NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/01/10/bush-setup.html


Sheesh. :eek:



Thoughts?

Shame on you bush. pull out already.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/01/10/bush-setup.html


Sheesh. :eek:



Thoughts?

Lucky fellas. If I was skinny enough to kill me some terrorists man I'd be over there so fast!!!

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/01/10/bush-setup.html

Sheesh. :eek:

Thoughts?

Sheesh, indeed. You shouldn't be surprised, though. If he said, "My fellow Americans, I am sad to report that our efforts in Iraq have been a failure. I and my administration did everything we thought was right but I am sorry to say that we were wrong. Even though the invasion removed a brutal dictator, Saddam Hussein, we appear to have damaged Iraq so badly in the process that it will be generations before the harm can be repaired. I am sorry, my fellow Americans, heartily sorry." Now,that would be surprising.

Thoughts?

Is "oh god oh god we're all going to die" appropriate?

What does Bush do when his policy is a miserable failure with horrific consequences?

Continue it with even more intensity.

:rolleyes:

Is "oh god oh god we're all going to die" appropriate?

I thinking more like, how low does that man's approval rating need to go before he gets the message? Then I realized that I was talking about George W. Bush and remembered that he can never make a mistake or do wrong. He can be misled and betrayed but he himself is always right. :rolleyes:

Its ok to do a mistake once. Its reasonable to do it twice.

Its dumb to do it thrice.

Torn.

As Powell said to Bush, "You break it, you own it."

We destroyed their infrastructure. They have very little electricity and other utilities, no jobs, no security. Under the conditions that exist there now if we were to pull out it would be a blood bath that could even spread to the greater Middle east. Part of me feels like we owe it to them to shed our own blood to try to bring some security so they can rebuild their infrastructure and then their job market and economy. On the other hand, Bush is an absolute moron and it may be a waste of time to try to do that while he's in office because the retard will probably make decisions that are every bit as stupid as the ones he's made up 'til now and could just make it worse than it is.

John Stewart said something funny the other night, not that the situation is funny, it's tragic. But I digress. He was responding to the notion that people are throwing around that it's now the Iraqis fault and that it's time they get their act together. He said, "Hey, c'mon guys! Get it together. Apparently someone came along and destroyed your country and you need to fix it. We can't do everything for you."

*snip* John Stewart said something funny the other night, not that the situation is funny, it's tragic. But I digress. He was responding to the notion that people are throwing around that it's now the Iraqis fault and that it's time they get their act together. He said, "Hey, c'mon guys! Get it together. Apparently someone came along and destroyed your country and you need to fix it. We can't do everything for you."

Someone also said that blaming it on the Iraqis is like throwing your kid in a deep lake to learn to swim and then yelling at him because he just flounders. Something like that.

Someone also said that blaming it on the Iraqis is like throwing your kid in a deep lake to learn to swim and then yelling at him because he just flounders. Something like that.

Doesn't matter. It's just a comma in teh history books and it looks great if you fly over it. :)

Didn't Bush say he would only increase troops levels if the Generals on the ground specifically said they wanted it? Because, according to him, they were the best ones to know.

Didn't he say that repeatedly, for months?


Now, that's a flip- flop.

Hmm. Well that's quite rubbish, really. Couldn't they just properly train some troops currently stationed in Iraq and replace NG troops with proper ones?

What does Bush do when his policy is a miserable failure with horrific consequences?

Continue it with even more intensity.

:rolleyes:

Kinda boldens the parallels between Vietnam and Iraq, eh?

Kinda boldens the parallels between Vietnam and Iraq, eh?

If he says anything approaching "We must destroy Baghdad in order to save it" tonight, I think Laura had better start packing for the trip back to Crawford mighty quick.

I can't decide if I'll watch the speech. Listening to the man makes me squirm and I feel like an idiot when I yell at the TV.

If he says anything approaching "We must destroy Baghdad in order to save it" tonight, I think Laura had better start packing for the trip back to Crawford mighty quick.

I can't decide if I'll watch the speech. Listening to the man makes me squirm and I feel like an idiot when I yell at the TV.
"I think that to protect free'um and 'mocracy 30 or 40 megatons is the answer" would be possibly the worst answer I could think of.

Other than maybe "To protect free'um and 'mocracy', we're off home right this second" which could possibly cause worse problems.

"I think that to protect free'um and 'mocracy 30 or 40 megatons is the answer" would be possibly the worst answer I could think of.

Other than maybe "To protect free'um and 'mocracy', we're off home right this second" which could possibly cause worse problems.

Yeah, we'd have Dick Cheney as President and he'd be eligible to run in 2008, so ... that would be worse.

I thinking more like, how low does that man's approval rating need to go before he gets the message? Then I realized that I was talking about George W. Bush and remembered that he can never make a mistake or do wrong. He can be misled and betrayed but he himself is always right. :rolleyes:

much like jesus *nods*

Yeah, we'd have Dick Cheney as President and he'd be eligible to run in 2008, so ... that would be worse.
Meh, he'd be running as VP, as he is now, essentially so that he can casually pull the strings out of view.

Meh, he'd be running as VP, as he is now, essentially so that he can casually pull the strings out of view.

A ticket with Dick Cheney on it, whether as pres or veep, doesn't stand a snowball's chance in Hell of getting elected. Doesn't even stand a chance of getting nominated. If the Republicans want to make sure they lose the next election all they have to do is include a prominant name from this administration and they'll get railroaded.

how about 140k or whatever less troops...

What does Bush do when his policy is a miserable failure with horrific consequences?

Continue it with even more intensity.

:rolleyes:

What else would one expect from the Shrub? ;)

Honestly, America should withdraw most forces, and pull the remainder into Kurdistan. The majority of Iraqis agree that the government is generally heading in the right direction, and most want us to withdraw. (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/174.php?nid=&id=&pnt=174&lb=brme),

I think the U.S. should maintain a single military base in Kurdistan. Other than that, we should withdraw.


