Last nights speech by President Bush. What do you think?

[The Noob]

Originally Posted by Iceman

If not then save my brothers in arms lives and bring them ALL home tommorrow and send in a few tactical nukes and solve it all....come back there in 40 years and you'll have a big oil reserve...

The only solution is Christ.

What the......lol.


Oh wait...... blooooody hell he really means it serious.

[Skybird]

That man is totally disconnected from reality, and he wants to leave the burden of declare defeat to his sucessor. for that he accepts to increase the number of American soldiers being killed or menally, physically crippled. Great leader, that man, and so wise.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...459353,00.html

The worst part is the way in which George W. Bush has conclusively ruptured his country. The president's "New Way Forward in Iraq" will lead America directly into political trench warfare. (...) Two years before the end of his term and in the comfortable knowledge that he doesn't have to face re-election, Bush announced more of the same, and thus ignored everything that experts, the opposition majority, and the US public want.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...459369,00.html

"We understand that people are going to be skeptical," said Whitehouse spokesman Gordon Johndroe on Thursday, adding that he hoped they would "take a look at the details of the president's plan." That's exactly what people did -- and they rejected the details. They rejected the notion that dispatching additional troops to Iraq would require expanding the US military by 92,000 soldiers in the long term -- a project that would cost about $15 billion a year. They also rejected the proposal of mobilizing the National Guard again, as well as the suggestion that parts of Baghdad need to be hermetically sealed off from the rest of the city -- a tactic that already led to "spectacular failure" in Vietnam, as the Los Angeles Times observed. [...] Meanwhile the Democrats are planning to pass a symbolic majority resolution rejecting Bush's Iraq strategy. The aim is to force the Republicans to offer a clear and humiliating assessment of the situation while isolating the president, much as Richard Nixon was isolated during his final days in office. The specter of impeachment was already making the rounds on Thursday.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...459048,00.html

Bush is no longer talking about victory and democracy for the entire region. Instead he is talking about looming instability in Egypt, about Saudi Arabia's intervention on the side of the Sunnis, and the unstoppable rise of the regional power Iran. Bush's only remaining justification for remaining in the region is that of preventing an even larger disaster.
America's army will ultimately become a buffer between the groups fighting in the civil war. A brigade from the 82nd Airborne Division is to be deployed in Baghdad next week, and others will be sent in as soon as possible. While greater security may not automatically be the result, one thing is guaranteed predicts former NATO commander Wesley Clark: higher casualties.
The current generals are just as skeptical as the former generals about Bush's strategy. Bush has always pledged that he would only strengthen troop numbers in Iraq if his commanders on the ground asked for it. But now, he is countermanding the express will of those commanders -- and is replacing them for that reason. The war in Iraq has become Bush's war once and for all.

Bush not only rejected the plan of the Baker commission, and polls saying that 60-70% of Americans do not want to see additional troops being sent, he also ignores much of the new counterinsurgency doctrine developed by Gen. Patraeus who has taken command (or will be taking command soon) in Iraq. I already have reported on him some weeks ago:

"The US military is learning from it's mistakes in Iraq:"
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...455165,00.html

"Nowadays," says Army spokesman Stephen Boylan, a colonel with a moustache who served for several years in Germany, "everyone knows that the road to Baghdad leads directly through Leavenworth."
The best way to fully understand Boylan's comment is to take a grueling tour of the 16 schools, institutes and colleges at the fort where about 2,000 young officers enroll each year for special training. The tour passes through windowless conference rooms, classrooms and lecture halls, and it requires enduring hours of slide presentations and talks by generals, historians, diplomats, Vietnam veterans and soldiers serving in Iraq. It also means wading through documents filled with unfamiliar acronyms, but in the end the visitor is left with the feeling that a revolution is being launched here in Fort Leavenworth, one that will radically change the face of the United States military and the wars it will fight in the future. (...) A revolution is underway that will change the face of the US military -- and with it the wars the world has yet to face.

