Bush is a ____!

[Powerman]

Originally Posted by 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.

I believe Mark S.'s assesment hit the nail on the head. That is why I believe it is mismanaged. The administration did not do enough to secure the ground first. Plus , enough about the media. There are plenty of left and right news agencys out there. Iraq is not some resounding sucsess that we are completely unaware of because the boogy man media doesn't want us to know. I see tapes of OBL. I see Al-Quida signing treatys. I see Afghanistan cultivating poppy. I see a complete lack of self suficiency from Iraqis. I hear our troops say they can't be trusted. I see a civil war. Maybe it is exagerated, but it isn't make believe. I see dead people...

I'm not dogging you though. You have a reasonable opinion. So tell me this, do you really think this surge will work? Even his comanders and the commission disagreed. Plus I don't think it will work being short term. If you doubled the troops for a good year or so maybe... Even Bush put a vague time table on the surge. Why won't the insurgents just wait that out? When those troops come home will some insurgents follow them home! JK

I was for a surge until Bush's own people said it was not worth it. Is it just more half measures? Also, if more troops are needed long term, where are they comming from. You can say all day long the media distorts things like enlistments and such, all I know from my own eys are that more and more tours are being extended, and more and more National Guard troops are being sent over. Even if the country is resolved to put enough troops there long term, it doesn't seem like we have enough.

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by 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.

That is correct.

Only 2 or 3 of the Iraqi provinces remain unstable. The rest of the country is very quiet, especially the northern provinces where the Kurdish people live. They were abused the WORST by Saddam out of all the groups. They were also the happiest to see us arrive.

The media spin on this war has been unbelieveable. The reporting has been a perfect example of how the media only reports the bad news and forgets about the good news. There have been countless successes in Iraq and virtually none of them make it on the news.

Frank

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by Deacon51

I know we are the biggest baddest mofo's in the world,

Don't let the media and the dems convince you of that.

Frank

[ArmyGuy45]

anyone up for a giant glass table?

[robertoj]

Originally Posted by Powerman

This is not Viet Nam in the same sense. Then we were fighting the N.V. ARMY from North Viet Nam backed by Russia.

I don't understand all the claims of hands tied behind backs. What would your plan be to win a war with no fronts, no declared military, and no military or infrastructure targets? The enemy hides among the civilians and they are unable, or unwilling to change that.
I would like to know how this war is supposed to be won.

Powerman, begging your pardon but hiding among civilians that are unwilling or unable to change that, having no fronts, etc, WAS Viet Nam.

That is exactly what we had in Viet Nam......yes the NVA was there but the Viet Cong was everything that you indicated and sometimes more......

Our troops in Iraq are experiencing exactly what we went through in Viet Nam and it is very disappointing and demoralizing.

To have to submit to rules that give the enemy all the advantages that he needs to continue the guerrilla warfare tactics, is like being abandoned on your own and also held responsible for everything.

You have to notice that, it was only after the democrats gained control of congress that we saw the publicized intent of putting more Iraqi troops on the field. Yet, I still have to see Iraqi troops taking the lead in urban insurgency suppression.

It looks like a political ploy, a smoke screen....at least that is what it seems to me. And in the meantime, our troops continue to die.......

FYI, I am democrat, let's get that out of the way.

Is not that I don't understand the consequences of stopping the radical Muslim agenda but the strategy that we have used so far, has failed and out troops are dying every day and we do not see a policy or a plan that outlines a course of action that defines victory.

And in the meantime, I don't see the Iraqi government and for that matter the Iraqi population, effectively SUPPORTING and CONTRIBUTING to achieve this effort.

If the Iraqis want democracy, why is it that I don't see a steady and progressive effort towards that goal? Or is it this a case of "we know what's best for you so, you WILL have democracy and you will like it"?

If we are "teaching" the Iraqis that democracy is what is best for them, despite of their own inalienable right to decide for themselves what they want, I am not willing to loose more American lives for that.

Nor I am willing to loose more American lives due to politics, specially Arabic style politics that rely on delaying tactics to wear you down.

There is always another "but" and another "sensitive" point and another "cultural issue" that we "do not understand" (sounds like a Harley fan) and in the meantime, it is our troops that are dying every day.

