Thread: iraq study group

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Surasak ... it's starting to appear to me that it's the method you have a problem with ... not really the goal. I think you and I ae actually closer to being in agreement than we might realize.

I can't imagine how many times I have stated this.

The problem with opposing the war is that those who do support the war automatically label those who don't as being soft on terrorists. I think that's a mistaken assumption. I don't recall anyone in power saying "I oppose the war and we should leave the terrorists alone as well." But in the classic smear campaign the right wing of the Republican Party labels those who oppose the war as soft on terrorism.

I think people all agree that the terrorists need to be dealt with. It's the method that is the problem.

If we want to deal with terrorists then let's capture them, bring them to justice, and put them on trial and execute them if found guilty. Don't cheat, however, just to give the appearance that something is being done (such as taking away Constitutional rights of legal permanent U.S. residents, for one).

baker and co. can just pack it in, GWB is on the case....

White House officials confirm that President Bush has ordered his aides to do their own review of the administration's Iraq policy.The White House denies the effort is aimed at doing an end run around the Iraq Study Group, the bipartisan panel set up by Congress.

White House conducting its own Iraq review - Politics - MSNBC.com

quick joke....

what's the difference between iraq and the vietnam war?

george bush had a plan to get out of the vietnam war.

Originally Posted by Sir Burr

If the USA invaded Iraq because of WMD, why Iraq, why not N. Korea, Pakistan, or, India? A much better case could be made for invading them.

If the USA invaded Iraq because of a nasty dictator, why Iraq, why not Zimbabwe, N. Korea, Sudan or Myanmar?

If the USA invaded Iraq to impose democracy, why Iraq, why not N. Korea, Myanmar, or, most of the Central Asian countries?

Why? Oil. American soldiers are losing their lives so that other Americans can still drive those big gas-guzzling SUVs. That's the reality.

no kidding. and the frustration is that is so obvious and was obvious 100 years ago....

Originally Posted by surasak

If we want to deal with terrorists then let's capture them, bring them to justice, and put them on trial and execute them if found guilty. Don't cheat, however, just to give the appearance that something is being done (such as taking away Constitutional rights of legal permanent U.S. residents, for one).

Sounds good in theory ... but obviously you and I are going to disagree on how to go about accomplishing this.

You sometimes give me the impression with your statements that you apparently think we can just land a helicopter on the ground and scoop a bushel full ... without any shots being fired or people being killed.

I also think that when you tell me it would be better or easier to just go in and assassinate terrorists that your thought process becomes incongruent in the next breath when you want to now put them on trial.

Terrorists don't have any Constitutional rights under the US constitution.

Instead of capturing the bastards we should just stop taking them prisoner and just shoot them all on the battlefield. Take no prisoners. If you get caught in a battle zone and you're not from Iraq or Afghanistan ... screw them ... especially if they have UK passports.

Lesser of two evils: plunge a country and a region into chaos and civil war (with the associated tens to hundreds of thousands of casualties on all sides) or take out a few innocent bystanders during the apprehension of terrorists?

If we don't have the intelligent gathering capabilities to find terrorists we certainly have no business invading countries now, do we?

Why are we in Iraq when the mastermind of 9-11 is still free?

Gee whiz, Germany managed to put terrorists on trial and find them guilty.

Any person caught breaking U.S. Federal laws has Constitutional rights whether you like it or not. If you don't accept that then you are breaking your oath of service to this nation because you are failing to uphold the Constitution as you are required to do (and part of that Constitution is the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments the last time I checked).

I'm not even going to try to humor you with a response to your last post.

I have no problem whatsoever with the decision to invade Iraq. You do. So be it.

Do you think I take seriously someone who wants to counsel me that terrorists have rights ... but yet you want to deny hard working illegal immigrants welfare benefits and other rights?

In an attempt to humor the strawman being constructed there: what rights?

What rights have I supported denying to illegal immigrants yet I turn around and support for criminal suspects? Have I said that illegals should be detained indefinately? Tortured? Forced to confess against their will? Held without the possibility of trial, access to an attorney of their choice, or held without knowing the charges against them? Held on heresay? Held without the possibility of confronting the witness(es) accusing them of a crime?

You missed my point. And as usual you pose two questions in response to one.

As somebody has said many times in the forums ... we should give up ... especially me, because unlike you I'm not trying to gain converts.

I don't mind if people stay stuck on stupid.

Do you think I take seriously someone who wants to counsel me that terrorists have rights ... but yet you want to deny hard working illegal immigrants welfare benefits and other rights?

You are aware of the fallacy you posed (I hope).

Now that the so called Iraq study group has forwarded its recommendations, let's see what the Butcher adminstration's plan of action might be. There're 79 recommendations in the report and I bet Butcher adminstration ain't going to follow even 25% of it.

Iraq study group observed that the Butcher administration's miserably failing in Iraq. All the strategies are going down the gutter. It also observed that the best way to solve all problems in Iraq is to seek help from the neighbouring countries, especially Iran. Will the alcoholist agree? I much doubt it. The study group also recommended that the US troops must leave as early as 2008 and their only role should be training the Iraqis.

By the way, have they transferred all the riches back to the states?

Well Bush isn't exactly a decisive type so I reckon he'll take instruction and take up the parts of the report that present the easiest way out. Shades of Nixon and South Vietnam.

the arrogance of the bush administration is only exceeded by its incomptence.

the whole point of the iraq study group was to find a way out of the mess GWB got the US into.....he's been looking for an plausible excuse to 'cut and run' and he got dad's friend to give it to him.

^ well, he might be too stupid to get a clue. Oh is Baker having a go at GW Bush for turning him down on his first term ? payback time.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Iraq will become an Iran style Islamic revolution. And they will have both Nuke.

You don't think Israel would have the nads to bomb any nuke plants in Iraq again ?

As it seems the US and Europe have neither the stomach nor the will, it'll be Israel with or without their knowledge or approval that does the dirty work of striking at any target that might prevent extremist Islamic states from developing a nuclear capability.

Oh yes, and even in the unlikely event that those facilities are buried deep within residential neighbourhoods.

You'd have to find out if there are any and where they would be located first before raising the question what do do about it.
We don't want nations being bombed and invaded on the basis of hysteric allegations again.

Sure, like Israel's foray into Osirak...no doubt many people relished the fact that the Jews were caught bang to rights, flouting international law by invading sovereign territory, despite the fact that the rest of the free world cared less than a toss. Evil muthas, eh?


typo

Did anyone actually read the 79 recommendations? I recently did and there're very interesting recommendations that would prove that it wasn't any "war on terror (what a pathetic phrase)" rather it was a war for oil.

I'll soon post the recommendations of the so called "Iraq Study Group".

Just in case anyone might want to inform themselves:
http://wid.ap.org/documents/iraq/2006isg_report.pdf

What’s not to like about the so-called 'study group' conculsions? We cut and run, Iraq descends into chaos as Shiites and Sunnis fight over the remains and leaders like Mr. Talabani have their heads removed. And ... the Democrats blame Bush...

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

What’s not to like about the so-called 'study group' conculsions?

After reading excerpts from the Iraq Study Group report it seems to be worded very carefully.

It could have been more direct in some areas.


This group seemed a bit carefully in how it worded the situation and the many possible solutions.

In other words....it's a political statement? Who would have thought?

The only sensible solution is to get out where we should not have been in the first place.