As far as elections go, I'm hoping for a Edwards/Obama ticket.

Honestly, America should withdraw most forces, and pull the remainder into Kurdistan. The majority of Iraqis agree that the government is generally heading in the right direction, and most want us to withdraw. (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/174.php?nid=&id=&pnt=174&lb=brme),

I think the U.S. should maintain a single military base in Kurdistan. Other than that, we should withdraw.


As far as elections go, I'm hoping for a Edwards/Obama ticket.

Maintaining a base in land-locked Kurdistan could be problematic, especially if the Turks decide they don't really want to allow us to run the supply line through their territory. I suppose we could hire truck drivers and such from the rest of Iraq, and al-Maliki would surely allow us fly-over rights.

Only 25 grand? Should've made it 100.000.
It looks sexier, and makes it harder for his Democrat follower to withdraw.

Didn't Bush say he would only increase troops levels if the Generals on the ground specifically said they wanted it? Because, according to him, they were the best ones to know.

Didn't he say that repeatedly, for months?


Now, that's a flip- flop.

I think he decided that that promise wasn't working out, so he undertook a phased withdrawal of the phrase. :rolleyes:

On another note, Glenn Beck was claiming yesterday that Bush's surge is fulfilling the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group Report, which mentions the possibility of escalation. However, he conveniently failed to mention that the Report qualifies this by saying it's only a good plan if the generals on the ground agree.

And that, right after he said that the "liberal media" floods the airwaves with half-truths...

I think he decided that that promise wasn't working out, so he undertook a phased withdrawal
Not much of a poker player.

Maintaining a base in land-locked Kurdistan could be problematic, especially if the Turks decide they don't really want to allow us to run the supply line through their territory. I suppose we could hire truck drivers and such from the rest of Iraq, and al-Maliki would surely allow us fly-over rights.
I can't imagine anywhere else that's
A.) Safer
and
B.) Less politically inflammatory.

I think these two quotes say it all.

First, Bush says "We benefited from the thoughtful recommendations of the Iraq Study Group"http://drudgereport.com/bush.htm

Let's see... that's the same ISG that said "Given the ability of Iran and Syria to influence events within Iraq and their interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq, the United States should try to engage them constructively."

The ISG further reccomended:
The United States must build a new international consensus for stability in Iraq and the region.
In order to foster such consensus, the United States should embark on a robust diplomatic effort to establish an international support structure intended to stabilize Iraq and ease tensions in other countries in the region. This support structure should include every country that has an interest in averting a chaotic Iraq, including all of Iraq’s neighbors—Iran and Syria among them.
Despite the well-known differences between many of these countries, they all share an interest in avoiding the horrific consequences that would flow from a chaotic Iraq, particularly a humanitarian catastrophe and regional destabilization.
http://www.usip.org/isg/iraq_study_group_report/report/1206/iraq_study_group_report.pdf.

(I may not agree 100% with the ISG, but that was absolutely correct.)

How does bush constructively engage Iran and Syria?

Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity – and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence sharing – and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.
http://drudgereport.com/bush.htm

Constructive engagement and easing tensions? Buuu. Wrong way to go about it.

Shame on you bush. pull out already.

A post is worth a thousand meanings. :D

As for me, I'll wait to get drafted and move to the friendly mapley north.

This is still damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Yes, Iraq is a mess. I think we need atleast twice the numbers of troops currently deployed in Iraq. If we completely pull out now we'd be leaving Iraq to the mercy of the insurgents and warlords. Having double the numbers of troops we could take full control of Baghdad and also secure the Iranian and Syrian borders (where a large bulk of insurgents are coming from.) Pulling out completely is wrong. We need to completely secure and expedite the training of the Iraqi army and police. Also, doubling the numbers would ensure a speedy exit strategy. As for the 20,000 troops I don't think is nearly enough to finish the job quickly.

This is still damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Yes, Iraq is a mess. I think we need atleast twice the numbers of troops currently deployed in Iraq. If we completely pull out now we'd be leaving Iraq to the mercy of the insurgents and warlords. Having double the numbers of troops we could take full control of Baghdad and also secure the Iranian and Syrian borders (where a large bulk of insurgents are coming from.) Pulling out completely is wrong. We need to completely secure and expedite the training of the Iraqi army and police. Also, doubling the numbers would ensure a speedy exit strategy. As for the 20,000 troops I don't think is nearly enough to finish the job quickly.

I have a question, is there anything Bush can do that would make you stop fellating him?

This is still damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Yes, Iraq is a mess. I think we need atleast twice the numbers of troops currently deployed in Iraq. If we completely pull out now we'd be leaving Iraq to the mercy of the insurgents and warlords. Having double the numbers of troops we could take full control of Baghdad and also secure the Iranian and Syrian borders (where a large bulk of insurgents are coming from.) Pulling out completely is wrong. We need to completely secure and expedite the training of the Iraqi army and police. Also, doubling the numbers would ensure a speedy exit strategy. As for the 20,000 troops I don't think is nearly enough to finish the job quickly.

Too bad we simply are not able to deploy double the forces. And too bad they still wouldn't be sufficient. History has shown that we'd need a minimum of a 10:1000 for low level insugencies and 20+:1000 ratio of troops to population for situations not quite as bad as Iraq, in order to occupy and pacify a country. Iraq's population would require at least 300,000 and more likely 600,000 troops. We simply cannot deploy that high level of forces in the wake of the Bush/Clinton post-Cold-War draw down. Period.

Pulling out completely is wrong.

Why?