Interview with Gen. David Petraeus:
"We have to raise our sights beyond the range of an M-16"
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...455199,00.html

There is quite a big cultural change going on. We used to say, that if you can do the "big stuff," the big combined arms, high-end, high intensity major combat operations and have a disciplined force, then you can do the so-called "little stuff," too. That turned out to be wrong. (...) What we simply don't want anymore is to give people a checklist of what to do. We want them to think, not memorize. You know, a lot of this is about young officers. But we have to be clear with them, they have to know: You must be a warrior first, that is true, that's why we exist, we exist in many cases to kill or capture the bad guys. But on the other hand, we have to teach them: You're not going to kill your way out of an insurgency. (...) The fight to Bagdad was not easy. It was very, very hard, real people died and bled and we really blew things up, but -- we always knew how to do that, we have it refined to a very high level, we did combined operations that were really at the high end of our business. In fact, you could say that we practiced that stuff by and large for 25, 30 years while we were waiting for the big roll of Soviet tank armies at the Fulda gap or the northern German plain.
But this other stuff, what we used to call the "little stuff" -- the build-up of civil infrastructures, the fight against low-key separatist violence, the dealing with local leaders, it is very, very challenging because it's non-standard and it's definitely not what we have trained for. The demands are very different. When it comes to insurgency, there is no army on the other side, no battalions, the enemy won't expose himself, it's all about intelligence. (...) It also showed the reality of counterinsurgency operations -- which we capture in the soon-to-be-published manual -- that what works today may not work tomorrow. Tactics and approaches must constantly evolve. You know, it's always easy to blow doors down and go in with the machine guns blazing or throw a grenade in. But when you do that you often risk creating more enemies because of the way you conducted the operation.

The BBC now had these remarks on the man some days ago:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6249565.stm

[bradclark1]

Let none say you aren't a ray of sunshine Skybird.

[baggygreen]

Ok, so, what is better... staying in Iraq and trying to sort out the mess (which yes, is caused by stupidity earlier on in the conflict) or letting go and seeing, as i said before, a massive regional conflict that will drastically impact on the worlds economy (even you, you pacifist europeans!) and has a good chance of ultimately resulting in again as i said before, the use of nuclear weapons again..

honestly, whats better?!

[baggygreen]

Oh and Sky, mate, you post something that is telling about the next few years. Where you posted the article about America learning from its mistakes in Iraq, that is because no longer does the US army or marines (or any other western country's forces) need to fight column after column of MBTs. This next half century of warfare will be technology fighting against wave after wave of demented, fanatics - and lord knows, its gonna become very very bloody.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by baggygreen

(even you, you pacifist europeans!)

Eh...? At least not all of us are like that. I for myself am less pacifist than you seem to imply. I am ready to fight wars and do not rule them out totally, no matter the price - when I see the need to do it. And I know by experience that people do not like my thoughts on the way I would fight a war, if needing to do it and have a say in it - it'S just that I do not like it and usually don't see it as my first and only option. I just want to be sure of two things: that the cause is a worthy one, not an intellectual stillbirth like this one has been from the very beginning, and that those that are leading and are in command are knowing what they are doing, know the method of war, and have the experience to talk about war - and are not only hypnotized by their childish illusions that are flying around inside the boundless vacuum inside their heads.

[baggygreen]

Oh dont worry mate it certainly wasnt directed towards you, by no means. from my background, its normal, common and almost expected that you stereotype by region. Thats just how my and my particular... group (for want of a much much better term) are. Yanks are loud and obnoxious, poms whine, europeans are pacifist and the french are 'cheese-eatin surrender monkeys'. The kiwis are just a little too friendly with their domesticated animals.

But at the same time, these stereotypes have got some backing in truth, and a lot of europeans are compeltely opposed to warfare. a little too many for my liking, but thems the breaks.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by baggygreen

But at the same time, these stereotypes have got some backing in truth, and a lot of europeans are compeltely opposed to warfare.

That is true. But you see - two huge world wars, and centuries of continent-wide warfare before worked wonders in acchieving that attitude. Also, those who have much have more reasons to fear losing more, and europe is fat, and old, and lazy. Also, Europe is closer to and more directly affected by many of the world's hotspots than America.

