RME Foreign Policy on Iraq---Solve International Problems....

[Brett]

Isn't he right though? We all want out, it's just how we should get out. I don't know if anybody knows how it will end. I think the only ally we have in the area is Kuwait. Why wouldn't they like us? I'm not sure they really do. They should, but who knows. If the 'huddled masses' of Iraqis commoners support what we've done for them, I think we will have done something cool. Those people have been under SH for 25 years(?) or longer. I don't know that they know what power a large population can have. I believe THEY could solve the problems that exist in Iraq today if either they knew that the could or knew how. I'm not sure they know that..... It's been gansta rule over there for over a generation, maybe two. You have an opinion, you die. Now they can have an opinion and I think it'll be an expensive (people cost, $$$$, US-world relations, etc.), interesting experiment to see what happens.

Stop making me think!

I'm not sure how is right, comparing how people disagree with the adminstration's actions in the Middle East to that of Europe before Germany began it's march with Hitler at the front. I guess I just don't see how we are trying to placate the terrorists in anyway. It seems that most of the grumbles that I've heard are just related to the fact that people don't like the fact that were are over there as police. Our troops are training their army to support itself, but we have no idea how much longer that will take.

The people there, like you said, have been under the thumb of a tyrant for a very long time. They most definately need to have their courage built up so they can stand straight and proud. Perhaps you are right. It might be better to send more troops there and eliminate all the insurgents and terrorists or at least lock them away. It definately would cut the time on our occupation and in the long run it would be better. You eliminate the threat and then you have a country were the people are constantly being shot at or threatened by militants. It gives the people of Iraq the chance to grow and become their own country again

 

[mbryson]

......... Perhaps you are right. It might be better to send more troops there and eliminate all the insurgents and terrorists or at least lock them away. It definately would cut the time on our occupation and in the long run it would be better. You eliminate the threat and then you have a country were the people are constantly being shot at or threatened by militants. It gives the people of Iraq the chance to grow and become their own country again

Sell that to the US..... NEVER HAPPEN

Look at our biggest successes of occupation (maybe our only successes?). Japan and Germany. We instituted the Marshall plan while occopying the countries........(different time, and different circumstances......)

 

[AINT SKEERED]

Brett to answer your first question evidence was presented to the UN by Colin Powell and others. I remember watching him speak on MSNBC and all I could think was,
"Man that man has his crap together."
The UN did what they do best, took a very very long time to do nothing. NOTHING, to stop a lunatic who had crossed the US before and was, according to the overwhelming at the time evidence, planning a nuclear/biological attack on a large country(Dont know which country, but take a wild guess. Why does he have the nukes if he doesnt plan on using them?) Years later, oh damn he doesnt have them? Darn we just captured an evil evil man, that has plagued his people for a long time. Desert Storm 1 took care of the problem for ten years, we just finished the problem forever.

Add that to the fact that we now have an ally in the Middle East, nice to have considering the present state of affairs that will likely lead to more US/UN/whoever interference.

We stood up and took care of business, like the cowboys that we are. Granted the reasons werent as prevalent as we had thought, but he still would have to have been dealt with at one point. We were on a roll at the time and in the area(i.e. easier deployment.)

At this point in this particular conversation Rocky doesnt mean anything.

Bottom line is we CANNOT leave right now so what in the hell is the point about bitching about whether we should be there now? We are over there it aint gonna change.

 

[AINT SKEERED]

Here's a quick one.......if any of you could, would you rather have had Clinto still in office, or do you think that Bush is doing better?




Lunch time, I'll be back in a bit to see my responses.

Bush is doing a much better job than Clinton. Osama bombed the WTC during his first year in office and what did Clinton do? 2 cruise missiles, whoop dee doo... thats not even dusting the shoulders of the capibility of the US army. Then years later the USS Cole gets bombed by the same low life. What did he do? More but still not enough.



Better question, Bush or Gore? Bush or Kerry?

Arent you glad he won... both times.

 

[AINT SKEERED]

It's Vietnam all over again.

 

[AINT SKEERED]

He's free to say what he wants, and I'd die defending his right to do so...BUT he must know that his rhetoric will empower and embolden the enemy. (History repeating itself.)