Survey says:

Most Iraqis Want U.S. Troops Out Within a Year (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/250.php?nid=&id=&pnt=250&lb=hmpg1)

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/images/sep06/Iraq_Sep06_graph1h.jpg

And Bush wants to give these people more American targets:

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/images/sep06/Iraq_Sep06_graph1l.jpg

The best case scenario is that this works and Iraq can stabilize. Anything but the best case scenario isn't really very nice. Even the best case scenario won't stop the amount we've contributed to increasing global terrorist activity.

Fuck.


Welcome to forever.

Too bad we simply are not able to deploy double the forces. And too bad they still wouldn't be sufficient. History has shown that we'd need a minimum of a 10:1000 for low level insugencies and 20+:1000 ratio of troops to population for situations not quite as bad as Iraq, in order to occupy and pacify a country. Iraq's population would require at least 300,000 and more likely 600,000 troops. We simply cannot deploy that high level of forces in the wake of the Bush/Clinton post-Cold-War draw down. Period.
I think you have a handle on reality on this one.

The others are expecting a miracle.

Far too little, far too late.

The country could use the troops, don't get me wrong, but it needed a serious force to begin with. Now the country has spiraled to the point where these troops will just end up getting shot.

50 - 100k troops might do the trick. But politics have ruled this war since day one, both on the Conservative side and on the Liberal side, and because of that this war will continue to be addressed as a social problem might, rather than the bloody, chaotic mess it really is.

That will make all the difference. :rolleyes:

What does Bush do when his policy is a miserable failure with horrific consequences?

Continue it with even more intensity.

doubly so when essentially everyone on the planet tells him that they want the opposite done instead.

doubly so when essentially everyone on the planet tells him that they want the opposite done instead.

So, is he stupid for acting that way or are we stupid for not using that against him?

1.Sending more troops to Iraq will not improve the situation at all.
2.Even if we accept the idea of sending more troops (which I don't), 21k troops are anyway too few to achieve anything. It is nothing but a neocon propaganda move.

Bush is the worst CINC a soldier could have.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/01/10/bush-setup.html


Sheesh. :eek:



Thoughts?

It's about time. In my opinion, we haven't got nearly as many troops there as we need.

I also like that he is lifting some restrictions on the soldiers. Binding the soldier's hand will only make things unnecessarily difficult.

~ Romandeos.

I have to post the speech here to address some points...

...I'll only address bolded portions of the speech, though I decided to highlight references to Iran in red.

...save your tomatoes for the end, please. :p

Good evening. Tonight in Iraq, the armed forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror - and our safety here at home. The new strategy I outline tonight will change America's course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror.

When I addressed you just over a year ago, nearly 12 million Iraqis had cast their ballots for a unified and democratic nation. The elections of 2005 were a stunning achievement. We thought that these elections would bring the Iraqis together - and that as we trained Iraqi security forces, we could accomplish our mission with fewer American troops.

But in 2006, the opposite happened. The violence in Iraq - particularly in Baghdad - overwhelmed the political gains the Iraqis had made. Al Qaeda terrorists and Sunni insurgents recognized the mortal danger that Iraq's elections posed for their cause. And they responded with outrageous acts of murder aimed at innocent Iraqis.

They blew up one of the holiest shrines in Shia Islam - the Golden Mosque of Samarra - in a calculated effort to provoke Iraq's Shia population to retaliate. Their strategy worked. Radical Shia elements, some supported by Iran, formed death squads. And the result was a vicious cycle of sectarian violence that continues today.

The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people - and it is unacceptable to me. Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.

Took long enough... :rolleyes:

It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq. So my national security team, military commanders, and diplomats conducted a comprehensive review. We consulted members of Congress from both parties, our allies abroad, and distinguished outside experts. We benefited from the thoughtful recommendations of the Iraq Study Group - a bipartisan panel led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton. In our discussions, we all agreed that there is no magic formula for success in Iraq. And one message came through loud and clear: Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States.

It would have been nice if he'd actually just come out and said this BEFORE invading the fucking country.

The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people. On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq.

I'll note that before we invaded, the possibility that radical Islamic elements were going to gain any sort of power or influence in Iraq was effectively ZERO.

The most urgent priority for success in Iraq is security, especially in Baghdad. Eighty percent of Iraq's sectarian violence occurs within 30 miles of the capital. This violence is splitting Baghdad into sectarian enclaves, and shaking the confidence of all Iraqis. Only the Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people. And their government has put forward an aggressive plan to do it.

Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents, and there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have. Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does. They also report that this plan can work.

I shudder to think what sort of "restrictions" will be removed. :(

---

I'm coming to the first major point I want to address...

Now, let me explain the main elements of this effort. The Iraqi government will appoint a military commander and two deputy commanders for their capital. The Iraqi government will deploy Iraqi army and national police brigades across Baghdad's nine districts. When these forces are fully deployed, there will be 18 Iraqi army and national police brigades committed to this effort, along with local police. These Iraqi forces will operate from local police stations; conducting patrols and setting up checkpoints and going door-to-door to gain the trust of Baghdad residents.

This is a strong commitment. But for it to succeed, our commanders say the Iraqis will need our help. So America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence and bring security to the people of Baghdad. This will require increasing American force levels. So I've committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq.

The vast majority of them -- five brigades -- will be deployed to Baghdad. These troops will work alongside Iraqi units and be embedded in their formations. Our troops will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs.

We're going to embed five brigades among 18...more when you add Iraqi police...call it one American for every five Iraqi's....

Consider the inherant dangers in Baghdad which American and Iraqi forces already face, the questionable loyalty of some Iraqi army and police officers, and the incalculable reaction of the Iraqi public, who may or may not support the operation.

This sounds less like a strategy for victory, and more like a GREAT way to get a lot of our best troops killed, wounded, or taken hostage.

Anyone else see it that way, or is it just me?

Many listening tonight will ask why this effort will succeed when previous operations to secure Baghdad did not. Well, here are the differences: In earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighborhoods of terrorists and insurgents - but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned. This time, we will have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared. In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter these neighborhoods - and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.

