraqi government at all capable of containing the insurgents. They aren't ready yet. Leaving now would make Iraq a safe haven for terror, should the insurgents maintain at least a stalemate against the government. I feel that Iraq was not a front on the war for terror as Bush claimed it was before the invasion. But now that the invasion has occurred, it's become a front.

I honestly do not see why a nation of 300 million, with internal problems, it worrying so much about a nation of 25 million. Pull out, use the money on internal affairs. Give us tax cuts, increase education, dont spend it on Iraq. We should pull the vast majority of our soldiers, only leaving small detatchments to supply training to iraqi soldiers(at their request), and air support(at their request).I honestly dont care about Iraqi's, I care about americans.

The following is a letter I sent to a local paper concerning the President's speech. -snip-

You might have wanted to add a couple of points in your revisions later...Too bad you already sent it.

You might point out that this was supposedly a major policy speech. Including a vaunted "3 new policies" designed to bring ultimate victory in Iraq even closer...And what were these special policies? The same damn thing we've already been doing for years. 1) Train Iraqi troops 2) Train Iraqi Troops with/like Ameircans 3) Train Iraqi Interior Ministry forces to fight. Nothing new AT ALL. This is stuff that was implemented DAY 1 of our occupation, back when it wasn't even called an occupation.

That's it. Nothing new, just the same ineffective policies thrown back in the American public's face. Notice that during the speech that there was only 1 break for applause in the whole thing? The crowd was dead; despite the fact that the venue (Ft. Bragg) was specifically chosen to be lively.

This wasn't a policy speech, this was just another pep-rally. The most you could say was that this one was somber in tone, but still full of that patronizing "trust me, despite what it looks like, I know what I'm doing" wording. The problem is, less and less people BELIEVE him anymore when he insists he's doing exactly the right thing.

He says he listens to his generals, but within 5 minutes of saying that he mentions that in no way shape or form would they send troops because "it would send the wrong message to our allies." If you're worried that Bush's statments about 140 thousand Iraqi troops have been trained and took part in Operation Lightning weren't true...you'd be right. Estimates out of our own Embassy in Iraq suggest that less than 10,000 are capable of independant action. The 140k number is tremendously inflated, rediculously so.

The point is; we NEED more men. I've read dozens of interviews with military personel saying just that; we can't HOLD ground in Iraq, we sweep and leave, because there simply not enough boots on the ground. The insurgents melt away and come back once we're gone. This is a PROBLEM that NEEDS ADRESSING, not glossing over. Even if not American soldiers, we need more foreign troops then, more Aussies, Italians, anyone we can muster.

This is a very significant problem, we have barely enough troops to maintain our footholds in Iraq, and those are under constant attack in places. More troops are needed badly, experienced capable troops, not green troops fresh from the theoretical Bagdad academy. This is where the president utterly fails to face reality; his statement that he listens to his generals is either utterly false or seriously overstated. This should not even have to be a point of contraversy, because the men on the ground are screaming for help every chance they get!

The point is this; President Bush just missed an excellent chance to win back much of the trust that he has lost from his party and his constituency as a whole. Polls show that even among Republicans he's lost 20% of his Iraq war approval in the last months alone. People have been questioning this war on every level, from pre-war to post-war and current planning, and his response hasn't changed.

A big old fat "Trust me" to the American people. Its becoming more and more to resemble an upraised digit, pointed squarely at the camera, and at all of us. We hoped for a policy speech, some sign that things would get better as we refined our tactics and adjusted our actions to suit the situation...we got WORDS. Meaningless, contradictory WORDS.

It could have been so much more.

Wow, I needed something lame to read before i went to bed. That made me tired and sleepy. *YAWN*

BTW, Georgie has one of the toughest jobs in the world. Cut the guy some slack.
But he chose the damn job himself.
*cuts some slack*

Bush from his speech, is still trying to sell to the people, the same crap that they bought in large numbers before (after 9/11), but have come to recognize now mostly as lies or distortions:

U.S. President George Bush tried to strengthen American support in the Iraq war Tuesday night, connecting insurgents to the war on terror.