I believe that it's too late for his rhetoric...we are there and we need to finish the job and keep the promises made.(To the Iraqis if noone else.) The time for debate was before we invaded- when 2/3 of Americans and our elected officials agreed that it was necessary. (Including most Dems)

What we need to do is make damn sure our fighting boys are not cut and left out to dry in a hasty retreat. I have a brother-in-law in Iraq, and the last thing he needs is someone from "back home" making his job harder or more dangerous.

We're on the same page here, just different wordings

 

[TigerStripe40]

Bush is doing a much better job than Clinton. Osama bombed the WTC during his first year in office and what did Clinton do? 2 cruise missiles, whoop dee doo... thats not even dusting the shoulders of the capibility of the US army. Then years later the USS Cole gets bombed by the same low life. What did he do? More but still not enough.
Better question, Bush or Gore? Bush or Kerry?

Arent you glad he won... both times.

Colin Powell.
:greg:

Bush, Gore, and Kerry are all idiots.

 

[AINT SKEERED]

I don't know jack about Rumsfeld. I don't trust him or any other politician.


{I'd LOVE to have someone to vote for that I thought would do the job. Unfortunately, we've had to choose the best of the worst in the past 40--50? years worth of presidential elections. The only people that I've seen show leadership in the last few years are Guiliani, Norm Schwartzkoff and Condi Rice(to a certain degree). None of the want the President job (unless Guiliani has changed his mind)}

I would have confidence voting for Ronald Reagan, Colin Powell, and Donald Rumsfield.

There are others but those few came to the top first.

 

[AINT SKEERED]

Well, when you bring destruction / vandalism of personal property you cross that line from protestor to vandal.

Lol, in this situation I'm okay with that.

 

[AINT SKEERED]

This is where I can't stand it anymore--The reasons haven't changed; they are layered one upon the other!! I never heard nuclear anyway- just biological and owned by a man willing to use them! Saddam was the WMD as far as I am concerned, guess what ? we got him.

It's only Vietnam all over again if the Rocky Anderson Iwannabitchnwhinewithoutofferingabettersolution types continue to empower the enemy and undermine our guys. Why can't some people understand that the past is the past and its time to find a solution.

I really could care less about Dems or Republicans -- it's a two headed snake with the same body.

Fact is we really have no choice in the matter anyway. But there are places in Iraq that have power and water for the first time in years, kids that are now able to go to school, women can vote and work, and Saddam's sons aren't out raping and pillaging... Our soldiers can be proud of that.

Good points, things havent changed we went for the same reasons we are still there. If nothing else Iraq has been liberated and they will be free to screw it up again.

 

[mbryson]

Colin Powell.
:greg:

Bush, Gore, and Kerry are all idiots.

Yeah, what awesome presidential choices all three of those have been? We need someone with some backbone AND intelligence in there. Unfortunately, I think Bush is the best choice of the three.

 

[mbryson]

I would have confidence voting for Ronald Reagan, Colin Powell, and Donald Rumsfield.

There are others but those few came to the top first.

Colin Powell He'd be AWESOME, but only with HIS (non-politician) cabinet. Sh!t would get done in a very military way. Nothing wrong with that.

Ron Reagan..... I don't know about him, but considering who he was running against, the best choice (Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale).

Rumsfield........... I don't know ...... I like his conviction, but like the rest of the current administration, he needs some PR or sales skills.

 

[Brett]

Man, I start some cool threads.....anyway though. I do think that Colin Powell would make a very excellent choice, but I don't see him running for president.

As you said Marc, Rumsfield definately needs to work on his PR skills, they're lacking slightly. He seems to not care what the public thinks about what he says (like Anderson) but the way he puts it, he cuts evey American that has a differeing opinion. Oh well, he's out in '08, so two more years of his....nuttiness.

I guess that this whole "War on Terrorism" has come off more as a nation builiding type thing than any actual war. To me, we decided, "Oh, this country might harbor terrorists." We kick the current gov. out and then take over and build ourselves our own little country, which, unfortunately, isn't exactly what the people over there want. Granted, I can't say that everyone in those countries does not want us there, as we all see on TV, there are a lot that do. It's the small, armed groups that are causing the problems and, as said before. the mass populations don't stand up.

I was just reading that our current plan is to hand over control of the security forces in Iraq (the US currently is in charge) to Iraq by the end of the year. Unfortunately, even our generals on the ground in Iraq doubt that will happen and they are projecting a time line more along 12-18 months. It's basically coming down to the fact that they don't have enough people WANTING to join up and stand for their own country. Training their army takes a long time and no one wants to be part of it.