"Those without swords - still can get killed by a sword." But being easy to go to war is no virtue, but a sin. "Readiness is all", said Shakespeare. I say "Readiness is enough, don't be early, don't be late - and you can't get surprised."

[baggygreen]

All this is true. And i'll also be the first to commend the nato contributions in the balkans and in afghanistan. But, what about the question of how much is too much? in war, any is obviously too much, but how much can you let things go before you do go to war? How much can we let Saddam get away with back in the day, how much can we let Iran and NK get away with today - what will it take for action?

I understand perfectly the legacy of the wars and whatnot. no doubting that. But, as a european what do you think itd take today for members of the EU to go to war? Do we need another Sept 11 01? would it honestly take another major attack to reawaken peoples memories?

I assure everyone this is still perfectly on topic. The 2nd gulf war began as a war to depose a dictator and liberate the Iraqis, the majority of whom were oppressed. It has become, however a major front in the war against international terrorism (as determined by 'western' standards). Bush, by electing to send more troops, is continuing the fight. To stabilize iraq is to remove yet another haven for said terrorists (whether it was before the war is irrelevant here, it is now).

[John Channing]

Originally Posted by baggygreen

I assure everyone this is still perfectly on topic. The 2nd gulf war began as a war to depose a dictator and liberate the Iraqis, the majority of whom were oppressed. It has become, however a major front in the war against international terrorism (as determined by 'western' standards). Bush, by electing to send more troops, is continuing the fight. To stabilize iraq is to remove yet another haven for said terrorists (whether it was before the war is irrelevant here, it is now).

Actually the invasion of Iraq began as way to protect America from Sadam's WMD's.

When that didn't pan out it was because Sadam was ignoring 17 UN resolutions and shooting at US Planes.

That quickly went to hell in a handbasket so then it was because there was a direct link betwen Sadam and 911.

That one stuck a little longer (thanks in large measure to Faux News), but eventually was exposed as another neo-con-job.

So then... when every other concievable excuse for the debacle had been exhausted... then we get the "Cuz he was a bad guy" excuse.

America has a obligation and moral responsibility to put right what they have done. If they ever want to have credibility in the World again they cannot leave Iraq until they rebuild what they have destroyed.

JCC

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by John Channing

America has a obligation and moral responsibility to put right what they have done. If they ever want to have credibility in the World again they cannot leave Iraq until they rebuild what they have destroyed.

We owe the Iraqis exactly nothing

• “Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have fled their homeland are likely to seek refugee status in the United States, humanitarian groups said, putting intense pressure on the Bush administration to reexamine a policy that authorizes only 500 Iraqis to be resettled here next year.”—from this article

The American people should not be asked to pay, with further endangerment of their security, for the mistakes of the American government, or rather, for the inevitable Sunni-Shi'a friction and hostilities in Iraq. Those hostilities became inevitable because of the nature of societies suffused with Islam (and therefore unable to compromise and naturally aggressive not only toward Infidels, but toward all those who in some way were different, were not the same), once American soldiers undid the Sunni despotism of Saddam Hussein.

Americans have spent or committed close to half-a-trillion dollars in the effort to make Iraq a better place. They have discovered that far from demonstrating any real gratitude, the Arabs of Iraq, both Sunni and Shi'a, have been content to grab as much money -- fantastic sums -- and stuff of all kinds, and to watch the Americans, under hellish conditions, attempt not to "re-construct" but rather to construct all kinds of things for them, in a vain effort to pull them out of the primitive and aggressive and Hobbesian world in which they live.

It is not the Iraqis who have been doing much of the fighting to bring about a better Iraq. Many Iraqi soldiers routinely show up only to collect paychecks. Many run in combat situations, leaving the Americans to fight and die for a place called "Iraq" that the so-called "Iraqis" have no loyalty to, and on every occasion, by the testimony of so many of our fed-up and disgusted soldiers, have left the Americans in the lurch or substituted their own brutal methods of treatment of the population and ignored everything the Americans have tried to teach them.