Iraq = terrorists

"My greatest responsibility as president is to protect the American people, and that's your calling as well," Bush said.

Protect America from Iraqis who were never a threat?

Bush said Tuesday that Iraq is a central front for the war on terror, and must be fought to ensure national security.

Here we go again. Brainwashing part two. Just keep repeating the same message over and over, like he did before.

"It is worth it. And it is vital to the future security of our country," Bush said.

Americans were afraid of Iraqis? Oh yeah only after 9/11.

The president also said that Iraq is home to many foreign terrorists, and that the American military has captured terrorists from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Sudan and other countries.

Keep selling Georgy boy.

Bush also said Iraq is a base for planning attacks on America and its allies, and that many insurgents share the same beliefs that inspired the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Great job Bush. Keep pushing that link between Iraq and 9/11 (that never existed).

"Many terrorists who kill innocent men, women and children on the streets of Baghdad are followers of the same murderous ideology that took the lives of our citizens in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania," Bush said.

Oh you really are in fine form tonight George. Sell! Sell! Sell!

Iraq, 9/11, terrorists, planning attacks, Iraq, insurgents, Iraq, 9/11, terrorists, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington, Iraq, terrorists, 9/11, murderous, innocent men, women, and children....

Hey wait, aren't those innocent men, women, and children in Baghdad, Fallujah, Kirkuk, Mosul, etc.????

"My greatest responsibility as president is to protect the American people, and that's your calling as well," Bush said.

Protect America from Iraqis who were never a threat?

Bush said Tuesday that Iraq is a central front for the war on terror, and must be fought to ensure national security.

Iraq is a homemade enemy. It did not pose a direct threat to the US prior to the war. Saddam was afraid of muslim extremists and would never have given them a base in his country.
Now? The situation looks different. The US created a power vacuum with the result that extremists from all over the region flock to Iraq secure in the knowledge that there's currently no power in place to stop them.

Iraq is a homemade enemy. It did not pose a direct threat to the US prior to the war. Saddam was afraid of muslim extremists and would never have given them a base in his country.
Now? The situation looks different. The US created a power vacuum with the result that extremists from all over the region flock to Iraq secure in the knowledge that there's currently no power in place to stop them.
I have to agree with Nowoland. Iraq wasn't a front until it was made one, but now it most certainly is the main front.

Spent on inaguration day :(

For crack, pot, beer, little American flags to wave, booze, lubricant and hookers?

;)

Bush tried to pull the Thatcher Option (Falkland Wars, anyone?) like his daddy did, with the same state.

Problem is, he went too far. And now we're stuck with a second Vietnam.

Seriously, thats whats happening again. It won't be as bad because the military will be allowed to do its job, but its not getting enough people to do it effectivly.

...again, our militaries hands are tied, just like in the 70s with Vietnam.

Its probably why Bush Senior didn't want to actually TAKE Iraq, because he knew it would cause trouble. There was debate at the time of the First Gulf War that the US was going to be stuck fighting a new Vietnam style war... only in sand, instead of jungle.

But no, Bushie Jr. had to one up his father.

...question for yall, whats happening in Afghanistan?

...question for yall, whats happening in Afghanistan?

Is that a serious question? Or a rhetorical one?

...question for yall, whats happening in Afghanistan?
Um... last I checked we had a few divisions there "training" Afghan soldiers... but aside from that, Afghanistan is "yesterday" unfortunately...



"Yesterday" as in, "old news" or "ignored"

Is that a serious question? Or a rhetorical one?

A little from side a, a little from side b...

Um... last I checked we had a few divisions there "training" Afghan soldiers... but aside from that, Afghanistan is "yesterday" unfortunately...



"Yesterday" as in, "old news" or "ignored"

Didn't notice the white coloring... nicely done.

But yup, pretty much. You'd think, though, if it was a great success, that Bush would be parroting it..

Didn't notice the white coloring... nicely done.

But yup, pretty much. You'd think, though, if it was a great success, that Bush would be parroting it..
Actually not. For two reasons.