While I agree that such an operation cannot have restrictions on where it operates, this means that all the REALLY bad places in Baghdad that we've been ignoring are now going to have to be dealt with.

I think my prediction is on solid ground so far...

I have made it clear to the prime minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people - and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act. The prime minister understands this. Here is what he told his people just last week: "The Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation."

This new strategy will not yield an immediate end to suicide bombings, assassinations, or IED attacks. Our enemies in Iraq will make every effort to ensure that our television screens are filled with images of death and suffering. Yet, over time, we can expect to see Iraqi troops chasing down murderers, fewer brazen acts of terror, and growing trust and cooperation from Baghdad's residents. When this happens, daily life will improve, Iraqis will gain confidence in their leaders, and the government will have the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas. Most of Iraq's Sunni and Shia want to live together in peace. And reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible.

A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.

To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs. To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year. And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq's constitution.

America will change our approach to help the Iraqi government as it works to meet these benchmarks. In keeping with the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, we will increase the embedding of American advisers in Iraqi army units, and partner a coalition brigade with every Iraqi army division.

Attatching a brigade to every division is a good idea, but I've been hearing that the Army is worried that increased embedding is going to drain the officer corps. We have to send our more experienced troops and officers into the embedded roles, and that's a way to screw ourselves over in the future if things get worse and not better.

There's not a lot of other alternatives, however, but the level of embedded American troops they're talking about sounds unrealistic unless we increase training here at home for our own troops. More training time=less deployment time, and we're already having issues with both.

We will help the Iraqis build a larger and better-equipped army, and we will accelerate the training of Iraqi forces, which remains the essential U.S. security mission in Iraq. We will give our commanders and civilians greater flexibility to spend funds for economic assistance. We will double the number of Provincial Reconstruction Teams. These teams bring together military and civilian experts to help local Iraqi communities pursue reconciliation, strengthen the moderates and speed the transition to Iraqi self-reliance. And Secretary Rice will soon appoint a reconstruction coordinator in Baghdad to ensure better results for economic assistance being spent in Iraq.

How we're supposed to equip the Iraqi army to concievably hold off Iran or Syria when we're having trouble replacing our own equipment losses, I have NO idea.

The middle portion sounds nice, but why wasn't it done ages ago??

As we make these changes, we will continue to pursue al Qaeda and foreign fighters. Al Qaeda is still active in Iraq. Its home base is Anbar Province. Al Qaeda has helped make Anbar the most violent area of Iraq outside the capital. A captured al Qaeda document describes the terrorists' plan to infiltrate and seize control of the province. This would bring al Qaeda closer to its goals of taking down Iraq's democracy, building a radical Islamic empire, and launching new attacks on the United States at home and abroad.

Our military forces in Anbar are killing and capturing al Qaeda leaders - and they are protecting the local population. Recently, local tribal leaders have begun to show their willingness to take on al Qaeda. And, as a result, our commanders believe we have an opportunity to deal a serious blow to the terrorists. So I have given orders to increase American forces in Anbar Province by 4,000 troops. These troops will work with Iraqi and tribal forces to keep up the pressure on the terrorists. America's men and women in uniform took away al Qaeda's safe haven in Afghanistan - and we will not allow them to re- establish it in Iraq.

Everything I've heard says that if there is anywhere in Iraq where we should be cutting loose and kicking ass, it's Anbar. I'm all for this, although I don't see why the increase can't be done simply by rotating troops already in country.

Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity - and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

...this song sounds really familiar.

We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence sharing and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.

Another carrier, PLUS Patriot missiles...terrorists are using what again that we use Patriots to shoot down??

I put a big RED flag on these actions as well...and count them as an IRAN reference.

We will use America's full diplomatic resources to rally support for Iraq from nations throughout the Middle East. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf states need to understand that an American defeat in Iraq would create a new sanctuary for extremists - and a strategic threat to their survival. These nations have a stake in a successful Iraq that is at peace with its neighbors - and they must step up their support for Iraq's unity government. We endorse the Iraqi government's call to finalize an international compact that will bring new economic assistance in exchange for greater economic reform. And on Friday, Secretary Rice will leave for the region - to build support for Iraq, and continue the urgent diplomacy required to help bring peace to the Middle East.

Sounds like the administration is just NOW considering this course of action...

The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time. On one side are those who believe in freedom and moderation. On the other side are extremists who kill the innocent, and have declared their intention to destroy our way of life. In the long run, the most realistic way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy - by advancing liberty across a troubled region. It is in the interests of the United States to stand with the brave men and women who are risking their lives to claim their freedom - and to help them as they work to raise up just and hopeful societies across the Middle East.

From Afghanistan to Lebanon to the Palestinian territories, millions of ordinary people are sick of the violence, and want a future of peace and opportunity for their children. And they are looking at Iraq. They want to know: Will America withdraw and yield the future of that country to the extremists - or will we stand with the Iraqis who have made the choice for freedom?

The changes I have outlined tonight are aimed at ensuring the survival of a young democracy that is fighting for its life in a part of the world of enormous importance to American security. Let me be clear: The terrorists and insurgents in Iraq are without conscience, and they will make the year ahead bloody and violent. Even if our new strategy works exactly as planned, deadly acts of violence will continue - and we must expect more Iraqi and American casualties. The question is whether our new strategy will bring us closer to success. I believe that it will.

Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship. But victory in Iraq will bring something new in the Arab world - a functioning democracy that polices its territory, upholds the rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties, and answers to its people. A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them - and it will help bring a future of peace and security for our children and grandchildren.

This is the kind of shit that might have worked on me BEFORE we invaded.

Honestly, if he'd have been straight with the American people and just said "ten years of occupation" instead of "roses and such", before invading Iraq, I could have gotten behind the idea.