We owe the Iraqis exactly nothing. We do not owe any Iraqis asylum at all. If asylum is to be given, it should be strictly limited to Christians and the handful of Mandeans and other non-Muslims. Not a single Muslim needs to come to swell the Muslim ranks in this country, adding to the security risk, adding to all sorts of worries.

To those who say, as someone does in the article linked above, that we let in Vietnamese refugees, the answer should be obvious. The Vietnamese Buddhists and Christians were fully able to integrate into American society. They were not raised on a belief system that counselled them, that taught them, to see others as their enemies and to work to dominate them, and to spread a belief-system that was inimical in every way to the legal, political and other institutions and arrangements and understandings of this country. That is quite different from the permanent problem posed by Islam.

Anyone who begins to prate about "what we owe the Iraqis" should be reminded of who has been fighting for the idea of "Iraq" over the past few years, who has been spending or committing a half-trillion dollars, receiving only more demands for more-more-more, and whining, and ingratitude, and the occasional smile as some "Iraqi" asks for a "Marshall Plan" for Iraq. Oh, they've had their Marshall Plan. They've had all kinds of things.

And they've got the oil wealth to live on, like all the other Muslim oil states that are rich through no effort on their own. They can stay there in Iraq. They can move about - Shi'a to Shi'a controlled regions, Sunni to Sunni controlled regions in Iraq, or outside Iraq, to other Arab countries. But examine the attitude of Iraqis toward the Americans who rescued them from a murderous despot who had ruled for 35 years, and whose homicidal sons were prepared to succeed him and to rule for another 35. Examine the behavior of both Iraqi civilians and the Iraqi soldiers and police, the former in often demonstrating indifference to or even taking pleasure in the killings of Americans, and the latter often neglecting their duties or running away, or selling the weapons supplied to them by the Americans on the black market, and almost in no case providing the kind of minimal aid that the Americans had, and have, every right to expect that people will offer. It is, after all, their country and supposedly it is they who care about it.

But we have had quite a demonstration of how the Iraqis think and behave. It has been edifying. And the officers and men of the American military, who have served in Iraq, ought to be consulted first about whether or not they think that we "owe Iraqis" something and whether or not they think tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Muslims should be allowed to settle in our country, or for that matter other Infidel lands.

The response of those officers and men should be instructive.

[The Avon Lady]

!

[Iceman]

Originally Posted by Fish

Glad I am atheist!

You guys just don't get it...either make the whole tree evil or make it good...instead you fumble around in the dark....and cry oh why oh why!

Serve who you will and reap what you sow...you sow kaos you will reap it.Well reap it.Even demons are united in their efforts against light....there is no unity in the world and will never be under any "human"..."This is the condemnation of man that light came into the world and men loved the darkness more than light".Well enjoy the freefall....

These evil mens eyes are set on the destruction Israel period.They will find themselves in for a rude awaking soon.I choose to let the the Lord Jesus Christ do my battles for me, he is able.I do not advocate the use of neclear weapons you knuckle heads, read between the lines...I only imply the absurdity of a people who choose to take the couse of action of war...as to why they think there is some "special" way as to how they are to conduct it....the object is to win with the least amount of loss on your side....and when it comes to Gods people not one will be lost.

He that is evil let him be evil still he that is holy let him be holy still.

PS I am speaking about how America is conducting the war if anyone got lost in that lol....War is hell and dirty.

[CCIP]

Wow, and after that one, I'm REALLY glad I'm an atheist

[Schatten]

Originally Posted by CCIP

Wow, and after that one, I'm REALLY glad I'm an atheist

Yeah because atheists never did anything like wipe out whole bunches of people! Wait, who were Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao again?

Just messing with ya some, but it'd be a mistake in my opinion to think that religion is the only thing that makes people go a little nutty and decide to wipe out bucketloads of people. Or that taking religion out of the equation would necessarilly remove those sort of impulses.

People have always been a little nutty, it's part of our charm as a species. Religion, ethnicity, politics, etc. just make it easier to organize and channel impulses that are already hardwired.

Yeah I'm obviously a really optomistic "up with people" sort of guy...