1. We did not capture Osama Bin Laden. The main reason we were there in the first place. (At least THAT "war" I supported...)

2. There wasn't any oil. (I'm sorry, but I HAD to do it...)

Wow, I needed something lame to read before i went to bed. That made me tired and sleepy. *YAWN*

BTW, Georgie has one of the toughest jobs in the world. Cut the guy some slack.


Yes, covering his own lies, one after the other is hard work.

Recently, gallup polls say that 58% percent of americans do not believe "Georgie" is doing a good job with the war.

We are involved in a prolonged hostile, military occupation, that will continue to be unwinnable.
The President knows this full well, and is even aware of the majority of his peoples dissatisfaction with his performance, and the strong desire to withdraw..or even a TIMETABLE for withdraw...and Bush is unwilling to even provide that.

The problem is that even after bungling this whole affair from day one, wich even Republicans are now admitting, we have allowed Bush to mishandle events, even to the present.

But, of course, we just cant pull out and go home.
We invaded, toppled a government, installed on of our own choosing..and if we were to pull out now, leaving Iraq to its own luck, it would soon become another Afghanistan, wherein whatever government that likely would take over..would inevitably start supporting the next terrorist organization, like Hammas, or Al Qeada.
and we would be back to square one.

Bush has lied to our faces about Iraq from 9/11..to this day...he isnt going to be honest with us now, and tell us that Iraq is unwinnable, and will likely turn into another Vietnam...that would make the Neo-Cons any money.
Thats who he cares about...his support group...not you or me, or any soldier.

Didn't notice the white coloring... nicely done.

But yup, pretty much. You'd think, though, if it was a great success, that Bush would be parroting it..

Well, to be fair; things in Afganistan are pretty mixed. Somethings have been a roaring success, but many other aspects are in the crapper.

Poppy production is a HUGE blemish on the whole affair; we liberated the drug dealers a lot more than the Afgani people when we kicked out the Taliban.

Recent offensives by the Taliban and others have put a question mark on the stability of Afganistan's realitive peace.

There have been repeated rumors of high-level corruption by drug money in the capital, which puts pressure on the Afgani president to clean house...which is tough considering how entrenched those Warlords in the government offices are...

And of course the Capital and surrounding areas are under direct US control...and everywhere else is pretty much a question mark as to who is REALLY in control. Be it Taliban, or simply Warlords and drug dealers (often the same persons), its frequently NOT the central government.

And there have been repeated quiet grumblings about prisoner abuse, prisoner "farming" and other unsavory practices linked to the Afgan government or US troops. Most don't make the news, but some have flitted about.

But all that said, progress has been made. Outright violence is generally limited to the more wild areas of Afganistan, and the road building and various other pet projects of the central government will prove fruitful in the future. A lot of Afganistan needs to be rebuilt from literally the ground up; so progress is understandably slow. To Bush's credit; the US has only tried to shy away on its obligations there outright a couple of times.

The main FIXABLE problems with Afganistan are a) over-reliance on corrupt and drug-peddling Warlords for security and administration b) Far too few US troops in the region; less than 20,000 for a difficult, mountainous, and dangerous terrain. c) The sporadic but disheartening attempts to dodge costs of rebuilding, and leave Afganistan to rot.

Its probably why Bush Senior didn't want to actually TAKE Iraq, because he knew it would cause trouble.
Just before the election in the US they broadcasted an interesting (i.e. in parts revealing) film on the Bush dynasty.
When asked, why he didn't proceed to capture Saddam in GWI, Bush senior said that having served himself and having seen how soldiers died, he did not think that catching Saddam warranted the expected deaths of hundreds of US soldiers. Bush junior doesn't seem to have these scruples, but then he never really served, eh?

Well, to be fair; things in Afganistan are pretty mixed. Somethings have been a roaring success, but many other aspects are in the crapper.

Poppy production is a HUGE blemish on the whole affair; we liberated the drug dealers a lot more than the Afgani people when we kicked out the Taliban.

Recent offensives by the Taliban and others have put a question mark on the stability of Afganistan's realitive peace.