Instead we get incompetance on a scale scarcely seen in the Executive branch. :rolleyes:

This new approach comes after consultations with Congress about the different courses we could take in Iraq. Many are concerned that the Iraqis are becoming too dependent on the United States - and therefore, our policy should focus on protecting Iraq's borders and hunting down al Qaeda. Their solution is to scale back America's efforts in Baghdad - or announce the phased withdrawal of our combat forces.

We carefully considered these proposals. And we concluded that to step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government, tear the country apart, and result in mass killings on an unimaginable scale. Such a scenario would result in our troops being forced to stay in Iraq even longer, and confront an enemy that is even more lethal. If we increase our support at this crucial moment, and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home.

In the days ahead, my national security team will fully brief Congress on our new strategy. If members have improvements that can be made, we will make them. If circumstances change, we will adjust. Honorable people have different views, and they will voice their criticisms. It is fair to hold our views up to scrutiny. And all involved have a responsibility to explain how the path they propose would be more likely to succeed.

Acting on the good advice of Senator Joe Lieberman and other key members of Congress, we will form a new, bipartisan working group that will help us come together across party lines to win the war on terror. This group will meet regularly with me and my administration. It will help strengthen our relationship with Congress. We can begin by working together to increase the size of the active Army and Marine Corps, so that America has the armed forces we need for the 21st century. We also need to examine ways to mobilize talented American civilians to deploy overseas - where they can help build democratic institutions in communities and nations recovering from war and tyranny.

A good idea, I suppose, but security is provided how??

In these dangerous times, the United States is blessed to have extraordinary and selfless men and women willing to step forward and defend us. These young Americans understand that our cause in Iraq is noble and necessary - and that the advance of freedom is the calling of our time. They serve far from their families, who make the quiet sacrifices of lonely holidays and empty chairs at the dinner table. They have watched their comrades give their lives to ensure our liberty. We mourn the loss of every fallen American - and we owe it to them to build a future worthy of their sacrifice.

Fellow citizens: The year ahead will demand more patience, sacrifice, and resolve. It can be tempting to think that America can put aside the burdens of freedom. Yet times of testing reveal the character of a nation. And throughout our history, Americans have always defied the pessimists and seen our faith in freedom redeemed. Now America is engaged in a new struggle that will set the course for a new century. We can and we will prevail.

We go forward with trust that the author of liberty will guide us through these trying hours. Thank you and good night.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/10/bush.transcript/index.htm

---

Thanks for playing!

IRAN references: Eight

These Iran references in speeches are eerily similar to the Iraq references peppering his speeches in 2002-2003.

I'll reserve judgement for now, but the extra carrier and the Patriot missiles seem oddly out of place for the current needs in Iraq.

Makes one wonder....

As for the "surge", I don't know if it's the best option at this point in time, but if it IS...it sounds like Bush isn't willing to go all out to accompish his stated goals. The plan he outlined sounds like it's going to need a lot more than 20,000 additional troops, considering what we have there on the ground already clearly isn't enough.

I could go on and on, but I'm slightly depressed now, so I'll just stop...*wanders off*

I think you have a handle on reality on this one.

The others are expecting a miracle.

Indeed. BTW, for you or anyone else who's interested, the numbers I cite come from the research of James Quinlivan, a US military analyst, and his papers Force Requirements in Stability Operations (http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/parameters/1995/quinliv.htm) (from Parameters Winter 1995 - that's the US Army War College's journal for those who don't recognise it) and
Burden of Victory: The Painful Arithmetic of Stability Operations (http://www.rand.org/publications/randreview/issues/summer2003/burden.html), James Dobbins' paper Nation Building: The Inescapable Responsibility of the World's Only Superpower, as well as other estimates such as Shinseki's infamous estimate of 600,000. Quinlivan and Dobbins both base their arguments on historical and recent force ratios in occupied Germany, the Malaysian Emergency, Northern Ireland, Bosnia, and Kosovo. Note that they both call for more forces to be deployed than than the entire US Army.

It is my opinion that the situation has most likely deteriorated beyond the even the levels talked about in those papers. Iraq is much messier than almost all ove them except possibly Malaysia (and even then I'm doubtful). If it were able to be stabilized, it might well require even more troops that suggested.

Far too little, far too late.

The country could use the troops, don't get me wrong, but it needed a serious force to begin with. Now the country has spiraled to the point where these troops will just end up getting shot.

50 - 100k troops might do the trick. But politics have ruled this war since day one, both on the Conservative side and on the Liberal side, and because of that this war will continue to be addressed as a social problem might, rather than the bloody, chaotic mess it really is.

There are about 152,000 in Iraq now. Even 100,000 would be insuficient.

1.Sending more troops to Iraq will not improve the situation at all.

A sufficient number - say an additional 4-500,000 have would been a good start. Unfortunately, we did not and still do not have the available numbers. Now...

2.Even if we accept the idea of sending more troops (which I don't), 21k troops are anyway too few to achieve anything. It is nothing but a neocon propaganda move.

Indeed, indeed.

Bush is the worst CINC a soldier could have.

Mmmmm.... I can think of worse. Possibly even US examples.

Delator, I pretty well agree with the point-by-point - a few minor quibbles, but nothing really worth posting.

I predict national service.

I predict national service.

I predict good music will come of that à la the '60's.

I predict good music will come of that à la the '60's.

And bad comedy: like the goons.

Though I think National Service would do americans some good. For one thing it would teach them to skyve properly.

I can see it now. Lot's of quonset huts and miserable teenagers in baggy green wool pants and badly fitting boots being yelled at for no good purpose. It's a priceless mental image.

Will women get national service too? You know equal lack of rights and all that.

Will women get national service too? You know equal lack of rights and all that.

Nah. It wouldn't be all national servicey if they do. They have to work in the NAFFI, serving tea and whatnot. Then wash their hair on friday night.