All in all, I don't really know what I was trying to say there.....

 

[mbryson]

Man, I start some cool threads.....anyway though. I do think that Colin Powell would make a very excellent choice, but I don't see him running for president.

As you said Marc, Rumsfield definately needs to work on his PR skills, they're lacking slightly. He seems to not care what the public thinks about what he says (like Anderson) but the way he puts it, he cuts evey American that has a differeing opinion. Oh well, he's out in '08, so two more years of his....nuttiness.

I guess that this whole "War on Terrorism" has come off more as a nation builiding type thing than any actual war. To me, we decided, "Oh, this country might harbor terrorists." We kick the current gov. out and then take over and build ourselves our own little country, which, unfortunately, isn't exactly what the people over there want. Granted, I can't say that everyone in those countries does not want us there, as we all see on TV, there are a lot that do. It's the small, armed groups that are causing the problems and, as said before. the mass populations don't stand up.

I was just reading that our current plan is to hand over control of the security forces in Iraq (the US currently is in charge) to Iraq by the end of the year. Unfortunately, even our generals on the ground in Iraq doubt that will happen and they are projecting a time line more along 12-18 months. It's basically coming down to the fact that they don't have enough people WANTING to join up and stand for their own country. Training their army takes a long time and no one wants to be part of it.

All in all, I don't really know what I was trying to say there.....

That whatever happens over there, our troops will be there until they CAN come home. It can't happen fast enough for the families involved, I'm sure. Those guys deserve A LOT of support for fighting an unpopular war and doing it very well for the most part.

I wonder if more troops would be a good tactic (I believe they are counting on the Iraqi police force to be the larger numbers).

We have a lost a lot of troops over there, but in all the time fighting in Iraq, we lost more guys on Omaha beach in June 6, 1944 than we have in Iraq in this war. That's one day vs. 3 years or so...... We're doing pretty good, but you hate to see our soldiers die.

 

[scoutabout]

He is the City Mayor, not county.

I stand corrected.

Hmm...wondering why you cross posted this into this thread.

 

[Hickey]

I stand corrected.

Hmm...wondering why you cross posted this into this thread.

The thread was split after I posted it.

 

[scoutabout]

And you are right, we can't change the fact that things were misrepresented at the beginning of this entire campaign. I would really really like to know if the facts were intentionally falsified or if our goverment did think that there were weapons in Iraq. We probably won't ever know unfortunately. Wrapped up in red tape in the basement of some wharehouse is that folder with that info.

How were things misrepresented? After inquires by the UN, the British govt, and 2 dem committees, no wrong-doing has ever been proven. The anti-Bush crowd has been so focused on proving he's a liar, but no proof has ever been produced.

Obviously, some intelligence was "faulty", but the premise was factual. While we dinked around with the U.N. and France, there was plenty of time to hide any evidence of WMDs and WMD programs. Read the final U.N. report by David Kay. Read the actual report, not the headlines from CNN.

I'm guessing that history will judge the validity of the Iraq war. Either the Bush administration had a master plan to take over Iraq for monetary gain, or there was actual evidence that Iraq posed a threat (either directly or indirectly through terrorist connections).

As for Rocky, he represents the city of Salt Lake? Are his opinions shared by the people who voted for him or by a majority of his constituents? He can have his own opinions, and should express them freely whenever he wants. However, as a public representative, shouldn't he actually represent the public that elected him?

Either someone is a blind Bush supporter, a blind Bush hater, or a person who knows that all politicians are crooks.

 

[scoutabout]

Cool


That kind of stuff makes me wonder if we don't need MORE soldiers over there. Just go in and occupy to kabash the resistance and give security so the Iraqis can clean up all the junk.

Word up. When politicians concerned with media perception are allowed to run wars, we lose. Vietnam anyone?

 

[scoutabout]

Here's a quick one.......if any of you could, would you rather have had Clinto still in office, or do you think that Bush is doing better?

You might disagree with Bush (and hopefully everyone disagrees with him on at least some things), but at least you know where he stands.

 

[scoutabout]

Monica Lewinski?? what was that?

"It depends on what your definition of 'is' is."

One single sentence that fully conveys Clinton's douche-factor.