There have been repeated rumors of high-level corruption by drug money in the capital, which puts pressure on the Afgani president to clean house...which is tough considering how entrenched those Warlords in the government offices are...

And of course the Capital and surrounding areas are under direct US control...and everywhere else is pretty much a question mark as to who is REALLY in control. Be it Taliban, or simply Warlords and drug dealers (often the same persons), its frequently NOT the central government.

And there have been repeated quiet grumblings about prisoner abuse, prisoner "farming" and other unsavory practices linked to the Afgan government or US troops. Most don't make the news, but some have flitted about.

But all that said, progress has been made. Outright violence is generally limited to the more wild areas of Afganistan, and the road building and various other pet projects of the central government will prove fruitful in the future. A lot of Afganistan needs to be rebuilt from literally the ground up; so progress is understandably slow. To Bush's credit; the US has only tried to shy away on its obligations there outright a couple of times.

The main FIXABLE problems with Afganistan are a) over-reliance on corrupt and drug-peddling Warlords for security and administration b) Far too few US troops in the region; less than 20,000 for a difficult, mountainous, and dangerous terrain. c) The sporadic but disheartening attempts to dodge costs of rebuilding, and leave Afganistan to rot.


Let me ask you this...

What makes you think that deals havent been struck between the American Government, and the Afgani warlords, who really control Afghanistan, to leave the Kharzai government alone, in return for allowing the production of opium?

Let me ask you this...

What makes you think that deals havent been struck between the American Government, and the Afgani warlords, who really control Afghanistan, to leave the Kharzai government alone, in return for allowing the production of opium?

Never said I didn't belive that they did. I have no evidence that they have though, so I didn't mention it. Conspiracy theories, no matter how plausible, should be kept to an absolute minimum.

In a harsh sense, if you're fighting a many-front war, like the US is now, you can't focus all your efforts on one front. That's WHY we have less than 20k troops there, obviously. Its not like we don't desperately need more there or anything, we just can't afford to have that many in theater right now.

By letting the Warlords have control we bought stability at the cost of drugs, direct influence, and eventually having to deal with THEM as well. Either that or we plan on cutting and running, leaving them in charge of a drug-ridden failed state.

Either way it was bad long-term planning. But in the short term it HAS provided the US with what it needs; realitive stability in a legendarily bad place to try and govern. I call that a mixed success. The US administration has met its short-term goals admirably well considering how easily things could have gone so much worse (take...Iraq...for example).

Of course, this does not mean I support such policies, but I can conceed that that have served their purpose reasonably well. And the central government has a slim but real chance of actually providing its own stability, infrastructure, and legacy of peace...I'm not totally devoid of hope on that front either.

Kind of like the Arab states would never allow for an independent Jewish state.

Which there is an independent Jewish state despite Israel being attacked from all sides 3 different times and defeating the Arab street 3 times.

Turkey can suck it up and deal. If worst comes to worst, the US can just pay them off.

Ideology my friend will not be changed due to money.

Since all three groups want to rule themselves, I make the bold assumpton they would get themselves under control (requiring several decades) before they got to bombing each other.

I seriously doubt this will come to pass

As to your open letter to your paper, it is you that is ill-informed.

To Whom It May Concern,
The speech President Bush gave on June 29th was, at best, ill-informed and misleading, at worst, a possible devastation the future of the military forces inside and outside of the United States. The President covered the so called 'progress' of the war in Iraq, noting that the sacrifice was 'worth it'. Just go ask all the soldiers returning in body bags if the sacrifice was worth it. The body bags, which, by the way, the White House has refused to allow shown on national television.

The soldiers wouldn't be there if they didn't think it was worth it to serve their country. And why would anyone want their body shown on national TV? in a bag?

The President decided to stress the point that America's actions in the Middle East are making it an effective no-go zone for terrorists. This couldn't be further from the truth. The President continues to mislead the country with lies, saying we are making progress in Iraq. What progress? The terrorist bombings have continued at the same pace, if not strengthened.