Of course, they'll have to give up their jobs when they get married. It's not proper otherwise.

Nah. It wouldn't be all national servicey if they do. They have to work in the NAFFI, serving tea and whatnot. Then wash their hair on friday night.

Of course, they'll have to give up their jobs when they get married. It's not proper otherwise.

So your solution to the Iraq problem is to reinstate the 1950s? Interesting........... :p

So your solution to the Iraq problem is to reinstate the 1950s? Interesting........... :p

You can't fight progress.

Edit: And national serivicemen did manage to actually stop the malaya insurgency and bring a sucessful end to it, so bringing back 1950s UK might be worth a shot.

You can't fight progress.

Edit: And national serivicemen did manage to actually stop the malaya insurgency and bring a sucessful end to it, so bringing back 1950s UK might be worth a shot.

Righto, I'll dig out my pipe, crepe sole shoes and brylcreem

At least he's presented "a plan". We may not all agree that it will work, or is a good idea, but it's an idea.

The alternative presented by Democrats publicly is to "redeploy" our troops as soon as possible - i.e., leave Iraq to whatever happens next as soon as possible.

I believe that the Iraqi government would immediately collapse. I believe that an independent Kurdistan would form, and be invaded by Turkey. I believe that the Shiite areas would ally themselves with Iran, and the Sunnis would be annihilated in a massive ethnic cleansing campaign if no one were there to stop the Shiites. Saudi Arabia has already promised soldiers, money, and weapons to the Sunnis if Iran becomes involved.

So, if we merely "redeploy" we go from an insurgency within Iraq to a regional war where most of the oil is. What a great idea that is!

A side idea tossed around by a few Democrats in the area is that we negotiate with Syria and Iran, and essentially give Iraq to them. Still results in regional war, because Turkey, the Kurds, and Saudi Arabia, and the Sunnis are essentially left out of the equation.

Any more bright ideas?

I heard a quote from on the radio this morning that said

"You can't reinforce failure"


I'll try and find out who said it and what conflict he was talking about

I heard a quote from on the radio this morning that said

"You can't reinforce failure"


I'll try and find out who said it and what conflict he was talking about

"You can't run away from your problems"

Gee, if we're going to make decisions based on witticisms, we're fucked.

Part of what I thought I heard was the deployment of a Carrier Battle Group to the Persian Gulf. That can only mean that we're getting serious about Syria and Iran and eliminating the support that they give to terrorists in Iraq.

Another thing that makes sense is to force Maliki(sp) into becoming a less sectarian PM. If this and 20,000+ troops in Baghdad can eliminate the militias and preserve order in the city, we have a chance to come out of this with a little credibility.

Any more bright ideas?

Well, what would your idea be?

That can only mean that we're getting serious about Syria and Iran and eliminating the support that they give to terrorists in Iraq.

I would have to ask though, how they intend to achieve that with patriot missiles. Last I heard, they were anti-air/anti-ballistic missile weapons and Iran and Syria do not appear to be doing any sort of covert air traffic along the borders.

Well, what would your idea be?

I'm not an elected official, therefore I am not required to have an idea.

Bush has put forth an official idea. Democrats can't agree on an idea (although some have put forth the general idea of just dumping Iraq and hoping the place doesn't fall apart even though we all know it will).

Someone in elected position needs to come up with a few alternatives before they say, "Bush sucks!" That's rather old, and not very helpful.

Part of what I thought I heard was the deployment of a Carrier Battle Group to the Persian Gulf. That can only mean that we're getting serious about Syria and Iran and eliminating the support that they give to terrorists in Iraq.

Another thing that makes sense is to force Maliki(sp) into becoming a less sectarian PM. If this and 20,000+ troops in Baghdad can eliminate the militias and preserve order in the city, we have a chance to come out of this with a little credibility.

All thats going to happen is more dead Americans. Bush is not mad he's just stupid! He cannot learn froim history and i think its because he's never read a book other than a bible.

Problem is a Sunni minority who were the ruling elite sponsored by the Ottoman Turks then the British are now at the mercy of a wrathful Shi'ite population. So you send in more Americans ,who neither side like, to be targeted by both. Fantastic idea! It took the British almost 30 years to quell sectarianism in Ireland and it still seethes below the surface.

Whats the solution? Pull out of there and to hell with them. Short of a genocidal final solution i can't see how America can keep the peace. The best thing, and i really mean this, is if Iran or Turkey were to invade Iraq. Theres nothing like a foreign invasion to focus a people on unity ( America get out now!) and any country mired in civil war post revolution picks its self up when someone invades them ( Russia, France etc etc)

Apparently the plan isn't just "adding troops".

It's having those troops "do" something.

Like this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6251167.stm

I'm not saying this is necessarily the right thing to do, but at least it's a plan.

Either the plan backfires (there's nothing at the consulate to implicate Iran in supporting insurgents), or it succeeds (there's a pile of information showing that Iran is supporting insurgents).

Problem is a Sunni minority who were the ruling elite sponsored by the Ottoman Turks then the British are now at the mercy of a wrathful Shi'ite population. So you send in more Americans ,who neither side like, to be targeted by both. Fantastic idea! It took the British almost 30 years to quell sectarianism in Ireland and it still seethes below the surface.



ARGHHHHH! Limping analogies!!

Didn't Bush say he would only increase troops levels if the Generals on the ground specifically said they wanted it? Because, according to him, they were the best ones to know.

Didn't he say that repeatedly, for months?


Now, that's a flip- flop.

He ignored Garner, Abizaid, and Shinseki then when thy said we needed more troops and he's ingoring all the military leaders now. After all he was a great fighter pilot and military mind right? This guy just doesn't know how to dance with the one who brought you there.

