If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
bush's policy U turn.
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
bush's latest plea to the UN and other nations ...HELP! we fucked up big style in iraq ...it aint working. we can't do it alone ...
a complete U turn. a complete reversal of policy.
i think everyone should tell him to fuck off. an international force should agree to take over the rebuilding if the ilegal and incompetent idiots who caused this shambles leave town first!
a complete U turn. a complete reversal of policy.
i think everyone should tell him to fuck off. an international force should agree to take over the rebuilding if the ilegal and incompetent idiots who caused this shambles leave town first!
0
Comments
Of course the tell tale proof of the pudding is the premier position of control maintained by Washington in this new resolution.
Just another way of saying "Hey folks, come on in so any further mess can be sloughed off onto you come campaign time".
Later this month, Secretary Powell will meet with representatives of many nations to discuss their financial contributions to the reconstruction of Afghanistan. Next month, he will hold a similar funding conference for the reconstruction of Iraq. Europe, Japan and states in the Middle East all will benefit from the success of freedom in these two countries, and they should contribute to that success.
Second, we are committed to expanding international cooperation in the reconstruction and security of Iraq, just as we are in Afghanistan. Our military commanders in Iraq advise me that the current number of American troops -- near! ly 130,000 -- is appropriate to their mission. They are joined by over 20,000 service members from 29 other countries. Two multinational divisions, led by the British and the Poles, are serving alongside our forces -- and in order to share the burden more broadly, our commanders have requested a third multinational division to serve in Iraq.
So he is asking for 1 division of a multi-national force and some money to aid in reconstruction.
It's really not that much to ask, however if the decision were mine we'd be asking for nothing. (So the Bush Administration and I separate on policy again)
This has nothing to do with the troops or the money (both of which America could provide alone) but it is about trying to put an international face on this and appease the left.
This is a campaign trick to dilute the blame for an illegal and arrogant dismissal of the UN charter (to which we are sworn signatories like it or not) and rush to militant aggression which has only resulted in one embarassment after another for these criminals.
As events have vindicated every other liberal argument against this administration, this too will clearly be seen for what it is whether it passes or not.
I actually hope it doesnt, I want Bush and co and all their supporters holding the bag for all of America to see when voting time comes. All the better to oust them from their stolen offices for good.
British To Reinforce Troop Strength.
In Britain, America has a great friend and ally.
Or "if Bush says jump, Blair asks how high".
The US is not willing to share control or award contracts on a fair basis - I believe that Germany for example has been blacklisted from any Iraq contracts because of their opposition. Not that it matters much, we backed America more than anyone else and we got bugger all from the contracts almost all went to American firms. The US is not even willing to admit they cocked up and need help continuing in their arrogant and belligerant tone.
The war was a mistake in my opinion and I think a growing majority in both America and Britain believe that. Congress is actually looking hard at Bush's request for $87bn and I expect that they won't get the full amount but will get some increased funding. Meanwhile on this side of the pond approximately 60% of Britons think we should withdraw from Iraq in some fashion with 29% demanding we withdraw now.
I saw a good cartoon in The Economist which I think explains the dilemma really well, it has Bush in a tank and Uncle Sam sitting on the side as they dig themselves into a muddy quagmire labelled Iraq. Bush says "We will not retreat" and Uncle Sam says "But will we advance?" What sane international leader would get his country involved in what some are already calling the new Vietnam?
bush and his cronies have screwed up big time and tony blair went along with it all.
our great leaders aye. what qualifications do they have for doing what they do? none at all. just your vote.
i doubt i'll be voting for quite some time.
You mate, have hit the nail on the head with your post above:
That is why Congress will give Bush his full request of 87 Billion. (Mark my words here) Even the Democrats on Capital Hill that did not support this campaign in Iraq realize American must fulfill is obligation there. (Directed at kelvar85)
Now if folks actually believe an additional 15,000 international troops will be the difference between success and failure then they are mistaken. This request for an "international face" is purely political.
Now some may have noticed that I used the term “campaign” regarding Iraq. That is due to the fact that this campaign is part of the much larger war on terror. Make no mistake, Iraq has become the front line in this war, and rightly so. This gives the COW the opportunity to take out terrorists that are pouring across the borders from Iran and Syria in their suicidal mission to engage our forces. I still maintain it is better to fight the enemy on their soil and not our own. People on this side of the pond are not ready to cut and run (save some liberal whiners.) It seems the bad guys have badly miscalculated the resolve of Americans when we train our sights on a goal. That goal is to see a free and democratic Iraq, and if that be over the dead bodies of a bunch of thugs, then so be it.
We wouldn't want to interrupt his unquestioning flag waving would we? :rolleyes:
Of further interest is the inherent undermining of your own claims that your hero in the White House has made the world safer contained in your own words.
"Has become" is not the "clear and present danger" or "threat to the west from CBWs ready to launch in 45 minutes" which was the impassioned justification for an urgent invasion (ala conquest).
Seems youd best review what sort of truth and what sort of future for both our nation and the planet you indeed wish for. Of course you and those who continue to cling to an administration exposed for repeated lies and betrayals of the Constitution are perfectly free to avoid the recognition of your hypocritical attacks on anyone but those presently at the helm. Such tenacious inconsistency only discredits the right wing propaganda all the more without any assistance from the left.
Kudos.
[Some interesting reading on where the beligerent and ever winding rhetoric has brought us to date]
http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=934
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/09/opinion/09KRUG.html?ex=1064081818&ei=1&en=99e249f35ae905d8
So Bandito you see no risk of the Democrats, or even some Democrats, attaching themselves to the "Bring our Boys Home" campaign? Especially when it's mostly the servicemens families who are asking for their return. Surely President Bush believes the job is done if his "Mission Accomplished" banner on the USS Abraham Lincoln was anything to go by? Also I saw Condeleeza Rice on the news last night saying that the aim of the administration was to remove Saddam (to deflect from the issue of WMDs) therefore if she is stating the aim was to remove Saddam and that has been done there is no reason according to the administration's logic to still be in Iraq? Or at least not to allow a UN peacekeeping force to be set up and sent there to control Iraq instead?
So you agree that the international troops Bush is asking for is just a cover to allow him to dump the blame on loss of American lives onto them during the election campaign?
Bandito, if you believe that America has to finish it's jobs before going onto the next one - why didn't Bush send more troops to Afghanistan to stabilise that country and hunt down bin Laden? Surely it's a contradiction to do this in Iraq and not in Afghanistan?
Also Bandito these terrorists never entered Iraq when Saddam was in power. Saddam hated the Islamic extremists and vice versa hence the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s between secular Iraq and Islamic Iran. So surely you have to agree that the war on Iraq has in fact actually increased the ability of the terrorists to build bases in Iraq?
I also think you should look at what happened to Germany after the First World War with the creation of the Weimar government for a comparison with modern day Iraq which is what happens when you impose democracy on people. