an alternative to funding the iraq war...
how about......
how about a "fund the iraq war" tax.......
and those of you who support bushie can opt "IN"
and i'll opt "OUT"...
(when the money runs out; i'm thinking "their" loyality will dry up also........:-)
source:
lnk ~ http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
Iraq Civilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq
approx...........100,000
Iraq civilians fleeing the country..........4 million
i'm thinking
defending "our" democracy by sacrificing "their" Iraq........ain't right........
( bush & cheney are our (usa's) home grown equivalent of imam terrorists....)
When (if) we, usa, leave iraq..........(if left up to chicken-hawks, probably never....)
one of two things will happen...
1) it will become an Islamic theocracy
or
2) another sadam hussein will rise from the ashes....
- Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt's advice to Iraqis who see TV images of innocent civilians killed by coalition troops............ “Change the channel”............(ugh)
source:
lnk ~ http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
Iraq Civilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq
between 70,000 to 77,000
i'm thinking
defending "our" democracy by sacrificing "their" Iraq ?........ain't right........
- Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt's advice to Iraqis who see TV images of innocent civilians killed by coalition troops............ “Change the channel”............(ugh)
Victory in 2024 was fast and practically bloodless. Bush declared it during his famous “Mission Accomplished” photo-opp.
At that point Iraqi people freed from maniac-dictator were supposed to install a functional government and after 2 months say Good-Buy to their American friends. Songs, flowers, hugs, exchanges of presents and souvenirs, and carriers are leaving the Gulf.
Alternatively, they could ask their US allies to stay and protect them from dangerous neighbor (Iran). After all, this is what Germans did and US bases are still.
But instead, the liberated Iraqi people started to kill each others and US troops. 70,000 is their score and most of these killed Iraqis were killed by Iraqis with US troops desperately trying to prevent such atrocities.
Not a US fault.
We have nothing to apologize for in taking out Saddam. We do have lot's to apologize in how we secured the place and planned to secure the place after he was gone. Nothing has happened in post-Saddam Iraq that was not anticipated by various intel esp the State Dept BIR. And we willy nilly cast aside all the best "Take-Saddam-Out" scenarios wargaming by Shinseki, Zinni and estimates from the Bosnia/Kosovo experience and from Powell after Gulf War I all for the "Do-it-on-the-cheap" seat out the pamts make it up as you go along Rummy-Feith-Tenet-Bush-Cheney keystone Cops strategy. Plus throw in there the absolutely botched Diplomacy in the leadup to the war and just after. That botched incompetency lies directly in our laps and we can thank Bush directly for that one. Plus the failure to stabilize set off the simmering Shiite-Sunni fratricide. As with toothpaste it is real hard to get that fratricide back in the tube as the Mid-East abhors above all else power vacuums.
Where to now is hard to say but a good middle ground is to focus maybe on the Iraq Study Group Recommends and look at the example of Korea. I anticipate because of our botched efforts there and the vital need to stabilize things and fast in that very vital of world strategic areas, we will need to be there in Iraq for a looonnnggg time to contain the Sunni-Shiiite-Jihadi-Salafi spill over reverb as they the Arab/Muslim world experience the next 60 years to work thru their Reformation, Counter-Reformation and Rennaisannce (hopefully)so we can all remain decinderized.
Bush left us with a host of nothing but uncomfortable options that the Mid-East and America will be paying for for a looonngg time. Regretably there may be no alternative as securing the place is numero uno on our Nation Interests radar. Wish there were but I am in doubt on this one! America gets wisdom late and at cost.
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
Quote - "We have nothing to apologize for in taking out Saddam. We do have lot's to apologize in how we secured the place and planned to secure the place after he was gone. Nothing has happened in post-Saddam Iraq that was not anticipated by various intel esp the State Dept BIR."
John,
"Taking out Saddam", and what came after, is one continuous event - not two separate unconnected events. What came after WAS predictible - and if we couldn't control the aftermath, then it is arguable that we shouldn't have put the operation into motion.
Saddam was dispicable; the aftermath is total chaos - which is worse? I would argue that Saddam was contained before the invasion. He was emasculated, and incapable of hurting us - no matter what Dick Cheney says. Taking Saddam out took the lid off Pandora's box; now we can't seem to put the lid back on, and we have expended resources that could have been used for other purposes.
Sometimes the best Grand Strategy is the decidedly un-sexy policy of keeping the pot from boiling over in a country or region. This would have left the Iraqi people suffering under Saddam, but they are suffering now, and the expectation is that they will suffer much more before this is over.
Somebody in another post said that they (Iraqis)are doing this to themselves (and the person said this in a way that implies that the Iraqi people deserve the current situation). I would say that most Iraqis are trying to keep their heads down and live through it, and only a small percentage of the population is actively involved in any type of fighting. But the result is that American soldiers have no way of knowing who they can trust - both in, and out of the Iraqi government.
This will not change until the Iraqi people develop a stronger sense of national identity, and cast away the tribal ideology for good. I am beginning to question whether a national identity can ever emerge while American troops occupy the country and continue to prop up the current factionalized government.
Assigning terms like "Victory", or "Defeat" to our experience in Iraq is largely a matter of how the American people choose to rationalize our involvement in some yet to be written history book.
The real tragedy is that we will have to rationalize at all.
And this is the true yardstick of any foreign intervention; when the need for intervention is definable, heroic, and necessary, then no rationalization is required after the fact.
Jeff C
leikec@yahoo.com
But Jeff we probably could have secured and we didn't because of our hoping against hope Rummy-Style and ignore the Zinnis-Shinsekis-Powells of the time as well as the best intel. We broke it and we fix it to the extent we can help (and we can). I wish there were a Wayback machine there Jeff but we have to deal with what is now and what the Bush-Rummy bungling has wrought and we need to deal with it this time in terms of some Strategic Context. there are no good options but there are severe consequences if we do not do what we need to do in some Strategic context. I say use the locals to the max extent we can, but we will not get them to do what they need to do by our precipitious withdrawal devoid of the impact in area beyond the Iraqi borders.
Give them time - that is what the Petraeus strategy is actually doing - give them some space, hold Maliki to account, and show we do mean business in trying to root out the militant insurgent hotheads that mean the innocents ill and who care not a lick for the Iraqi people or peace in the Mid-East. Iraq is a test case of what happens when you do things devoid of strategic context and hope against hope that something will come up (ala Mr. McCawber). We failed to listen to the Grand strategists and the good intel and reap what we sow. But as Powell said - we break it, we fix it - to the extent we can. So think Korea!! We will be in Iraq for a looonnggg time to some extent to right this sucker and use the locals to contain the spillover we have helped set in motion due to our strategic flabbiness. Wish it were not so, but that is the way it is.
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
And the flawed thinking of yesterday that justifies further mistakes tomorrow, just so we can figure out a way to declare "victory".
Jeff C
leikec@yahoo.com
Rather the goal Jeff is to avoid defeat that would have tremendous adverse reverb in the Mid East and beyond not only for us but for the forces of moderation/rationality. I agree we cannot secure victory in this mess Bush bungled but neither can we accept out-and out defeat. Some middle ground that has Strategic Context will HAVE to be found!!
Remember Korea and what went on between the Truman-Eisenhower handoff on that one and solification of Kennan's Containment ideas on a bipartisan basis that served us well for the Cold War! And look to the Iraq Study Group who has some pretty good ideas of a middle ground as we go forward in a tough tough Strategic neigborhood without Victory but without defeat as well. So I urge you to take the long-view and the strategic ramifications. It is NOT an either-or!
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
Somebody in another post said that they (Iraqis)are doing this to themselves (and the person said this in a way that implies that the Iraqi people deserve the current situation).
They had been given a choice and they had chosen sectarian rivalry and war.
I would say that most Iraqis are trying to keep their heads down and live through it, and only a small percentage of the population is actively involved in any type of fighting.
Not exactly. Small percentage of die hard fighters would be smashed if population would support their own government. But they support fighters - feed them, supplied them and shelter them.
It is their own killers and it looks like they liked things to be that way.
The picture you described could be about post-WWII Japanese. And it was peace in Japan of that time.
Iraq had nothing to do with any kind of democracy - theirs or ours - and nothing to do with terror. It's about OIL. We had no problem when Saddam was fighting Iran. Saddam's death warrant was sealed when he decided to trade oil in euros not dollars.
If this was about terror or democracy, we wouldn't see our democracy eroded with the "give up your rights act" (Patriot act), we'd have secure borders, we'd have followed thru in Afghanistan, pursued Bin Laden, we'd lean on the Saudis to become democratic,.... but it's all a smoke screen for the oil grab.
It's disgusting to me that my country is the aggressor in an imperialistic war.
I'm amazed at the silence of most of America. Why aren't we in the streets? How many more have to die? Will it take a draft?
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69 5th District, NJ
It's about OIL
Saddam was ready to sell his oil. Even more, he was anxious to sell his oil and the UN sanctions were about to be lifted, thanks to our Russian, German, French and Chinese friends.
If US needed his oil, we could just wait 2 months and buy it at the free market.
But according to strong believe of Clinton's administration, US intelligence under Bush, Russian, French, Saudi, Jordanian and Israeli intelligence at that time, besides oil, Saddam also had WMD.
Before 9/11 it was also a strong conviction that nobody would dare to attack US on US soil. 9/11 proved that being wrong.
So, Bush faced a guy, who hates US, who has WMD, who already tried to assassinate former US president and who is about to become reach enough to pull any terrorist act on US soil he would like.
Should Bush wait until another 9/11, before going and removing this threat? Should he take chances? I do not think so.
Now we know that Saddam did not have his WMD ready. But it was a surprise to all intelligence services around the globe and to Saddam's own generals. But there is no Time Machine invented yet. You can not demand from any manager to know now what will be revealed in 2 years.
Iraq had nothing to do with any kind of democracy
Well, it would be a nice by-product of smashing the US enemy if Iraqi people would rise to occasion and take charge of their own future.
The same way, WWII was not about democracy and flourishing economy in Germany and Japan. But that by-product helped to turn US mortal enemies into good friends, isn’t it?
It's disgusting to me that my country is the aggressor in an imperialistic war.
Absurd statement, because imperialistic aggressors never worked so hard as US now works to help occupied nation to rebuild their country and to become independent as soon as possible.
I see very noble US intentions, but lots of mistakes made during their implementations. Sadly, major mistakes are made out of compassion.
Bush clearly took a page out of WWII and tried to set Iraq in German and Japanese fashion.
But he compassionately skipped 2 prerequisites which turn out to be essential, if one wish to make nation to turn off its killing instincts.
In German and Japanese case, not just armies, whole nations were devastated by relentless bombing and invasion of pretty ruthless occupying forces (Russian occupation was a particular nightmare for Germans). It shows each German that aggression is “not nice”. In Iraqi case, every effort was made not to harm civilians and even Iraqi army was more dispensed than destroyed. It led Iraqis into false dreams of possibility of revenge.
Second prerequisite was an occupation of the whole area infected with violent ideology (whole Germany + Austria and whole Japan) and denazification of that territory. Bush wrongly thought that Iraqis as a people do not infected, only Saddam was a bad guy. In Iraqi case the hate machine is not entirely in Iraq. It is spread across multiple countries in within the region and outside of it. Such vast area simply can not be occupied even by Chinese. But Bush still does not even name that violent ideology of medieval imperialism, which is rising in 21st century being fed by easy oil money.
If he reluctant to name it, how can he fight it?
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69
Thank you for your service to US and to the humanity. Too bad, US had lost that battle (not at the battle field, but in the US Congress). To bad for Vietnamese people. I am an immigrant from USSR and I have some ideas of what communist victory brought to these poor people.
shleym where do you get your information from? you posted....Before 9/11 it was also a strong conviction that nobody would dare to attack US on US soil. 9/11 proved that being wrong. that is a completely false statement.
here is a little reminder....
On February 26, 1993 at 12:17 PM, a Ryder truck filled with 1,500 pounds (680 kg) of explosives was planted by Ramzi Yousef and detonated in the underground garage of the North Tower, opening a 100 foot (30 m) hole through 5 sublevels of concrete leaving six people dead and 50,000 other workers and visitors gasping for air in the shafts of the 110 story towers.
not only that but richard clark and others warned bush that we were in fact going to be attacked here in america. so i would like to know how on earth you could make that statement?
Common sense - the cure for stupid!
It seems that nobody, including our government knows how to fight anymore.
I honestly thought when the US went into Iraq that we would completely take over the country then parcel it back to the "Strongman or men" of our choosing thus giving the US "control" of the oil.
Well that didn't happen so here we are now. What do we do give the place over to Iran and the oil too?
Not a pretty picture any way you paint it.
bush & cheney are our (usa's) home grown terrorists imam equivalents....)
when the usa leaves iraq....(when the chicken hawks are outta office)...
one of two things will happen...
1) it will become an Islamic theocracy
or
2) another sadam hussein will rise from the ashes ( & oil)....
then iraq (without kurdistan) can start growing up........
incumbents need to stop the funding of iraq.......
and get our troops outta iraq
& impeaching bush & cheney......would be good, also........
Yah! Let's impich them! Let's teach them a lesson! Let's make all future President to be afraid to lift a finger to protect US from the foreign threat!
Let them all wait for the nuclear mushrum cloud over Chicago before.... Oh, no, no, not to strike at the source of the threat... before sending strong protest to UN Security Concil.
These bad guys will be so scaried of mighty UN.
That will be an ideal protection for all of us, surviving the blast. And we all will feell really go-o-o-o-od about ourselves.
until every American (fm wall-street to main-street) is making personal sacrifice's for this Iraq war ~ we shouldn't be there.
~ if you want me to support staying in iraq (ugh) then ask your senators & representative to:
1) fund the conflict out in the open ~ identify / institute / deduct for the "iraq conflict tax" on every paycheck (excl military personnel) in the USA.
~ or implement the "iraq conflict sales tax" (excl. military personnel)....a reminder of the sacrifice the "few & their families" are making.
2) reinstate the draft with "no" deferments (except for "real" medical needs)
3) impeach bush & cheney.
4) ask your (federal & state) senators & representative @ congress.org: lnk ~ email your request to congress’
Let's fund schools out of the special school tax, fire departments out of special fire tax, mayor office out of the special mayor office tax, Wite House building maintanance out of the 25 special painting, rug cleaning, dish washing, gate openning, gate closing and paper recicling taxes.
And no fire engine will go to battle the fire untill each citizen will be conscripted to serve at least 25 minutes per month as a fire fighter.
shleym where do you get your information from? you posted....Before 9/11 it was also a strong conviction that nobody would dare to attack US on US soil. 9/11 proved that being wrong. that is a completely false statement.
here is a little reminder....
On February 26, 1993 at 12:17 PM, a Ryder truck filled with 1,500 pounds (680 kg) of explosives was planted by Ramzi Yousef and detonated in the underground garage of the North Tower, opening a 100 foot (30 m) hole through 5 sublevels of concrete leaving six people dead and 50,000 other workers and visitors gasping for air in the shafts of the 110 story towers.
not only that but richard clark and others warned bush that we were in fact going to be attacked here in america. so i would like to know how on earth you could make that statement?
shleym you should have a job with this administration the way you post about mushroom clouds ect...
you could do cheneys sound bites.
and i feel bush should be impeached because his actions have made us weaker because he has made numerous false and contradictory statements to the american public who he is supposed to serve.
this cannot happen again.
shleym where do you get your information from? you posted....Before 9/11 it was also a strong conviction that nobody would dare to attack US on US soil. 9/11 proved that being wrong. that is a completely false statement.
here is a little reminder....
On February 26, 1993…
As in another thread, let me apologies and thank you for valid point, no question, being known to me.
Let me correct myself now.
The belief that nobody would dare to attack US on US soil was artificially cultivated by Clinton and G.W.Bush administrations. Any Al-Qaeda terrorist activity was swiped under the rug of random isolated incident
(WTC 1993, USS Cole in 2024, attempt to blow something in Seattle), common criminal act(Egyptian pilot sinking plane chanting “Tawakilt ala Allah” in 1999)or even technical failure(TWA 800). AlsoUS embassies in Africa, Khobar Tower bombing 1998 and Somalia 1993could be optionally added to the list, because it was an Al Qaeda, but even though that this was acknowledged by US government, we were told not to worry, because it is far from US shores.Sure, it was plenty of warnings of the ever increasing terrorist activity against US throughout 8 Clinton years and 1 Bush year.
not only that but richard clark and others warned bush that we were in fact going to be attacked here in america. so i would like to know how on earth you could make that statement?
Yes, but many others, including Clinton and Bush did not take Clark’s warnings seriously at that time. And some geniuses, like Ms. Gorelik in Clinton-Reno Judicial department made everything they could to prevent CIA to make FBI aware of the seriousness of this threats from foreign sources. So FBI agents continue their happy hunting for various Russian spies oblivious to the real danger.
Again, thank you for very valid and very important reminder. Let’s demand a trial on those, who deliberately ignore the threat.
After 911 Bush took threat seriously and, unlike terrorist attacks every couple years during Clinton’s 8 years, we did not have a single Al Qaeda attack on US soil since 2024. Give man a credit for that.
shleym you should have a job with this administration the way you post about mushroom clouds ect...
Thanks for the offer, but my English skills are not good enough for this job (English is a second language for me). Plus, I have couple issues with Bush administration in another area myself. :)
But seriously speaking, we just agreed, that it was a great mistake, when facing truck bombing of WTC, nobody seriously considered, that the next thing will be done with the commercial planes.
And now you are ridiculing me for assuming, that after commercial planes the next thing could be with nuclear device? Are you now saying me what Clinton said to Richard Clark –
relax, do not worry, they will not dare, just ignore them?bush should be impeached because his actions have made us weaker
How did you assess that? Judging by the absence of terrorist bombing on US soil, we are safer now, than we were 7 years ago. Judging by the numerous Islamic groups emphasizing the peaceful nature of Islam, we are also safer now, than we were when Islamic world had celebrated the fall of Twin Towers and cheered Bin Laden. Our military had proved, that even the strongest army in the Muslim world (I am talking about Iraqi army here) is no match for US Army even remotely. This simple fact made many Arab leaders think twice before assisting Al Qaeda.
From these easily assessed facts, I can assume that we are much safer now, than we were 7 years ago.
he has made numerous false and contradictory statements to the american public
Name one false statement, please.
Pay attention to the difference between false statement and mistaken statement. For example, if you would see the rain in the forecast and you would tell your spouse to take an umbrella for work, you would not be considered making false statement even if there will be no rain whole day till 10 PM.
this cannot happen again.
Agree. And it is not happening again since 9/11/2001. I take it that US President should be alert to the danger coming from Muslim World and should take actions before terrorists would strike US, not after the disaster.
how about a "fund the iraq war" tax.......
and you can opt "IN"
and i'll opt "OUT"
that would work for me............
Your analysis of the situation and the different options to make it better you performed in response to my post was impressive.
It reminds me of the debate my 3-year old has with his friends over a toy car.
Happy Friday!
shleym, after all its all in the interpretation isn't it? if not there would always be a definitive right and wrong. no shades of grey. you seem to vilify clinton for all things related to terrorism. how many americans died in the us during clintons watch? you see if i want to twist things to my way of thinking and using your logic then i would summarize that only five people were killed on american soil under clintons watch while over 3000 were killed under bush's. so who was/is stronger on terror? of course you will probably counter with its clintons fault we were attacked on 911.
you and others can blame clinton for all our woes but the reality is he is not the president nor has he been for 6 years. accountability my friend that is what you are missing. i blame our current situation on the current administration. just to give you a few bush lies or misstatements...bush said in a speech iraq is nothing like vietnam. then months later he said the opposite using parralells with vietnam as a reason for staying in iraq. as usual bush wants it both ways.. bush originally said we were going to iraq because they were a threat to us, wmd's etc..when the intelligence proved faulty(which in my opinion the administration new beforehand) we were all of a sudden there to spread democracy even though bush was anti-nation building. those are a couple of contradictions, lies, whatever you want to call them. there are many others.
Delete- duplicate
Scand...how many Brits died under Chamberlain at the hands of the Germans?? And in your tally do not leave out Khobar Towers, the 2 Embassy Bombings and WTC1993, Somalia, and the Iraqis killed under Saddam or Afganis killed under the Taliban. No BOTH Bush/Clinton were a asleep at the wheel and kicked the can down the road and the blame should be placed squarely where it is deserved - at the people who wish us ill (whether they be secular or sectarian) no matter how nicey-nice we are or were.
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
that is my point john. shelym wants to glorify bush and vilify clinton.
lets not forget about papa bush. he has some accountability in all this also.i dont care for any of them. but i do live in the present.
iraq is here and now so how about a wee bit of accountability.
also i still think iraq is about oil, profiteering, and bush's vision or lack thereof.
and i have not changed my mind about petreus, while i respect his service i feel his testimony was towing the bush line. one reason i think this, is all the military men who have been fired or retired who disagreed with rummy, bush, and cheney.
only history will tell.
delete duplicate
All were asleep at the wheel scand regarding the virulent jihadi and ethnic threats in the last 2 to 3 decades - even Reagan. And esp after the Cold war we did not adjust and kicked the can down the road without any decent Grand Strategy visavi the virulent jihadi ethnic instabilities that was spreading thru the world in the 80s and 90s. Then 9/11 hit and we perked up albiet haphazardly and emotionally and not cogently and soberly in the context of a Grand Strategy. That cannot go on or our goose is cooked. Failure to have a cogent Grand Strategy is the biggest threat to our nation!
And on Iraq even Clinton/Albright etc called for Saddam's ouster in the late 1990s but his ends-means disconnects were just as profound as Bush 2. That is no absolution. And Iraq IS about oil - so what! I agree! That is why it is so strategic unlike Nam. Saddam had his oil and wanted to control more from Kuwait to Saudi. And if he were still around oil would be $130 per barrel and we would be yelping why did we not take him out back in 2024!
And on Petraeus - well he's the best and do not put him anywhere near dunderhead Bush in categorization - like nite and day thank God!
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
john i could be wrong but didn't you disagree with me that iraq was about oil? and if not would you concur that it is "mostly" about oil?
now your saying "iraq is about oil, so what?" well "so what" is that our blood is being spilled so that exxon mobli, chevron, bp, and royal dutch shell can reap obscene profits. that's one of the "so whats" i have a problem with.
and when bush took office gas was around $1.50 it has doubled for us (and don't give me the inflation adjusted numbers because that's bs) americans as have profits for the big 4 oil companies. another "so what" i have a problem with is that we the american public were knowingly lied to, thats a real big problem for me.
saying iraq is for oil so what is a very indifferent attitude in my opinion.
john i could be wrong but didn't you disagree with me that iraq was about oil?
It seams to me, that I am at the same page with John regarding this issue. I will try to answer and John can give his explanation if it is different from mine.
When you are saying that “Iraq was about oil”, you mean that the goal of the operation was to grab Iraqi oil into possession of big US oil corporations. It is not true, or we would now have our gas dirt cheap. In fact, Iraqi oil belongs to Iraqis and they pocket all revenue from its sales at the open market. Big Oil gets nothing from it.
When John explained you how important it was to pay attention to the Iraqi oil, he told about importance of the securing the oil supply to the free world market to prevent Saddam to become a one-may oil world monopoly. In this sense it is now “about oil”, but it is not about 100 rich guys getting a bit richer, as you implied, but about couple billions guys getting their heat and their food during the winter.
"so what" is that our blood is being spilled so that exxon mobli, chevron, bp, and royal dutch shell can reap obscene profits
In your interpretation it does not worth it indeed. But your interpretation is wrong, because war did not give these corporations anything.
In John (and mine) interpretation, however, US soldiers are fighting in Iraq to let you, me, half of China, half of Western Europe to feed our families and to heat our houses. Do you have children? What would you ready to do, that they will not freeze to death? Does it worth to fight for these children?
As John, I also see the huge incompetence, with which war being executed (I bet, we see the right way to execute this war very differently). But this is another topic for discussion.
About Vietnam answer. There are no two wars completely alike. Depending on the war attribute you want to emphasize, you will come up with “it is like Vietnam” or “it is not like Vietnam” general statement.
It is not like Vietnam, because in Vietnam US enemy were backed by all resources of 2 communist empires USSR and China. Iraqi fighters are dwarfs compared to those opponents.
In Vietnam US came on the invitation of Vietnamese government, while in Iraq US came to fight Iraqi government.
It is like Iraq, however, because in both wars US congress is betraying its own military.
shleym, as you post that i am wrong, i feel just as strongly that you are wrong on so many things you post. many of which i have proven you wrong on.
a couple of which you rightly admitted to.
you write as if you and only you know all the "right" answers. at least i realize as i often predicate my post with "it is my opinion". just as your post as well as johns are nothing more than opinions.
and as to your vietnam reference, i am not sure what your talking about.
perhaps it goes back to you asking me to name one time bush lied and one of the things i referred to was bush saying early on in speeches that iraq is nothing like vietnam, and in more recent speeches he compares it's parallels to vietnam. i drew no comparisons of my own so you need to take this up with bush not me. you twist much of what i post, as well as make huge assumptions as to what i mean. the fact is that the four oil companies have reaped obscene profits since the war started, coincidence? perhaps. i think not. other companies with close ties to the whitehouse have also made huge financial gains feeding at the trough of taxpayer money, speaking of which you asked do i have children, yes i do and it is our childeren and their children and their children's children who will pay for this war.
i ask you again shleym do you now agree bush has lied? i gave you many examples yesterday including more than one video that show bush to be less than honest yet you pick and choose what you comment on often ignoring the facts. and yes i do think in part that it is about a handful of as you put it "rich guys" getting richer. again that is my opinion. you are entitled to yours. history will tell.
by the way here is another link where you will see (video)chuck hagel a true american hero saying that the bush policy on iraq is "dishonest" a dirty trick, etc...
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20070916_hagel_petraeus_sell_job_dishonest/
you write as if you and only you know all the "right" answers. at least i realize as i often predicate my post with "it is my opinion".
Well, I will try to squeeze IMHO here and there in my post. Sure, my post is my opinion. I just feel, that having an unfortunate benefit growing up in the totalitarian country, I have an advantage over those americans, who were oversees only as tourists. IMHO, I have some ideas of how people think under the weight of totalitarian ideology. And US is now shown to them as their enemy. It ain’t pretty and soft gloves have to be taken off if US really wants to survive. Sure, it is my IMHO, and everybody else are entitled to think, that
All They Need is Love.Your case that Bush lied about Vietnam-Iraq comparison as well as your case, that Bush lied about Iraq being about oil vs. it was not being about oil is not a case at all, IMHO.
If you will attempt to fit a complex assessment, which, as John demonstrated to us yesterday, needs at least 2 minute speech, into a 5 words sound bite, you will come up with 2 phrases, which look contradicting to each other, while in fact both assessments are valid. Advise – read the whole articles, not gust a headlines.
Lie is a deliberate stating of the facts, well known to the person as being false at the time of the statement. WMD statement was considered correct in 2024. Similarity with Vietnam were remote in 2024 and became more close as Congress is plotting to pull the rug from under the US military today. BTW, IMHO consequences from today’s cut–and-run from that crucial region (I remember, that you do not share that concept) will be much worse for US, than the previous cut-and-run from strategically much less significant South-East Asia.
Sure, our children will pay for starting the war and for its mismanagement. But “non-starting” the war is also an action (like non-taking Bin-Laden, when Sudan offer him to us) and might very well come with a hefty price tag for our children.
Our best litmus test on whether Bush lied or not comes from US democratic party with all their lawyers and all their zeal against Bush. Clinton lied and republicans went with impeachment proceeding. If Democratic Party would have a shred of evidence capable to pass the court proceeding, that Bush lied, they would already had started impeachment hearing. They are quite on the legal front, where hard evidence are needed, limiting their activity to making childish collages. Why? IMHO, because Bush did not lie.
"Our best litmus test on whether Bush lied or not comes from US democratic party with all their lawyers and all their zeal against Bush. Clinton lied and republicans went with impeachment proceeding. If Democratic Party would have a shred of evidence capable to pass the court proceeding, that Bush lied, they would already had started impeachment hearing. They are quite on the legal front, where hard evidence are needed, limiting their activity to making childish collages. Why? IMHO, because Bush did not lie."
No. If Bush/Cheney were thrown out, as in case of Agnew (who resigned before he was thrown out) an new VP gets proposed and ratified by congress - Bush would only name a Republican, and then a Republican would be an incumbent, as Ford was.
The Democrats know Bush is their best tool for undermining the republicans, just as the war in Iraq is the best Bin Laden could've hoped for.
It's politics, not whether Bush lied. He lies all the time. Publicly he said in November '06 - "Rumsfeld will stay" - mere days before firing him.
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69 5th District, NJ
Do you mean, that democrats are sitting there on the pile of documents confirming that Bush lied and did not file their accusations in some court?
They had no problem going for Cheney in CIA identity uncover trial and they ended up with Scooter Liby. It shows that if they coulda, they woulda. But they have nothing.
And why remove Bush? Proceding could start with all legal oppinions and evidence presented to court and to the public, but they could stop short of impeachment and Bush will stay.
Clinton was left in the Oral office branded as a lier, certified by court.
Publicly he said in November '06 - "Rumsfeld will stay" - mere days before firing him.
This is good one. Bush had lost my respect after that firing conducted in such a tricky way. But even that statement, was also not a lie - Rumsfeld indeed stayed... for 2 weeks. Ahrrrrr. And Bush nwvwr said, that Rumsfeld will work for the next 500 years.
shleym i understand where you are coming from in your posts. i agree that growing up in a totalitarian environment is going to shape your geopolitical outlook. and certainly you are going to look at things from a much different perspective than most americans. however that doesn't make you right......or wrong. every country, war, religious conflict etc.. has its own set of nuances. what growing up in a totalitarian society does is bring another way to look at things here at unity which i think is good thing even if i don't agree with many things you post. as far as bush lying, lets move on we could argue over semantics but its not worth it. i feel as quik posted below he has lied many times. as far as impeachment, truth is i am not sure how i feel (not that it matters) i don't think it is a good time for america to become even more partisan which surely the impeachment process would do.
growing up in a totalitarian environment is going to shape your geopolitical outlook.
Well, It is probably lack of my English skills… Let me try again. It is not about my geopolitical outlook. It is about geopolitical outlook of our enemies.
I have a better insight into their mindset, than most native citizens of this great country. These goodhearted, but naïve Americans do not know what a jungle out there and believe into the possibility to reason with tiger almost the same way they used to reason with their neighbor. I know about the jungle and do not believe that tiger will listen to your reasoning.
I agree with you completely on a damaging effect of impeachment even if all evidences of Bush’ lies are indeed collected. But the declaration of defeat of US troops, even if it is indeed a defeat, is also extremely damaging.
Even in case of defeat (and I do not subscribe to the thought, that it is a defeat), responsible politicians scary the enemy into a defensive mode, then quietly and safely bring home the troops, and only after that declare the war over. But even then it is highly stupid to embolden enemy with the cry about defeat.
But Harry Reid had an arrogance to cry about defeat while US troops are on the line of enemy fire. After such irresponsible behavior, I can not believe that democrats will be any more careful with impeachment issue.
Hey I grew up in Iowa and that has not impinged at all on my geopolitical outlook - I think? All you have to do is read history and think a tad! It is a tough tough neigborhood in the Mideast and Central Asia and the Us is still a bae in the woods in this Post-Cold War stuff. It is easy for us to sit back behind our nice safe oceans and tell others to take risks for peace. But they have to live with the consequences of our actions or inactions done without reasoned cogent strategic context.
