Is President Bush Changing His Tune?

[007]

Something I heard President Bush recently say has stuck in my craw. He said, "that we'll pull out of Iraq when the conditions on the ground improve". Hmmmm. Wasn't what he said not long ago, "that we'll pull out of Iraq as soon as the Iraqi military can take over"?

One statement is vastly different from the other, and I have a HUGE problem with the first. The middle east, of which Iraq is no different, has had MAJOR problems with religous zealots and extremists fighting and blowing shit up for THOUSANDS OF YEARS! So President Bush saying we'll pull out when the conditions improve could mean NEVER!

Damn it! I want to support the man, and I think what we did in Iraq was good, but I DO NOT support some open-ended, never get the hell out of Iraq ideas.

 

[Nightwish]

I think that cutting and running would be a horrible idea. This war was a bad idea from the start, but now that we're there, we need to try to salvage it and pull out with some dignity intact. And the Repubs are right, we can't afford to lose this war. But I think some of the Dems are also right, that if things continue on their present course, we can't win it, not this way. Unfortunately, Bush's "plan for victory," which he unveiled last month is unrealistically vague and far-reaching, and goes out of its way to ignore the history and propensities of the region. He needs to come up with something more realistic and more concise. He also needs to let go of his pipe dream of establishing a democracy in Iraq that is modeled after Western values. Ain't gonna happen, at least not in our lifetimes. Far better men than Bush have tried, and fallen on their faces every time.

 

[Emmett]

Our intentions were good! Our intelligence was bad!!!!!! Sadam was a tyrant!!!!! We did the right thing!!!!!!!!!!!!! It is the Iraqis' game!!!!!!!! It is time to GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!






Next Door!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Nightwish]

Our intentions were good! Our intelligence was bad!!!!!! Sadam was a tyrant!!!!! We did the right thing!!!!!!!!!!!!! It is the Iraqis' game!!!!!!!! It is time to GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!






Next Door!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Unfortunately, if we leave now, without the Iraqis being ready to take over and provide stability, it will be seen as a concession to the insurgents, as if we were run out or scared off. That would be a bad thing.

 

[007]

Unfortunately, if we leave now, without the Iraqis being ready to take over and provide stability, it will be seen as a concession to the insurgents, as if we were run out or scared off. That would be a bad thing.

True. We can't leave now.

But you didn't seem to address my concern. When should we pull out?

When the conditions on the ground improve? Which most likely will be NEVER.

Or when the Iraqi's army is up to the task?

They're two entirely different things.

 

[Nightwish]

True. We can't leave now.

But you didn't seem to address my concern. When should we pull out?

When the conditions on the ground improve? Which most likely will be NEVER.

Or when the Iraqi's army is up to the task?

They're two entirely different things.

I'd favor the latter, when the Iraqi army is up to the task. Murtha's proposal was simplistic and left a lot to be desired (though it wasn't accurately a complete cut and run strategy like his critics claimed), but I did like his idea of maintaining a quick reaction force and an over-the-horizon presence. Of course, I'm not a military strategist, so I don't have the foggiest idea what that would ultimately entail.

 

[007]

I'd favor the latter, when the Iraqi army is up to the task. Murtha's proposal was simplistic and left a lot to be desired (though it wasn't accurately a complete cut and run strategy like his critics claimed), but I did like his idea of maintaining a quick reaction force and an over-the-horizon presence. Of course, I'm not a military strategist, so I don't have the foggiest idea what that would ultimately entail.

Murtha's actions were nothing more than a democrat stunt. They're hatred of President Bush has pushed them to the limits of their composure.

And I was under the impression that as soon as the Iraqi army was able to do their own fighting, we'd pull out. Not as I heard Bush saying again, that we wouldn't leave until things on the ground improved. Hell that could mean never. I do think now that we have a standing army in the middle east, it might be good idea to mantain a presence in the region, that wasn't supposed to be in direct combat with anyone unless attacked. Of course that could backfire too. Tricky situation. In any case, it's kept the terrorists off American soil, and that's a very good thing.

 

[Nightwish]

Murtha's actions were nothing more than a democrat stunt. They're hatred of President Bush has pushed them to the limits of their composure.

And I was under the impression that as soon as the Iraqi army was able to do their own fighting, we'd pull out. Not as I heard Bush saying again, that we wouldn't leave until things on the ground improved. Hell that could mean never. I do think now that we have a standing army in the middle east, it might be good idea to mantain a presence in the region, that wasn't supposed to be in direct combat with anyone unless attacked. Of course that could backfire too. Tricky situation. In any case, it's kept the terrorists off American soil, and that's a very good thing.

