The President's brochure..er-um War Plan

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by Palestinian Jew, Nov 30, 2005.

  1. Palestinian Jew
    Offline

    Palestinian Jew Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2003
    Messages:
    903
    Thanks Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Fayetteville
    Ratings:
    +18
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html

    I'm assuming everyone here is going to read this because finally the Bush Admin has released some sort of plan, rather than the "they hate us for our freedom" non-sense.

    But still, you'd think the "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq" would have more numbers and facts in it and stated goals, such as at what level do we deem the Iraqi economy successful? What is being done to ensure a democratic gov't is instated? Basically, the Bush Admin is assuming democracy will be embraced. I doubt they've even taken the scenario seriously that the Iraqi people would prefer a theocracy.

    And what was that I saw at the end of the plan, the word "insurgent". Rummy would not be too pleased after his diatribe yesterday, but in all likelihood he'll never read the Strategy for Victory.
     
  2. Mariner
    Offline

    Mariner Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2004
    Messages:
    772
    Thanks Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Boston, Mass.
    Ratings:
    +52
    there hasn't been much comment here on the President's speech or war plan.

    I too was taken aback by his use of the word "insurgent." For three years now, I've been unable to understand his constant conflating of different types of terrorists with one another. Palestinians who bomb Israel, Al Qaeda members who committed 9/11, and home-grown insurgents who are responding to the fact that U.S. troops killed their innocent relatives are all entirely different groups--and there are 100s of such groups. Bush's constant babble about "those who want to kill us" confuses this issue unnecessarily.

    But the most surprising thing in his speech was very subtle--but couldn't possibly be accidental. He said something about how leaving Iraq now would risk allowing Al Qaeda to "turn Iraq into" a base for terrorism. That's a subtle but very meaningful admission that Iraq was not previously a base for Al Qaeda terrorism. Bush was of course forced into this admission by the revelation of the report he got on 9/21/01 debunking the notion that Saddam had any role in 9/11. Still it's amazing to me that he actually said it, implying that the invasion could potentially make us less safe, not more.
    In all his run-up to the war, he never once considered downsides or the possibility of failure.

    Mariner.
     
  3. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    Bush has never claimed Iraq was a base for Al Qaeda. He claimed a connection between bin Laden and Hussein. As remote as it was, THAT was not a lie.

    And there was in fact, an Al Qaeda training base in NW Iraq during Saddam's reign.

    You're seeing what isn't there.
     
  4. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,548
    Thanks Received:
    8,163
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,163
    You know, you would think you liberals would attempt to be intellectually honest here.

    This war plan is nothing new. Its the same one that has been around since before we went it. Only difference now it was outlined on 48 pages and given to the public to shut you libs up because you've been denying it exists.

    Of course, you guys still have no plan. And the fact that the President has an indepth plan still doesn't satisfy you. So honestly I am not sure why the President should care what the heck you think about the war or the plan. It's obvious he cant do anything youd approve of. So who cares?
     
  5. deaddude
    Offline

    deaddude Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,403
    Thanks Received:
    77
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +77

    We agree, this is a ploy to " shut libs up." Now they will point to this document every time some one asks about their plan. So rather than a war plan we get a vague 48 page insipid political ploy.
     
  6. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    Exactly---how many times do you libs need to hear the plan--is to too frickin complicated or so good that you have no idea on how to attack it? WE WILL STAY UNTIL OUR JOB IS DONE AND THE IRAQIS TELL US THEY ARE READY TO GO IT ON THEIR OWN.
    PS--you will not get a deadline like 3:27AM on Dec 28th because that would be really stupid. Now sit down and see if you can think of 3 reasons why that would be a stupid idea----( it's not even a timed test--I don't care how long it takes you--you can take years if you can only get it right)
     
  7. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Hey, it was the LIBS plan, you forgot!
     
  8. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    Then they outta know the fricken plan by now and shut up. I mean really--playing stupid isn't even challenging.
     
  9. Psychoblues
    Offline

    Psychoblues Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    2,701
    Thanks Received:
    142
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Missisippi
    Ratings:
    +143
    Once again you're so full of shit, gunnyl. 'Tis absolutely true that Al Queda had a training camp in Northwest Iraq. 'Tis also absolutely true that the camp was located in a "NO-FLY ZONE". 'Tis also absolutely true that even Saddam Hussein begged for permission to take the camp out to the UN and more emphatically to the United States Of America. He was absolutely refused permission to do so. But, now you make the allegation Hussein and Iraqi peoples in general were somehow complicit in Al Queda objectives.

    That's a crock you lemmings will have to deal with at a later date.

    And GWB DID claim Iraq was a base for Al Queda and you just pointed that out.


    Psyuchoblues

     
  10. Mariner
    Offline

    Mariner Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2004
    Messages:
    772
    Thanks Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Boston, Mass.
    Ratings:
    +52
    I agree with you completely that the Democrats have no better plan. At the moment, I'm equally frustrated with both parties.

    Dilloduck, it really isn't so simple. How do you define "victory" in such a complicated situation? Less that one suicide bombing a week? A month?

    New insurgent groups are appearing every day. I posted here yesterday about how Bush keeps talking about "terrorists" while ignoring the specifics. The NYT has a nice piece today that strongly supports my viewpoint--over 100 named insurgent groups are currently operating in Iraq, with more appearing daily,

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/02/international/middleeast/02insurgency.html?th&emc=th

    Their decentralized, hydra-headed nature might make them very difficult to kill and therefore "victory" might be almost unattainable. As the article points out, all they have to do to "win" is not lose. Simply surviving the full attention of the world's greatest superpower can look like a victory for Allah.

    GunnyL, Bush repeatedly and consistently sought to portray Saddam Hussein as responsible for 9/11, and by the time of the '04 election 53% of the populace believed it. It wasn't true, and we now know that the President himself knew it wasn't true. You don't have to be a liberal to conclude that he used this fear-mongering to justify his invasion--the moment the approval ratings fall below 50% you know that many Republicans see this too.

    As for the economy, I don't agree that it is stronger now than in the Clinton years. Yes, growth is strong, and so is productivity. But wages are stagnant, the rich/poor gap is wider than ever, and, most important to me--our entire economy is dependent on borrowing $4 billion per month from the Chinese, while running a massive trade deficit (hundreds of billions of dollars) with them. Vast deficits and vast debt weaken our country more than Al Qaeda ever could, in my opinion. Did you notice how Bush was quiet as a mouse on his recent China trip? China's as mean to its citizens as Hussein was, but we can't do anything about it, because we're the addicts and they're "our Daddy." And all this simply because Republicans are allergic to taxes and too cowardly to ask us to pay our own way. Better to let the nice Chinese and Saudis bail us out, and hand whatever debt is leftover to our children. Nice behavior. Unpatriotic, in my opinion.

    Mariner.
     

Share This Page