This is still damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Yes, Iraq is a mess. I think we need atleast twice the numbers of troops currently deployed in Iraq. If we completely pull out now we'd be leaving Iraq to the mercy of the insurgents and warlords. Having double the numbers of troops we could take full control of Baghdad and also secure the Iranian and Syrian borders (where a large bulk of insurgents are coming from.) Pulling out completely is wrong. We need to completely secure and expedite the training of the Iraqi army and police. Also, doubling the numbers would ensure a speedy exit strategy. As for the 20,000 troops I don't think is nearly enough to finish the job quickly.

I think it's more "damned because of what you did" than anything else. Bush is down in flames of his own personal hell that he created.

There are about 152,000 in Iraq now. Even 100,000 would be insuficient.
I meant, of course, 100,000 more. The number of soldiers per Iraqis has been pitiful since the invasion began, and that led a bunch of previously oppressed peoples not knowing what to do with such unwatched and unchecked freedom.

At least he's presented "a plan". We may not all agree that it will work, or is a good idea, but it's an idea.

The alternative presented by Democrats publicly is to "redeploy" our troops as soon as possible - i.e., leave Iraq to whatever happens next as soon as possible.

I believe that the Iraqi government would immediately collapse. I believe that an independent Kurdistan would form, and be invaded by Turkey. I believe that the Shiite areas would ally themselves with Iran, and the Sunnis would be annihilated in a massive ethnic cleansing campaign if no one were there to stop the Shiites. Saudi Arabia has already promised soldiers, money, and weapons to the Sunnis if Iran becomes involved.

So, if we merely "redeploy" we go from an insurgency within Iraq to a regional war where most of the oil is. What a great idea that is!

A side idea tossed around by a few Democrats in the area is that we negotiate with Syria and Iran, and essentially give Iraq to them. Still results in regional war, because Turkey, the Kurds, and Saudi Arabia, and the Sunnis are essentially left out of the equation.

Any more bright ideas?

Please ignore the slurping coming from EO's direction, he just loves the Bush. This guy has F'd up the situation so bad that it will be a miracle is anyone could fix the situation to make it work out in a somewhat reasonable fashion. Why is it that you expect everyone else to fix the problem that Bush has created? This has been the problem with him all of his life and is the reason he has no foresight at all. Every time he was in trouble Daddy or his friends would be there to bail him out. I call this "spoiled rotten syndrome" were a child is incapable of seeing how his actions affect the world as a whole, and cares not due to the power, money, and influence that will always make things right.

Redeployment, where the US military is used primarily as advisers to the Iraqis, is what is needed. Engaging Iraq's neighbors to help stabilize the region is key as they have more of a stake in ensuring a stable Iraq than anyone else. The go it alone attitude has proven to be a disaster and now we must eat a little humble pie and involve others. This means working with Iran and Syria as much as you may think you hate the idea. Want an example of this happening in the past? The US working with Saddam Hussein against Iran even though we weren't very happy with him. These things are done all the time as a means of getting useful work accomplished.

Please ignore the slurping coming from EO's direction, he just loves the Bush.

Hardly. Forgive your slurping - you just love Democrats who can't agree on any plan except to leave and do nothing.

g.w. does not win my seal of aproval. never has. 'nuff said. other then lets see (and hope) if the new congress has the balls to cut him off at the pockets.

i'd guess the odds makers in reno and vegas are taking bets either way.

more troops won't make iraqi's safer from each other. i think most of what the're disagreeing over is how to get the u.s. out of there.

and if they do insist on destroying each other: one that's the're bussiness, and two, if we did, and we probably did, almost certainly by how it's been handled so far, created the situation that gives them reason to, i seriously doubt, anything we do NOW is going to chainge or reverse that.

some, perhapse many, may very well go on slaughtering each other as soon as we get our butts out of there, but, the longer we stay the MORE of them will and the more reason we are likely to continue giving them for doing so.

"This guy has F'd up the situation so bad that it will be a miracle is anyone could fix the situation to make it work out in a somewhat reasonable fashion. Why is it that you expect everyone else to fix the problem that Bush has created? This has been the problem with him all of his life and is the reason he has no foresight at all. Every time he was in trouble Daddy or his friends would be there to bail him out. I call this "spoiled rotten syndrome" were a child is incapable of seeing how his actions affect the world as a whole, and cares not due to the power, money, and influence that will always make things right."

this is generaly the impression i've always had of the guy.
i didn't vote for him, but did give him the bennifit of the doubt, BEFORE the way he responded to the events of those twenty guys knocking down those 2 1/2 buildings with those 4 airplanes they managed to rip off.

i don't know of anything he did, or was done in his name, or done by and for the interests that put him in power, that has been anything other then crap.

i mean there's bound to be, HAS to be something, but if there is, whatever it is, i'm not awaire of it.

=^^=
.../\...

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a338/Singaporean_Liberal/sighrepeatimage.jpg

As if things in Iraq weren't bad enough already.....although I don't like Bush or any of his crony capitalist consorts, at the very least he seems to be making an attempt to go in the right direction.....

I would have to ask though, how they intend to achieve that with patriot missiles. Last I heard, they were anti-air/anti-ballistic missile weapons and Iran and Syria do not appear to be doing any sort of covert air traffic along the borders.

I would guess that the missiles are to protect our 'friends' in the area from retaliation. Retaliation from what? Maybe a strike on a nuclear weapons program..maybe a terrorist stronghold.

Please ignore the slurping coming from EO's direction, he just loves the Bush. This guy has F'd up the situation so bad that it will be a miracle is anyone could fix the situation to make it work out in a somewhat reasonable fashion. Why is it that you expect everyone else to fix the problem that Bush has created? This has been the problem with him all of his life and is the reason he has no foresight at all. Every time he was in trouble Daddy or his friends would be there to bail him out. I call this "spoiled rotten syndrome" were a child is incapable of seeing how his actions affect the world as a whole, and cares not due to the power, money, and influence that will always make things right.

