Bush is a ____!

[NMCB3]

[Victory in Iraq is the day when the last US fighting man or woman leaves.

In that case victory will not be achieved in our lifetime`s. They have four or five state of the art bases there, with airstrips large enough to handle anything. We have no intention of giving those up anytime soon.That does not fit into their long range plans. Besides we still have troops in countries from WWII. Victory will have to be defined in some other manner.

How about this one; victory is whatever the government says it is, whenever it finds it politically expedient to do so.

[Deacon51]

Iraq.
My Views.











FUBAR from the start!

If some one in a house is shooting at me, I'm calling for a gawd damn JDAM.

Victory is the day I can sit in a nice restaurant, overlooking the Tigris River, smoking the Hookah, and enjoy a nice cup of tea.

And not hear a single bomb or gun shot

[nsnate02]

Originally Posted by Old School

Victory in Iraq is the day when the last US fighting man or woman leaves. I fear that will be many years from now, since no President will define victory during a struggle.
OS

Has anyone noticed that if this is the definition of victory then Germany, The Balkans, WWI, WWII, Japan, and everywhere else we have fought we have yet to achieve ultimate victory? We still maintain forces in Germany for crying out loud!

Victory was defined and has not changed. Bush stated that vicrtory was a stable democratic government in Iraq. Objectives to achieve this victory were the removal of Sadaam and his sons, unifiy the country under central leadership, and rid Iraq of insurgents (terrorist) (Note WWMD were not listed). He aslo said from the onset it would take time. 4 years? Come on it almost took us that long to even get involved in Europe! Not to mention the rebuilding, which we are actually still there doing, maintainng peace, which we are still doing (ex.Germany).

You have to couch this conflict in it's historical context and relavancy. This ego-centric view that we can do it better and faster than the 4,000 years of wars in the past is kinda naive and arrogant. IMHO.

[Powerman]

Originally Posted by Mark S.

I think that "they" (Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld) actually thought that they had defined "victory". They felt that removing Saddam from power would be "victory". Remember Cheney saying "that we will be greeted as liberators". Unfortunately, they had a simplistic view of the political realities in Iraq. Removing Saddam from power with no plan for the aftermath led to the mess we are in now.

Bush's military advisers told him that it would take 400,000 or more troops to successfully occupy the country. Our initial committment of 80,000 troops was nowhere near enough force to control the various factions within the country nor to control the borders. That gave the insurgency a chance to gain a foothold.

Rumsfeld's stubborness about the level of forces allowed the insurgency to grow. During that time the definition of victory shifted from removing Saddam to establishing democracy in Iraq. However, the country now is in the midst of a civil war between Muslim factions. It's unlikely that democracy will be established any time soon.

Well said.

[nsnate02]

Originally Posted by Mark S.

However, the country now is in the midst of a civil war between Muslim factions. It's unlikely that democracy will be established any time soon.

It's interesting to me that 80% of Americans think Civil War is a reality, while 73% of Iraqi's think things are getting better and that they are not in a civil war?

Tell me the story again how we are in a mess in Iraq with no hope of resolving someone else's civil war and how it is so much like Vietnam! The mess, the horror, the death, the hopelessness.

Armchair quarterbacks at their best!


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...030600369.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1530762.ece

[Old School]

Originally Posted by nsnate02

Has anyone noticed that if this is the definition of victory then Germany, The Balkans, WWI, WWII, Japan, and everywhere else we have fought we have yet to achieve ultimate victory? We still maintain forces in Germany for crying out loud!

Perhaps my wording was incorrect. When I used the word "fighting", I meant "engaged in battle". Having forces in Iraq is going to be a life-time commitment, at least my life time. Like it is in Germany.

I do recall what the President said and when he said, I backed him. When I backed his plan, like most Americans, I was raging p!ssed at OBL and was looking for blood. Today, I am still angry and I still want OBL. I want to see us hunt him down. I want to see that on the news everyday and night.

[nsnate02]

I understand the sentiment, but i hope everyone realizes tha 80% of Iraq is peaceful. In fact they had a carnival in downtown Baghdad this past week with a Farris Wheel and all!

The fighting is limited to very small areas (relative to the entirety of Iraq). In fact, Baghdad is roughly the size of LA and guess who has had more murders over the same time period?

My only point is to not loose perspective in the moment.