That is so biased and opinionated it's laughable. How can you in anyway prove that the bombings have strengthend? Your word for it? We are making progress in Iraq, regardless of your feelings about the intentions of the war. They have had elections for fucks sake.

They are also becoming more and more effective in the targets hit and devastation wrought.

Yes, because you say so. I haven't read one report from any reliable news source that verifies that.

The White House has claimed to be eliminating more and more terrorists as well. I fail to see the proof of this in the daily news. If anything, Iraq is proving to be the catalyst for terrorists, training every self proclaimed freedom fighter and insurgent who enters the country or has a gripe with the United States. Far from what the President claims, Iraq is becoming the very thing he states it isn't - a safe haven and proving ground for international terrorism.

You know what? Your whole letter is like this, "ZOMG TEH TERRORISTS TEH TERRORISTS!" Fine, its a letter and you don't generally provide sources for that, but atleast if you're going to post this here you could provide some.

What can we do to remedy this situation? How about an exit plan? The U.S. should have had an exit strategy going in, but it was deemed unnecessary, the Iraqis would accept us with open arms. That it is clear that they have no intention of open arms, our military and White House may want to reconsider the idea of an exit strategy. Withdrawing the troops is the best course of action the U.S. can take right now. We can protect our troops and give the Iraqi government its own chance to prove its capability. Get the troops out now, and continue to train the new Iraqi army on foreign soil. The U.S. needs to call President Bush's lies and save our military from the chronic disease of being spread too thin.

Alexander Fogleman

You don't leave a burning fire unatended.

Iraq is a homemade enemy. It did not pose a direct threat to the US prior to the war. Saddam was afraid of muslim extremists and would never have given them a base in his country.
Now? The situation looks different. The US created a power vacuum with the result that extremists from all over the region flock to Iraq secure in the knowledge that there's currently no power in place to stop them.
Yes, I do agree with you. Welcome to the NEW Iraq with the made in America tag. The world is a lot less safer now.

Bush will use the same exit strategy as he did for afghanistan i:e invade elsewhere and then ignore it

LMAO

Have you ever been to a predominantly conservative message board?

Talk about pathetic and pointless. :rolleyes:



People's ideas and opinions are pathetic and pointless?

Maybe this will give you an idea as to how of us feel the about your opinions.

Yes, I do agree with you. Welcome to the NEW Iraq with the made in America tag. The world is a lot less safer now.


Actually, the NEW Iraq will be "MADE IN IRAQ" because America and its allies are allowing them to function-to rebuild government and infrastructure in a manner they choose.

Do you think they were better off under sadaam?

And when was the last time a Canadian actually worried about being safe? Are you doing anything anywhere that might be bothering someone?

Bush will use the same exit strategy as he did for afghanistan i:e invade elsewhere and then ignore it


We left Afghanistan already? We are ignoring them?

What a poor first post to be remembered by.

The soldiers wouldn't be there if they didn't think it was worth it to serve their country. And why would anyone want their body shown on national TV? in a bag?
Actually, the soliders are in Iraq because they were ordered to go there. Granted there are soldiers who want to be there, but nonetheless, its not because every single soldier wanted to be in Iraq, its because it is their job to go and do what their superiors order them to do.



That is so biased and opinionated it's laughable. How can you in anyway prove that the bombings have strengthend? Your word for it? We are making progress in Iraq, regardless of your feelings about the intentions of the war. They have had elections for fucks sake.
No shit its opinionated, its a political letter, I wasn't going for moderate and non-offensive here. I can show you the bombings have increased if you read the news or watch TV. They had elections, but now the government really isn't doing anything seriosuly productive. Couple that with an everyday bombing of recruiting stations, you can see why the government isn't heading anywhere/

Yes, because you say so. I haven't read one report from any reliable news source that verifies that.
Than you apparently haven't looked.


You know what? Your whole letter is like this, "ZOMG TEH TERRORISTS TEH TERRORISTS!" Fine, its a letter and you don't generally provide sources for that, but atleast if you're going to post this here you could provide some.
If you want to discredit an argument, go find a source and present here. Technically, you're the one who needs to find the source, all I had to do was make the argument.