The intentions behind Murtha's proposal are a subject for another thread. I was just noting that I did like that particular aspect of the proposal. As I said, I would favor waiting until the Iraqis are ready, not for some vaguely defined future condition of security, but time will tell what's really going to happen.

 

[archangel]

I'd favor the latter, when the Iraqi army is up to the task. Murtha's proposal was simplistic and left a lot to be desired (though it wasn't accurately a complete cut and run strategy like his critics claimed), but I did like his idea of maintaining a quick reaction force and an over-the-horizon presence. Of course, I'm not a military strategist, so I don't have the foggiest idea what that would ultimately entail.

however, I will give him the benefit of the doubt as to his intentions,since he was a actual VN vet and well decorated...unlike Lt.Kerry the phoney!
As for "quick reaction forces" I can only assume he was refering to Ranger units...or Special Ops!..However, I believe this was already tried in Iraq prior to the invasion!

 

[007]

The intentions behind Murtha's proposal are a subject for another thread.

So when you're a mod, I'll take that suggestion into consideration. Until then, if I feel a need to comment on the actions of a certain liberal, I'll do so at my own lesiure, as most others do here as well.

I was just noting that I did like that particular aspect of the proposal. As I said, I would favor waiting until the Iraqis are ready, not for some vaguely defined future condition of security, but time will tell what's really going to happen.

We're on the same page here. I'd like nothing more than to see a complete withdrawl of our troops from Iraq, but how and when we do needs to be laid out with complete clarity.

 

[theim]

The big mistake about Iraq was letting the left run rampant with their Vietnam analogy. Any cursory comparison of the two situations reveals this as an obvious farce (dense jungle vs. desert, no/little governmental support for enemy, democratic allied government, and the fact that only 2,100 have died in over two years), yet now every single politician is talking about Iraq as something that we need to get out of. Another score for the brilliant yet loathsome lefty PR machine.

 

[Nightwish]

The big mistake about Iraq was letting the left run rampant with their Vietnam analogy. Any cursory comparison of the two situations reveals this as an obvious farce (dense jungle vs. desert, no/little governmental support for enemy, democratic allied government, and the fact that only 2,100 have died in over two years), yet now every single politician is talking about Iraq as something that we need to get out of. Another score for the brilliant yet loathsome lefty PR machine.

I agree that many of the Vietnam comments are unwarranted, and border on invoking Godwin's Law. But no, that isn't "the big mistake" about Iraq. It's annoying, but it's inconsequential. The fact that some folks are bringing up the specter of Vietnam is not what is making people antsy about getting our troops out of there. If you take a look at the current cost tally for the war, at the number of soldiers who've died since major hostilities ended (vs the number who died before those hostilities ended), you'll get a better picture of why so many people from both the left and the right want our kids out of there.

As far as the numbers of the dead, somebody on another website once posted a list comparing the dead in Vietnam and the dead in Iraq (US soldiers, I mean), and if I remember correctly, the numbers were pretty darn close at the same stage of occupation. Nevertheless, the resemblances to Vietnam are superficial at best, and this a whole different war, so I agree that most of those comparisons are silly.

 

[Gunny]

Something I heard President Bush recently say has stuck in my craw. He said, "that we'll pull out of Iraq when the conditions on the ground improve". Hmmmm. Wasn't what he said not long ago, "that we'll pull out of Iraq as soon as the Iraqi military can take over"?

One statement is vastly different from the other, and I have a HUGE problem with the first. The middle east, of which Iraq is no different, has had MAJOR problems with religous zealots and extremists fighting and blowing shit up for THOUSANDS OF YEARS! So President Bush saying we'll pull out when the conditions improve could mean NEVER!

Damn it! I want to support the man, and I think what we did in Iraq was good, but I DO NOT support some open-ended, never get the hell out of Iraq ideas.

While you may be reading one statement as far different than the other, I don't think he made them with that in mind. He has stated repeatedly since the start that we would pull out basically when the Iraqi government can stand on its own. To me, that would include a military and police force capable of sustaining themselves against Islamic terrorists.

This of course exposed a glaringly obvious tactical flaw on the part of the Islamic fundamentalists. Instead of going to ground to hasten our departure so they can carry on their nefarious deeds unhindered by us, they continue to attack, prolonging our stay.

But face facts. We're STILL in Europe. We're STILL in Korea and the rest of the Far East. We've offically been back in the Middle East since 1990. I honestly don't see us leaving anytime soon.

 

[Earthling]

I think the most important factor for leaving or staying is 'Do the Iraqui people want us there?' Go with the majority of the people most affected by our presence.