If you don't like my Iraq plan, tell me yours

[Omega X]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/....ap/index.html

--------------

I wonder how many proposals is he going to get?

[zootm]

He's out of ideas!

[ElChevelle]

His idea was bad, really bad.
At least the emphasis on WMD's.

[germain47]

As miserably as this war has been handled, we have to look at the situation that exists now. I cringe to even think this, much less say it, but Bush has a point. Less opposition and better viable options are called for. Not that I think the Bush option is likely to succeed.

[dlinkwit27]

Didn't he try this like a month ago by saying he will "listen to ideas from every quarter", except for those that said to pull out: "Retreat from Iraq would dash the hopes of millions who want to be free. Retreat from Iraq would enable the extremists and radicals to more likely be able to have a safe haven from which to plot and plan further attacks."

[shakey_snake]

Yeah, a couple days ago he laid out his plan "based" on the conclusions of the Iraq Commission.
Their report was very broadly "the Iraqi government needs to take more responsibility, so we can move out"

[ElChevelle]

It doesn't matter what the American people want, as clearly shown in poll after poll. It's very clear that "We, the people" has been stricken down.

[rockouthippie]

Originally posted by ElChevelle
It doesn't matter what the American people want, as clearly shown in poll after poll. It's very clear that "We, the people" has been stricken down.

The american people are so clearly stupid I don't think they know what they want. They've been taught by the liberals to hate Bush, but their thinking doesn't go much further.

Withdrawal and failure are not an option. The stakes are too high.

The democrats got their majority back. What that gets us is an investigation of Bush.

At this point, who cares?. We are left with no choice but to win this war. That means destroying the ability of Iran and Syria to meddle in Iraqi politics. That means removing guerilla armies that at this point are more powerful than the legitimate government of Iraq.

The reason the democrats haven't come up with a better plan is that there isn't one. The price of failure is catastrophe.

I think this mission should be viewed as critically important. I also think it's worth more than 3000 american lives. That's because failure could easily cost millions of lives.

If we left now, the Shia would genocide the millions of Sunnis. Iraq would become a battle ground for all the states in the region, with combatants drawn along sectarian lines. This could easily suck stable states like Jordan and Saudi Arabia into a broader war. You can bet the Iranians would be there to capitalize on the situation too.

You might think the mission in Iraq is a failure. It beats the alternatives.

[ElChevelle]

All of your posts look like quotes from dumbass Limbaugh. Clearly, you can't be that idiotic.

Originally posted by rockouthippie
The american people are so clearly stupid I don't think they know what they want.

Duh!
How do think we ended up with a shithead in the oval office....TWICE!

Why does it seem to me that your business failed not due to the Clinton administration but more likely your own narrow mindedness?

[rockouthippie]

Originally posted by ElChevelle
All of your posts look like quotes from dumbass Limbaugh. Clearly, you can't be that idiotic.

I wish Limbaugh wasn't so sensational, because he's often right. He's also a talk show host, so by nature sensational...

The democrats think that everything should be under government control. If I am going to pick a president that interfered with the prosperity of americans, it would have to be Clinton.

Add an aggregious tax code, to a million special interest follies and you have the reason the democrats got fired.

I'll agree that Bush is a poor president. But I also see that Bush is not the one that invented the policies that led to american poverty and the destruction of the middle class.

To get you to vote for them, the democrats are telling everyone what they want to hear. That is, that the Iraq war can be settled without american sacrifice. That's a lie.

We are facing the biggest threat to world security since WWII. This is all ready to become a broader war. Is all we have to do is fail.

Democrats would like us to believe that diplomacy will solve this problem. The problem with that is that diplomacy got us in this situation.

We've negotiated for 60 years. What have we gotten?. Rogue armies running amok and a nuclear Pakistan, North Korea and Iran.

We did it the democrat way for years. What did we get?. A broken economy where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Social works that solve no problems except to pay bureaucrats.

