Thread: Quagmire....

^
Thank you for the reasoned argument you contributed to the topic.

Originally Posted by stroller

^
Thank you for the reasoned argument you contributed to the topic.

Pictures worth 1K words?

A recent update:

Bush's overall job-approval rating hovers in the mid-30s, but support for his handling of Iraq has plummeted to the low to mid-20s, with disapproval around 70%, according to three national polls in mid-December.
Even without Iraq, Bush faces a tough final two years in office. Democrats will take control of Congress next month, and even congressional Republicans have been increasingly willing to distance themselves from the politically unpopular president.

However:

The public doesn't always get its way. The Vietnam War dragged on for five years after public support for it collapsed in 1968.
"Public opinion is not a referendum. It has no legal power," said John Mueller, a professor at Ohio State University who specializes in wartime public opinion. But it does affect a lame-duck president's ability to get his way, and as his public support wanes, so does his influence, across the board.

Entire & Link: http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...612260345/1009

Iraq like Vietnam will last a decade and this time it will serve the american public right for supporting an illegal war in the first place

Here's an article by Robert Reich on the logic and political maneuvering by the Democrats of a) opposing the "surge" but b) continuing to fund it:

Why Dems Won't Stop Bush's "Surge" in Iraq

Bush will announce next week he wants 20,000 additional troops in Iraq. Most congressional Dems say they’re opposed, and they’ll use the upcoming confirmation hearings for Bush’s nominees to the United Nations and for Deputy Secretary of State to make their case. But Dems will still appropriate the extra money the "surge" requires. This is politically wise, although dreadfully cynical.

....As long as Dems remain opposed to Bush’s policies and the Democratic leadership offers some semblance of unity in opposition – while at the same time giving Bush the money he wants to carry out his policies – the Dem candidate in 2008 can blame Bush and the Republicans, and no Republican candidate who supports Bush will have a comeback. McCain’s strategy of distancing himself from Bush by arguing for more troops is about to backfire on him, because he’s going to get what he wants – and America will see just how tragically wrong he is (Edwards has already, adeptly, labeled it the "McCain doctrine."

Robert Reich website and blog: Robert Reich's Blog: Why Dems Won't Stop Bush's "Surge" in Iraq

the dems won't cut off troops, but the dem nominee will be elected because of his/her pledge to end the war. all it's going to take to win the election in '08 is a dem who promises to end this republican war.

Originally Posted by raycarey

the dems won't cut off troops, but the dem nominee will be elected because of his/her pledge to end the war. all it's going to take to win the election in '08 is a dem who promises to end this republican war.

Brilliant take, Ray.

I agree with you.


What started out as political, ends as political.


Convenient.

And where does the trillion dollars come from to pay for this mess as people in and around New Orleans continue to suffer as a result of an uncaring and perhaps criminal national government?

You gotta love this welfare....

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- The Federal Reserve sent record payouts of more than $4 billion in cash to Baghdad on giant pallets aboard military planes shortly before the United States gave control back to Iraqis, lawmakers said Tuesday.


The money, which had been held by the United States, came from Iraqi oil exports, surplus dollars from the U.N.-run oil-for-food program and frozen assets belonging to the ousted Saddam Hussein regime.


Bills weighing a total of 363 tons were loaded onto military aircraft in the largest cash shipments ever made by the Federal Reserve, said Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.


"Who in their right mind would send 363 tons of cash into a war zone? But that's exactly what our government did," the California Democrat said during a hearing reviewing possible waste, fraud and abuse of funds in Iraq.

Entire: Lawmaker: U.S. sent giant pallets of cash into Iraq - CNN.com

I note this isn't from "the onion".

Updated: 7:54 a.m. PT Feb 8, 2007

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A U.S. airstrike Thursday killed 13 insurgents in a volatile area west of Baghdad, the military said. Local officials said 45 civilians, including women and children, died in the attack.

I'd like to hear some comments on this from some of the people that constantly defend Americans, and their presence in Iraq for.....4 years.






I am waiting.



You there?

This is....."unbelievable." Let's send it to the Kiddies room.

Well, we could also discuss the enormous environmental costs that the U.S. occupation is causing in Iraq....the bombs, depleted uranium, unchecked oil leaks, etc.

But, you know, the air strike is no different than the atomic bombing save for the scale of the deaths. Both are war crimes. Neither had to happen.

Originally Posted by surasak

Well, we could also discuss the enormous environmental costs that the U.S. occupation is causing in Iraq....the bombs, depleted uranium, unchecked oil leaks, etc.

But, you know, the air strike is no different than the atomic bombing save for the scale of the deaths. Both are war crimes. Neither had to happen.

Agreed.

Both did not have to happen.

But both did.

Millions of dollars' worth of oil is stolen daily in Iraq because of the absence of oil meters, a basic tool for preventing corruption, according to estimates by classified CIA and State Department reports, the Iraq Study Group Report , a former consultant to a U.S. oil company and a former State Department adviser to Iraq's Oil Ministry.

A six-month investigation by KTVT found the annual thefts run into the billions of dollars and help fuel insurgents, sectarian militias and corrupt officials — as well as deprive the Iraqis of much-needed money to run their struggling government.