[Powerman]

Originally Posted by nsnate02

Has anyone noticed that if this is the definition of victory then Germany, The Balkans, WWI, WWII, Japan, and everywhere else we have fought we have yet to achieve ultimate victory? We still maintain forces in Germany for crying out loud!

Victory was defined and has not changed. Bush stated that vicrtory was a stable democratic government in Iraq. Objectives to achieve this victory were the removal of Sadaam and his sons, unifiy the country under central leadership, and rid Iraq of insurgents (terrorist) (Note WWMD were not listed). He aslo said from the onset it would take time. 4 years? Come on it almost took us that long to even get involved in Europe! Not to mention the rebuilding, which we are actually still there doing, maintainng peace, which we are still doing (ex.Germany).

You have to couch this conflict in it's historical context and relavancy. This ego-centric view that we can do it better and faster than the 4,000 years of wars in the past is kinda naive and arrogant. IMHO.

You have good points. So what is your solution? I'm not sand bagging you. What do you think it will take?

I'm just some opinionated idiot with free time and a key board. I am guilty of pointing fingers. It does no good to expose problems if there is no intent for solutions. I believe Iraq was a mistake, but so what. What now? I really don't have any answers either. If there was any obvious ones I think that we would be doing them.

Here is the real irony. Bush has been saying all along we can't leave. I disagreed. 4 years later though he is finally right. We can't pull out. We have given the terrorists 4 years to organize. They have done so. Iran has strengthened their position and we are stuck between a rock and a hard place. We are fighting the enemy among a civillian poulation.

I want a change in leadership because I believe they are managing the war wrong. That in no way means I am tired of the war and want to walk away. I am tired of the mismanagment. The Dems only answer is to walk away. Big mistake. Even if I disagreed with what they want to do, they don't even talk of any solution to Afghanistan, or Al-Quida. What is their civillian solution to Iraq if they are not pleased with the millitary one? What is the direction we need to take for stability in the region? What can they do for home land security and counter-terrorism?

So if we stay in Iraq, how many troops will it take to secure the borders. How many to secure peace? How many to stabiize the country so the Government can take hold? 200K? 300K-400K? How many years, 3-6-10? At what cost? If we are going to commit that much to do the job right, is it worth it? Will it make us safer? Can that money, effort, and lives be better utilized elswhere? I really don't know.

I can't stomache the thought of walking out and empowering the terrorists. I can't stand the thought of giving Iran any leverage. However, what we are really talking about is saving face. If we are not commited to doing what we need to, or think it is not worth it, then how many service members will it take to save face? How long do we leave them there inadequately prepared being blown up so we can feel better? Is saving face worth the fiscal hole we are burying the country in? Is it worth a divided nation? Is it worth 3000 service member? How about 10,000? Shoot, we lost 57,000 in Nam, let's just round it off to an even 60K. At the mortality rate we have now 3000 troops and 100,000 civilians, that equates to 2 million dead civillians. Is that enough civillians to save face? I just don't know why everyone does not want our freedom? How much is our face worth? What ever happened to being a World LEADER? What ever happened to doing the right thing?

[Deacon51]

First, we need to go back to our allies and the rest of the world and tell them we are sorry and ask for help.

I know we are the biggest baddest mofo's in the world, but Iraq is not just an Americans problem.

If we leave, it's going to devastate the entire region...
Iran will gain southern Iraq, threaten Kuwait, and Saudi.

Why aren't these countries helping us?

[nsnate02]

Although I disagree with your assertion, Powerman, that Iraq has been mishandled (Dem propaganda), your point on solutions is right on. Arguing about history gains nothing.

So for a solution? I think we are on to it. Stay and continue to route out the insurgents. All reports from our people say it is only getting better. The insurgency is weakening, the Iraqi's are positive, most of the country is pacified. I think we need the buildup to give the Iraqi's a chance to catch up, police wise, and that can only happen with an overwhelming force to quell the noise for a bit. Will it ever go completely away? No, IMO, but the Iraqi's need a chance to get ahead of the curve so that they can adequately polices themselves. Keep in mind they have had less than four years to organize a government, army, national and city police forces, and develop economic and social infrastructure. This is a big ordeal. I think we sometimes forget (thank you media and Dems) that this is a huge undertaking for the Iraqi's.