This coming from a guy that accuses the other poster of totting the line from teh opposite side huh? You are totting the far lefters lines too bud. I have seen the bull that the far lefters and Democrats have been totting too. It sickens me. 17 years ago these same far lefters and Democrats(and even some Republicans)chickened out at the chance of removing a tyrannt/murder. Know what they were saying? Saying that we have no reason to go on....bullshit! If anyone has a syndrome, it would have to be these cowards. I accredit the violence from the same Iraqis hoping we would of done something years ago to the betrail of these politicians that backed out then...

Redeployment, where the US military is used primarily as advisers to the Iraqis, is what is needed. Engaging Iraq's neighbors to help stabilize the region is key as they have more of a stake in ensuring a stable Iraq than anyone else.

Oh thats right, let Iran get involved, thats right, the nation that wants to wipe out all non-muslems...a nation that is been obvious in its agenda of eliminating the Western ideals. See i have no problem with Arab governments style, its the repressive, radical ones that are dangerous. Like Iran, Syria, and een Saudi Arabia. See i dont think you understand, Iran wants stability alright, elimination(much like what Hussein did)of opposition politics and views.

The go it alone attitude has proven to be a disaster and now we must eat a little humble pie and involve others.

You mean involve other regimes that are dangerous? Hmm, and the purpose of that would be?



This means working with Iran and Syria as much as you may think you hate the idea. Want an example of this happening in the past? The US working with Saddam Hussein against Iran even though we weren't very happy with him. These things are done all the time as a means of getting useful work accomplished.

See some of us logical people think that was a mistake in the first place. Working with tyrannts and regimes that are repressive in the first place. No, that is the problem, we SHOULDNT be working with people like Hussein, Irans leaders and such, they are going to turn on you later.

At least he's presented "a plan". We may not all agree that it will work, or is a good idea, but it's an idea.

This plan is not a serious plan for winning. It is a serious CYA plan for Bush. A plan that hurts us by killing more good troops for no reason other window dressing for domestic political gain and ultimately does not plan to win is worse than no plan at all.

Fortunately there is another plan. The ISG's plan, while not perfect, is significantly better, and at least realistic.

The alternative presented by Democrats publicly is to "redeploy" our troops as soon as possible - i.e., leave Iraq to whatever happens next as soon as possible.

That's not it. (And if you're trying to tear down the ISG Report, that's a gross mischaracterization, and you know it. That's not to mention it was bi-partisan.)

But even a pull out is better than what we're doing now.

I believe that the Iraqi government would immediately collapse. I believe that an independent Kurdistan would form, and be invaded by Turkey. I believe that the Shiite areas would ally themselves with Iran, and the Sunnis would be annihilated in a massive ethnic cleansing campaign if no one were there to stop the Shiites. Saudi Arabia has already promised soldiers, money, and weapons to the Sunnis if Iran becomes involved.

So, if we merely "redeploy" we go from an insurgency within Iraq to a regional war where most of the oil is. What a great idea that is!

Indeed that might happen, but Bush's plan would simply prolong that process. But fortunately that's not the best alternative.

A side idea tossed around by a few Democrats in the area is that we negotiate with Syria and Iran, and essentially give Iraq to them. Still results in regional war, because Turkey, the Kurds, and Saudi Arabia, and the Sunnis are essentially left out of the equation.

That's simply a gross mischaracterization. You usually object better than that. Try harder.

Any more bright ideas?

Apply the ISG plan, in slightly modified form. It won't be a "win", but it neither will it produce the hell that Bush's road (however paved) is leading us to.

I meant, of course, 100,000 more.

I know you did. Do the math. 152,000 + 100,000 = 252,000 The numbers called for earlier, before it got this bad, were in the 5-600,000 range. 250,000 is way insufficient.

The number of soldiers per Iraqis has been pitiful since the invasion began, and that led a bunch of previously oppressed peoples not knowing what to do with such unwatched and unchecked freedom.

The numbers were insufficient yes, but the problem isn't the pople not knowing what to do with new freedom. They knew exactly what to do. The problem is there wasn't enough force to stop them from doing it.

Part of what I thought I heard was the deployment of a Carrier Battle Group to the Persian Gulf. That can only mean that we're getting serious about Syria and Iran and eliminating the support that they give to terrorists in Iraq.

We need boots on the ground that we don't have or a diplomatic effort to do that.

Another thing that makes sense is to force Maliki(sp) into becoming a less sectarian PM.

Doubtful, at best, if that can happen.

If this and 20,000+ troops in Baghdad can eliminate the militias and preserve order in the city, we have a chance to come out of this with a little credibility.

The addition of 20,000 and the redeployment of all forces in now elsewhere in Iraq to Baghdad would be needed to stabilise the city.

I would have to ask though, how they intend to achieve that with patriot missiles. Last I heard, they were anti-air/anti-ballistic missile weapons and Iran and Syria do not appear to be doing any sort of covert air traffic along the borders.

Bing. Exactly.

Remaining in Iraq, or incrementally withdrawing so as to save a little face, I could understand, however this is truly astounding. Can we construe this as a precursor to conscription?

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/01/10/bush-setup.html

Sheesh. :eek:

Thoughts?

My thoughts?


Revolution time!

My initial thoughts when reading this article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6253285.stm

Our troops will have a well-defined mission
will have?
Doesn't that imply that they don't have one now?
It would explain the snafu there.

Asked about how long troops would stay in Iraq, Defence Secretary Robert Gates said he thought it would be months not years.

"I think for most of us in our minds we're thinking of it as a matter of months, not 18 months or two years.
That is giving me an overpowering sense of Deja vu for some reason.

Why is that?

Oh, yes. Here we are:
"It (the Iraq war) could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/01/10/bush-setup.html


Sheesh. :eek:



Thoughts?

This is not good.

Remember Vietnam.

Shame on you bush. pull out already.

So spoke Lynne Cheney.