You can call me a bleeding heart if you want to but understand this, it is not that I am unwilling to sacrifice for a worthy cause, it is that I am unwilling to waste lives without purpose.

And while we are on the subject, I will never understand why our troops had to scrounge to armor their Humvee themselves and why our troops are procuring essential supplies for themselves (I know of at least one unit that has asked for AR 15 magazines because they are in short supply)
and why Rumsfeld said to that "you go to war with what you got"....that is the most asinine comment that I have ever heard.......you don't mess with the lives of our soldiers, they are not expendable, PERIOD.

And I have to be honest at this time, the more I think about it, the more I get the thought in my mind (shows how stupid I am) that one of the underlaying reasons for this war is the oil.

I don't want our troops to die for oil. Period. No ifs or buts, that should be a no brainier for everybody.

If oil is one of the reasons then, we need to put our house in order and accelerate the development of alternate energy sources and other options need to be put on the table asap specially, in a year that the oil industry has declared record profits and their executives have obscenely rich salaries and perks.

I no longer have confidence in our president's policy for the war in Iraq. Please notice that I said "no longer" because in the past I supported the president's policy.

I do not believe any longer that his reasons to continue the current policy are accurate because, I do not understand his unwillingness to share the reasons and logic to continue with this course of action.

The president needs to share with the American people. We need to have a clear understanding of who, when, where and how. He owes that much to the men and women that have already given their lives for this cause.

Sorry for the rant...thanks for the opportunity to share my opinion.

[nsnate02]

Originally Posted by robertoj

FYI, I am democrat, let's get that out of the way.

I don't think anyone mistook you for anything other than a Democrat. The talking points were pretty much in order and ignored all the rebuffs that had previously been posted before you.

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by robertoj

You have to notice that, it was only after the democrats gained control of congress that we saw the publicized intent of putting more Iraqi troops on the field. Yet, I still have to see Iraqi troops taking the lead in urban insurgency suppression.

Bush has been talking about increasing the number of trained Iraqi troops for years now--and we have been doing it. I have a friend who served in Iraq and his job was to train Iraqi forces. He served in 2003.

Originally Posted by robertoj

And I have to be honest at this time, the more I think about it, the more I get the thought in my mind (shows how stupid I am) that one of the underlaying reasons for this war is the oil.

If oil is one of the reasons then, we need to put our house in order and accelerate the development of alternate energy sources and other options need to be put on the table asap specially, in a year that the oil industry has declared record profits and their executives have obscenely rich salaries and perks.

What would make you think that this war has been for oil? If it was, wouldn't we just seize all of the oil that is produced in Iraq? Why are we letting the Iraqis keep and sell it if this war is for oil? Why haven't gas prices gone down if this was for oil? If Bush wanted oil, he would have taken over Iraq and seized all of the oil for America. He would have taken it and sold it to American refineries.

You mention "record profits" from the oil industry. You seem to have forgotten that the profit margins of oil companies have been relatively unchanged in the last 30 years. The oil companies have to buy the oil as well. When the price goes up, they have to pay more for the oil that they use to make gasoline. Sales may have gone up, but expenses have gone up as well. Sales have also increased because the global demand for oil and gasoline has increased. Why it is that folks are so upset when American companies that provide them goods/services are doing well? How much is too much profits? Should there be a limit? If you punish the oil companies, all you are going to to is raise gas prices.

If you want to know why so many of us are turned off by the dems, you have to look no further than democrat front-runner Hillary Clinton. She said recently that she wants to "take those profits" from the oil companies and invest them into funding research for alternative sources of energy. Sounds like a noble idea, but what gives her or the government the right to seize someone's profits and use them in ways that he/she sees fit. That is called income redistribution and it is a marxist and communist ideal.

Frank

[AZXD]

Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40

The media spin on this war has been unbelieveable. The reporting has been a perfect example of how the media only reports the bad news and forgets about the good news. There have been countless successes in Iraq and virtually none of them make it on the news.

Frank

+1000000

Blood, Gore,and controversy!!!!!
It get the viewers everytime.

But the girl in Aruba and Anna Nicole, I just don't get it. The MSM spend countless dollars and time covering stories that only interest a few viewers.

Oh, I forgot, they don't actually report the news, they just attempt to up their ratings. I guess thats called business.

Besides, no one wants to hear about something good. It might make them feel bad as they realize that it did not happen to them.