Business changed in the 90s. It used to be that businesses competed with each other in an open marketplace. Now the competition is not a trade competition. It's a money competition with only the richest of us being able to afford to do business. That's not because of market pressures. It's because of government regulations.

In 1990, I could hire people. In 1995, I couldn't. Nothing changed in the marketplace. What did change was regulations. Only rich people can do business because only rich people can cope with all the govt. red tape and tax.

[dlinkwit27]

Not only that, but Michael J Fox was faking!

[ElChevelle]

He is an actor, after all.

[dlinkwit27]

Q: If you have the authority to put the troops in there no matter what the Congress wants to do.

BUSH: I think I’ve got, in this situation I do, yeah. I fully understand they could try to stop me from doing it. But I’ve made my decision. And we’re going forward.

That's my man! Screw popular opinion. To hell with the opinions of Generals and other experts.

He is the decider!
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/14/bush-congress-iraq/

[mistermeow]

The only way to regain control in Iraq is to send in at least 250,000 to 500,000 troops or more. That won't happen. So the only other alternative is to begin removing troops.

Bush's plan is to hold on a little bit longer, and then let the next president inherit the mess and the blame.

[rockouthippie]

Originally posted by mistermeow
The only way to regain control in Iraq is to send in at least 250,000 to 500,000 troops or more. That won't happen. So the only other alternative is to begin removing troops.

Bush's plan is to hold on a little bit longer, and then let the next president inherit the mess and the blame.

I think it's pretty clear that we are gonna need a larger military. We can only increase the troop levels about 7000 a year currently. The reason we can't send 100,000 troops is that we don't have 100,000 troops to put there.

Whatever we do, we can't run. We would see the light from the planet screwed in about a million years.

If delaying is the best we can do, then we delay. Hopefully we'll eventually be able to fix this situation, but we cannot run.

When you are being attacked by a dog, you can't run. You have to stand toe to toe and call it a motherfucker and convince it that you're meaner. Even if it isn't true.

I used to raise guard dogs... rule 1.... you run... you're toast....

These guys aren't much different. Like dogs, they want easy targets. If they were brave, they wouldn't sneak around blowing up civilians.

[hgnis]

Whatever plan is formulated, some serious strategic positioning needs to be put in place - not just looking after American interests but really the interests of the Iraqi people and rest of the ME. (Which this war was allegedly supposed to address....)

The strategy must address both the civillian and military issues across the country. After working on a number of projects all over the world I can definately say the most difficult thing culturally for an American to do is recognise locals as having both tangible skills, and competence to address issues. One cannot adopt any sustainable measure of remediation with the psyche that these people are incapable - the local engineers and universities use to be some of the best in the region. The people have survived for thousands of years without us and most likely will continue to do so.

Hand over to a more balanced joint UN and Middle East peacekeeper force and involve the Iraqi government (a representative one - not the biased farce that currently isolates certain tribes) in the direct decision making processes.

Note: All the American arrogance in dealing with the civillian affairs also needs to stop immediately. Increasing the use of local skills and firms to rehabilitate the infrastructure must be done. Iraq is Iraq and not the US - case in point: buildings and roads made to US codes and not those for the region, driving on the opposite side of the roads, drainage and sewerage systems not considering the local climate, et al.

I could provide a decent thesis on these things but one does not have to be a genius to formulate a multifaceted strategy. Suffice to say, the imbroglio will continue.

[watadoo]

Business changed in the 90s. It used to be that businesses competed with each other in an open marketplace. Now the competition is not a trade competition. It's a money competition with only the richest of us being able to afford to do business. That's not because of market pressures. It's because of government regulations.

In 1990, I could hire people. In 1995, I couldn't. Nothing changed in the marketplace. What did change was regulations. Only rich people can do business because only rich people can cope with all the govt. red tape and tax.<<<

Are you the only person in our nation who didn't prosper in the nineties?