Which there is an independent Jewish state despite Israel being attacked from all sides 3 different times and defeating the Arab street 3 times. That was my point. [the original] was a sarcastic answer.

Ideology my friend will not be changed due to money.
It has before and I'm sure we can do it again.


As to your open letter to your paper, it is you that is ill-informed.
Really, because according to recent history, I seem to be right.

That was my point. [the original] was a sarcastic answer.

Apologies.

It has before and I'm sure we can do it again.

Not this time.

Really, because according to recent history, I seem to be right.

Not!

Apologies.
Graciously accepted. Internet humor is hard to get across

Not this time.
Well, if not money, maybe new weapons or trade deals or some sort of political alliance that benefits them heavily.

I got ignored again. :( Oh well, such is General.

not ignored, just 'passed over'. I read all of the responses before I post and decide which ones I want to respond to. Either that or the guy you quoted has been online to respond yet.

not ignored, just 'passed over'. I read all of the responses before I post and decide which ones I want to respond to. Either that or the guy you quoted has been online to respond yet.

I suppose so. Its been happening a lot lately with my serious posts though, I'm begining to wonder if I haven't ended up on a lot of ignore lists.

Regardless, while I have you attention, could I trouble you to respond/comment on my post on page 2 of this thread? I'd appreciate some feedback if you have the time.

That is so biased and opinionated it's laughable. How can you in anyway prove that the bombings have strengthend? Your word for it? We are making progress in Iraq, regardless of your feelings about the intentions of the war. They have had elections for fucks sake.
Just as you reply is opinionated and lacking facts? BTW, the elections didn't just make the violence go away. I suggest that you upgrade your news sources:

Thursday 17th March 2005

Iraqi death toll spirals upwards; elections followed by increase in civilian casualties (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/)


Iraqi Insurgency Groups (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_insurgency.htm)

The insurgency in Iraq has grown in size and complexity over the course of 2004. Attacks numbered approximately 25 per day at the beginning of 2004, and averaged in the 60s by the end of the year. Insurgents demonstrated their ability to increase attacks around key events such as the Iraqi Interim Government (IIG) transfer of power, Ramadan and the January 2005 election. Attacks on Iraq’s election day reached approximately 300, double the previous one day high of approximately 150 reached during Ramadan 2004.

Spike in Iraq attacks exacts bloody toll in May (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8050339/)

June 1, 2005

At least 670 Iraqis, 77 Americans killed last month, officials say

NM - when I first skimmed your post, I saw you were generally agreeing with me, which is why I think I passed it over for response.

I would have included a lot of those, but the AZ Republic (the local paper) has a word cap at 200 words, which I exceeded by at least 100 in the original letter. As a result, I had to be as general as I could and yet mention some specifics.

So, while I would have loved to address all of those, I simply couldn't fit it into the letter size I had.

For reference to those wishing to read a pretty good post http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9157406&postcount=24

You might have wanted to add a couple of points in your revisions later...Too bad you already sent it.

You might point out that this was supposedly a major policy speech. Including a vaunted "3 new policies" designed to bring ultimate victory in Iraq even closer...And what were these special policies? The same damn thing we've already been doing for years. 1) Train Iraqi troops 2) Train Iraqi Troops with/like Ameircans 3) Train Iraqi Interior Ministry forces to fight. Nothing new AT ALL. This is stuff that was implemented DAY 1 of our occupation, back when it wasn't even called an occupation.

That's it. Nothing new, just the same ineffective policies thrown back in the American public's face. Notice that during the speech that there was only 1 break for applause in the whole thing? The crowd was dead; despite the fact that the venue (Ft. Bragg) was specifically chosen to be lively.

This wasn't a policy speech, this was just another pep-rally. The most you could say was that this one was somber in tone, but still full of that patronizing "trust me, despite what it looks like, I know what I'm doing" wording. The problem is, less and less people BELIEVE him anymore when he insists he's doing exactly the right thing.