[Powerman]

Originally Posted by FrankRizzoXD40

What would make you think that this war has been for oil? If it was, wouldn't we just seize all of the oil that is produced in Iraq? Why are we letting the Iraqis keep and sell it if this war is for oil? Why haven't gas prices gone down if this was for oil? If Bush wanted oil, he would have taken over Iraq and seized all of the oil for America. He would have taken it and sold it to American refineries.

Frank

Are you serious? What do think it has ever been about? The M.E. had nothing till they/we found oil. In the begining it was just about buisness. As time passed it became about control of the oil supply, or rather the energy supply. What else is there in the M.E. that is so god damn interesting about a bunch of goat herders killing themselves? It has always been about the oil. We certainly didn't care about Cambodia or Laos. Didn't care about Eithiopia, S. Africa, Bosnia, Darfur, the African AIDS epidemic. We don't give a crap when they kill themselves.

Gee, what is so different about the Middle East that we have to keep sticking our nose into for the past 50 years? It isn't due to pressure from our large Middle Eastern citizen poulation. It isn't from our strong religious ties to our Muslim home lands. It isn't from their strong global political clout. It isn't because they are an economic super power to be reconed with. Gee what could be so interesting???

I'm not even trying to put this off as some big conspiracy. You could make a strong argument that controling energy supplies falls into the catagory of national security. I certainly see it that way. How the hell do you think we got to the top of the Global food chain? We make deals with them to obtain it and keep it from others. There is no need to invade or take. Dealing with there radical citizens is just the cost of doing buisness. It has always been cheaper to do what we have been doing than invading and occupying and dealing with the International consequenses. Why would we want to occupy forign land when they sell it to us so cheap?

Gas prices are up because of instability in the market and speculators. Even with that we still get our gas at half of what the rest of the world pays. Not about the oil, come on.

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by Powerman

Are you serious? What do think it has ever been about? The M.E. had nothing till they/we found oil. In the begining it was just about buisness. As time passed it became about control of the oil supply, or rather the energy supply. What else is there in the M.E. that is so god damn interesting about a bunch of goat herders killing themselves? It has always been about the oil. We certainly didn't care about Cambodia or Laos. Didn't care about Eithiopia, S. Africa, Bosnia, Darfur, the African AIDS epidemic. We don't give a crap when they kill themselves.

Gee, what is so different about the Middle East that we have to keep sticking our nose into for the past 50 years? It isn't due to pressure from our large Middle Eastern citizen poulation. It isn't from our strong religious ties to our Muslim home lands. It isn't from their strong global political clout. It isn't because they are an economic super power to be reconed with. Gee what could be so interesting???

I'm not even trying to put this off as some big conspiracy. You could make a strong argument that controling energy supplies falls into the catagory of national security. I certainly see it that way. How the hell do you think we got to the top of the Global food chain? We make deals with them to obtain it and keep it from others. There is no need to invade or take. Dealing with there radical citizens is just the cost of doing buisness. It has always been cheaper to do what we have been doing than invading and occupying and dealing with the International consequenses. Why would we want to occupy forign land when they sell it to us so cheap?

Gas prices are up because of instability in the market and speculators. Even with that we still get our gas at half of what the rest of the world pays. Not about the oil, come on.

I'll believe that it is about the oil when we seize oil from the Iraqis instead of letting them sell it on the open market, when gas prices fall because we have taken the oil, stop letting the Iraqis keep the oil profits, stop letting them divide the profits the way we see fit, etc...etc...

If it was really about oil, we could take the oil or stop the Iraqis from going through OPEC and sell it on a truly free-market. We could drop the price of oil by doing something like that.

Face it, the oil situation in Iraq was probably MORE stable before the war was started. Granted, the revenues weren't going in the right/fair place, but the cost of production was a lot lower because we didn't have to worry about trying to stop the oil facilities from being blown up.

The Iraq war was about WMD and deposing a brutal dictator. It has evolved into something far different than that now (different debate). Was part of it about oil? Perhaps. But if that was the main focus, our actions there are proving the opposite. Giving Iraq some long-term stability and preventing oil funds from being channeled to terrorists might be a secondary consideration, but the primary goal is to fix what we have started, kill the enemy and get out.

Frank