"I would say probably between 200,000 and 500,000 barrels a day is probably unaccounted for in Iraq," says Mikel Morris, who worked for the State Department's Iraq Reconstruction Management Organization (IRMO) in Baghdad. Depending on fluctuations in the price of oil, the thefts could be worth $20 million to $30 million per day.

A Houston-area petroleum engineer, Morris says Iraq's oil industry is wide-open to corruption because there are no working meters anywhere in the system to keep count of how many millions of barrels of oil Iraq produces or exports. "It’s like a supermarket without a cashier. There is no metering. And there's no metering at the well heads either. There's no metering at any of the major pipeline junctions," he says.

Entire: Meters Cost Iraq Billions In Stolen Oil, KTVT Investigation: Lack Of Metering At Terminals Funnels Billions Into Hands Of Corrupt Officials And Insurgents - CBS News

I almost picture the Three Stooges running the show in Iraq. Could the U.S. possibly screw it up any more?

Originally Posted by surasak

I almost picture the Three Stooges running the show in Iraq. Could the U.S. possibly screw it up any more?

Short of bringing in Israeli troops - I think not.

It seems to me that "the coalition" has to stay in Iraq because:
1. we now have more Muslim emenies than ever
2. they are extreme and want to destroy Western civilization
3. By pulling out we empower them
4. BUT WORSE we will create a "terrorist sancutary" where they can train and plot and invade the west
5. EVEN WORSE STILL is that Iran will supply this "terrorist sanctuary" with small dirty nukes to target the cities of Farangland
6. so if we leave we will NEVER RETURN to clean up what is inevitable
That's the reality to deny it is to have a death wish

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

Short of bringing in Israeli troops - I think not.

Here's an idea, I wonder why no-one thought of this before, or are the Israelis not with us in this fight? They very well should be, after all we have done for them.

Israeli troops are highly trained with modern hi-tech equipment, and extensive experience on the ground for this sort of peace-keeping operations.
They also proved to be able and willing to implement tough measures when and if necessary and not easily be intimidated by limp-wristed UN bureaucrats.

Originally Posted by stroller

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

Short of bringing in Israeli troops - I think not.

Here's an idea, I wonder why no-one thought of this before, or are the Israelis not with us in this fight? They very well should be, after all we have done for them.

Israeli troops are highly trained with modern hi-tech equipment, and extensive experience on the ground for this sort of peace-keeping operations.
They also proved to be able and willing to implement tough measures when and if necessary and not easily be intimidated by limp-wristed UN bureaucrats.

Good idea we should hand the whole mission over to them!

Pentagon doctors intelligence to make it appear that Al-Q and Saddam were cooperating.

Yet another government agency faking and manipulating the pre-war intel.

Once again: no proof or evidence that Al-Q and Saddam planned or had anything to do with 9-11 together or were even working together at that point.

Report says Pentagon manipulated intel - Yahoo! News

Iraq rebuilding short on qualified civilians

Reconstruction hampered by violence and turf wars between U.S. agencies

By Rajiv Chandrasekaran
Updated: 11:56 p.m. PT Feb 23, 2007

In Diyala, the vast province northeast of Baghdad where Sunnis and Shiites are battling for primacy with mortars and nighttime abductions, the U.S. government has contracted the job of promoting democracy to a Pakistani citizen who has never lived or worked in a democracy.

The management of reconstruction projects in the province has been assigned to a Border Patrol commander with no reconstruction experience. The task of communicating with the embassy in Baghdad has been handed off to a man with no background in drafting diplomatic cables. The post of agriculture adviser has gone unfilled because the U.S. Department of Agriculture has provided just one of the six farming experts the State Department asked for a year ago.

Entire & Link: WP: Iraq rebuilding short on workers - washingtonpost.com Highlights - MSNBC.com

Substantial majority say war isn't worth fighting.

The poll also registered a new low on the question of whether the Iraq war was worth fighting. Thirty-four percent responded that it was, while 64 percent said it was not -- 51 percent strongly. On this question, 51 percent of military veterans and 53 percent of veteran households said they strongly believe that the war was not worth fighting.

WP: Majority favors Iraq deadline - washingtonpost.com Highlights - MSNBC.com

Well, which political solutions are Bush & Co persueing? Any talks with neighbouring countries about the future of Iraq?
Which longterm prospects are there for the 'surge'?

Originally Posted by stroller

Well, which political solutions are Bush & Co persueing? Any talks with neighbouring countries about the future of Iraq?

Public opinion right now, doesn't mean a lot.

But it does mean something, just not a lot.

Public opinion seems to be only affecting certain Senators and Congressman that are worried about the election a year and half from now.

The administration is near the end of its term, and like the conflict in South East Asia, negative opinion polls likely won't change their actions.

Which longterm prospects are there for the 'surge'?

First, there is no "surge." The percentage increase is too low.

This is another misnomer.

Now for the most part, things are quiet. The Shiites militias has faded away and ceased most activity. They are adapting now, and more violence will escalate around May, according to the military and intelligence experts.

The fake "surge" won't have much, if any effect.