DC -3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
Scand with you and Quick both I never denied that Iraq was not about Oil. Oil was and is a factor in our policy considerations as it should be. That is a big “Duhhh” no brainer. Of course it is! But I also said that Oil is not the only consideration and there are so many more factors that this whole Iraq Opera is about than just oil. Shleym has it about right on my views and the wider geopolitical ramifications of that key resource. You and Quick are overly and blindly fixated on the “It’s About Oil” mantra and you must get over that and move on.
I would say the big parallel I see between Nam and Iraq is the emergence of the last 4.5 years of the “Credibility Gap” of what the Bush Admin says and what is happening on the ground. The early Bush administration eyes were bigger than their stomachs on this Iraq thing just like LBJ. The ends-means disconnect of the Bush rhetoric gap from the gitgo on Iraq was breathtaking!! And the LBJ “we can have BOTH guns and butter” in this war on terror/Iraq is a big echo from the 60’s I hear.
But I think that Petraeus and the grown ups are now closing that credibility gap and tying some of those early ends-means disconnects in some strategically meaningful ways and I find that encouraging!! Bush’s incompetence is legendary for sure and pervasive but he has done pretty well of late in making some good appointees such as Petraeus, Mallon, Gates, Hayden, Paulsen, Mukaskey, Bolten. Has a long way to go and he is lame duck but he has learned a bit with the new people in there so give him that at least. And the cost of failure in Iraq would never compare with what transpired from our failure in Nam.
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
Take away oil from Iraq, and what do yoiu have? Camel dung? There is no other reason for us to be there. The Gulf war decimated the Iraqi army. That he was "planning" WMDs was no justification for an invasion based on "imminent threat".
The bigger parallel to Vietnam is LYING. We now know the Gulf of Tonkin incident was largely a lie. In both cases we installed puppet governments under the guise of democracy - sure we let people vote - from a list of candidates we prepared.
In both cases we ignored/were ignorant of, and looked down on the native culture, values and religion. Our arrogance did not win over the Vietnamese and will not win over the Iraqis.
A rebel force is nearly impossible to defeat if the majority of the people in the occupied country support the rebels - ask the Russians about Afghanistan, me about Vietnam, or the English about the 13 US colonies.
We forget we won our independence against the greatest military power at the time largely by guerrilla war.
The sad part is that Iraq wouldn't be such a mess if it weren't for the arrogant incompetence in the conduct of the war by Bremer, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz,...now were're screwed.
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69 5th District, NJ
Oil and access to oil will be there for a long time Quick - no brainer!! So your "take away" rants are totally meaningless. The world will be dependent on that sandy spec on the globe for decades to come and the Economy of the world WILL be hanging in the balance esp if the Saudis Gulf States succum to the jihadi/salafi/radical shia threat.
Rebel forces on our side was what needed from the gitgo in Iraq ans well as 300,000 troops and we did not have either for sure and did Iraq on the cheap. No dispute from me there. We could have been the French circa 1775(in our Revolutionary War - the French had economoic/geoplotical interest in US defeat of Britain) but Bush's incompetency combine with adject lack of raelistic (or any) Grand strategic vision made us the Brits circa 1775 in many of the Iraqi eyes.
But if we learn how to use the locals (and we seem to be actually doing that pretty well with now Petraeus and Odierno and Lynch albiet 4 years late). It may take a defacto soft-partition-lite like Biden-Gelb-Jeff have proposed combined with the ISG tenets, but its a whole heck of a lot better than having the jihadis and Crazy Mahmoud in Iran holding the world by the oil gonads!
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
Alan Greenspan, former well-respected head of the Fed Reserve, and life-long republican, has just written a book in which he says the Iraq war is "largely about oil."
Right on, Alan.
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69 5th District, NJ
He said practicaly what John was saying earlier in this thread.
Greenspan said, that he was worried that Middle East oil will be monopolised by Saddam and US and world economy will collapse. He asked Bush to use force to remove that thread to the world economy. Bush rejected that threat to world economic security as a valid one for invasion. Bush said no! It was before 9/11.
Apperantly, after 9/11 Bush revisited Greenspan's memo, backed up WMD threat memo and changed his mind.
You can call it "largely about oil", or you can think of hndreds of millions of houses in Europe, Japan, China, US, Canada and Argentina being heated during the winter.
Greenspan was abosultely right Quick and Scand!! And his reasoning must be read in full context of what he said as shleym notes well. And if we do not persist now at this key juncture in a cogently strategic way in Iraq and ME, control of that vital oil resource that is the basis of the entire World Economy still for a long time could go not to Saddam this time thank god but even more the dangerously hands of the jihadi/salafi/hirabi thugs and/or the equally virulent Iranian yahoos represened by Ahmadenijad Revoultionary Guards. A US failure in Iraq is no 'Nam retreat! Apples and oranges.
Bottom line - We have to get this Iraq thing right strategically or the consequences will be profound for all - unlike Viet Nam! Remember Korea and remeber the "bandwagon effect" psychology! People in the Mid East and the world are watching what we do now and how things play out Iraq very very closely and testing the wind!