He says he listens to his generals, but within 5 minutes of saying that he mentions that in no way shape or form would they send troops because "it would send the wrong message to our allies." If you're worried that Bush's statments about 140 thousand Iraqi troops have been trained and took part in Operation Lightning weren't true...you'd be right. Estimates out of our own Embassy in Iraq suggest that less than 10,000 are capable of independant action. The 140k number is tremendously inflated, rediculously so.

The point is; we NEED more men. I've read dozens of interviews with military personel saying just that; we can't HOLD ground in Iraq, we sweep and leave, because there simply not enough boots on the ground. The insurgents melt away and come back once we're gone. This is a PROBLEM that NEEDS ADRESSING, not glossing over. Even if not American soldiers, we need more foreign troops then, more Aussies, Italians, anyone we can muster.

This is a very significant problem, we have barely enough troops to maintain our footholds in Iraq, and those are under constant attack in places. More troops are needed badly, experienced capable troops, not green troops fresh from the theoretical Bagdad academy. This is where the president utterly fails to face reality; his statement that he listens to his generals is either utterly false or seriously overstated. This should not even have to be a point of contraversy, because the men on the ground are screaming for help every chance they get!

The point is this; President Bush just missed an excellent chance to win back much of the trust that he has lost from his party and his constituency as a whole. Polls show that even among Republicans he's lost 20% of his Iraq war approval in the last months alone. People have been questioning this war on every level, from pre-war to post-war and current planning, and his response hasn't changed.

A big old fat "Trust me" to the American people. Its becoming more and more to resemble an upraised digit, pointed squarely at the camera, and at all of us. We hoped for a policy speech, some sign that things would get better as we refined our tactics and adjusted our actions to suit the situation...we got WORDS. Meaningless, contradictory WORDS.

It could have been so much more.I think you pretty much nailed it.

Quote:
As to your open letter to your paper, it is you that is ill-informed.

Really, because according to recent history, I seem to be right.

No shit its opinionated, its a political letter

Hmm... last time I checked, opinions weren't fact.

Anyways, about the insurgent attacks: has anyone else noticed with the rise of terrorist attacks in Iraq, a decline in terrorist attacks in Europe, America and Indonesia? Isn't it a lot easier and cheaper to go to a place where you can practically walk, than a place across an ocean?

Parthini']Hmm... last time I checked, opinions weren't fact.

Maybe not, but they can be factual--they aren't always, but they can be, and in Blargistania's case, they are.

Actually, the NEW Iraq will be "MADE IN IRAQ" because America and its allies are allowing them to function-to rebuild government and infrastructure in a manner they choose.
Yeah with American contractors all over the place and Bremer's Orders laying the ground rules.

Do you think they were better off under sadaam?
With the way that their country is war torn, I would initally say yes, but who knows what the future of Iraq would be like if Saddam had stayed in power?

And when was the last time a Canadian actually worried about being safe? Are you doing anything anywhere that might be bothering someone?
Well, I do travel occaisionally to the US and I have been to Southeast Asia, so there is always concerns with heightened terrorism?

Parthini']Hmm... last time I checked, opinions weren't fact.

Anyways, about the insurgent attacks: has anyone else noticed with the rise of terrorist attacks in Iraq, a decline in terrorist attacks in Europe, America and Indonesia? Isn't it a lot easier and cheaper to go to a place where you can practically walk, than a place across an ocean?

Actually...No. Terrorist attacks in Europe and America are at the same levels as pre-9/11. Which is to say infrequent. Look at the studies from the global security companies around the world. The biggest drop in terror attacks is in TURKEY, where the radical Kurd breakaway factions have shut up and stopped attacking a little as they watch the Kurds in N. Iraq with keen interest. Everyone who knows the situation considers that more of a lull.

So...Nope! No measurable effect on terrorist attacks.

I think you pretty much nailed it.

Thanks, and to you Blargstania; I try not to be an attention whore, but I've been hearing crickets a little too often lately. When I make a big old post like that, I'm not always sure I did nail it, or if I had just dropped a steaming load onto General. I like positive reinforcement ;)