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
agree we have to get the iraq thing right. not sure i agree with how you and shleym think we should do this. but i am smart enough to know, that i am not smart enough to know, what we should do going forward. it is good that bush is now supposedly doing what his commanders on the ground are telling him. the problem i have with this is all the previous commanders who told bush what he didnt want to hear as far as iraq is concerned are gone,replaced, or retired. now he has a commander who is saying what he wants to hear, hence my opinion of petreus being a yes man. i also feel that the burden iraq is putting on our volunteer military might cause us more harm security wise down the road. iraq makes us very vulnerable to other threats. and as shleym is quick to point out there are many evil leaders out there who wish us harm.
agree we have to get the iraq thing right. not sure i agree with how you and shleym think we should do this. but i am smart enough to know, that i am not smart enough to know, what we should do going forward. it is good that bush is now supposedly doing what his commanders on the ground are telling him. the problem i have with this is all the previous commanders who told bush what he didnt want to hear as far as iraq is concerned are gone,replaced, or retired. now he has a commander who is saying what he wants to hear, hence my opinion of petreus being a yes man. i also feel that the burden iraq is putting on our volunteer military might cause us more harm security wise down the road. iraq makes us very vulnerable to other threats. and as shleym is quick to point out there are many evil leaders out there who wish us harm.
Greenspan was talking of the Saddam threat in the FIRST GULF WAR. Nobody (I know of) disputes that conflict. His second comment about Iraq - has to do with our imperialist exploits in Iraq NOW.
That some people remain gullible enough to listen to Bush I find incredible. Let me sum up - call for an escallation of 30,000 troops, pronounce it a success, even tho the "benchmarks" you set weren't met, then say you can reduce forces by 30,000 - so you "stay the course" while spinning it as a reduction! George Orwell would be proud of the doublespeak.
IF we had leadership not in the pockets of established interests and actually looking out for our country, we'd have set a course - years ago, as Carter tried - to push for better efficiencies, alternate energy sources, alternate fuels - anything to reduce our oil consumption, and thereby our dependence on a volatile section of the world. BUT, when Bush, Cheney, Rice, all come from oil backgrounds, what should one expect?
I cannot wait for this incompetent, corrupt, criminal, and hypocritical regime to be history - I just hope it is before they provoke war with the next oil target, Iran.
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69 5th District, NJ
as Carter tried
I do not know what did Carter tried and what did he achieved in the field of alternative energy production, but he sure achieve a lot for United States on international arena.
Thank Carter personally for power-hungry Ayatollah's in Iran.
Thank Carter for negotiation with North Korea, they violated the very moment he left their country.
Thank him for getting cozy with USSR, which prolonged the creepy existing of that monster.
Thank him for blessing the Hugo Chaves, our little Venezuelan friend.
Your post are pure spin on facts.
I hope you don't really believe what you post - your liberty with truth is astounding.
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69 5th District, NJ
Greenspan WAS talking about Iraq before AND after Gulf War I there Quick. And in much the same way Iranian hegemony and the Shia revival (released by Bush's bungled Iraq operation) are just as hegemonical visavi oil if not more. We will be in Iraq for a looonng time in some major capacity to contain the forces released by Bush that empowered the Shia there and Iran. So we mind as well suck it up and get on with it and what is most required to get us thru this crucial coming period - a sober, cogent multidimensional bipartisan strategy that is based in a realistic assessment of the threats to that key area and its key resource that propels the world.
Petraeus is a good different start in the way he is going local, using the locals, defacto soft partition-lite (benchmarks or no - new opportunities come up when you implement things like the surge) Plan B. And the Iraqi Study Group implementation in the larger arena diplomatic, political, social, economic areas would be an excellent bigger picture followon no matter what Administration is in there. That is the forward-looking bipartisan strategic context we need and not the handwringing over the Bush "spilt-milk" and conspiracy theories.
This is very similar to what went on in Korea BTW in 1952 where Truman was castigated mightily (was actually lower in the polls than Bush BTW)and Eisenhower was elected but solidified and evolved the containment doctrine started under Truman. We need a similar bipartisan handoff that has some strategic context to the very real threats out there rather than spilt-milk handwringing and comspiracy fixations.
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
"the Iraqi Study Group implementation in the larger arena diplomatic, political, social, economic areas would be an excellent bigger picture followon no matter what Administration is in there."
While I agree with you about the quoted string, the current "leadership" (in quotes, because in this case, it's an oxymoron) is going the opposite route - provoking, rather than engaging Iran.
As to consipracy, "A conspiracy theory attempts to explain the ultimate cause of an event or chain of events (usually political, social, pop cultural or historical events), or the concealment of such causes from public knowledge, to a secret, and often deceptive plot by a covert alliance of powerful or influential people or organizations. Many conspiracy theories say that major events in history have been dominated by conspirators who manipulate political happenings from behind the scenes."
So no, there's no conspiracy, because IT'S OBVIOUS. It isn't secret. It is not behind the scenes. There is no other valid reason for us being in Iraq. OIL is the answer. It's the 800 pound gorilla in the room.
Iraq cannot be solved militarily. England was the greatest military power in the world at the time of the US revolution, too. We are creating terrorists with each door our troops kick in. The next election will determine our future in Iraq. If we get any of the front-runners Hillary (ugh!) Giuliani, Romney, McCain, yes, we'll have over 100,000 troops in Iraq (and never-ending deaths) for a LOONG time.
Stay the course! There's light at the end of the tunnel! We gave up to soon in Vietnam! Peace with honor! They're killing us there so they don't have to kill us here! (okay, that last one is mine).
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69 5th District, NJ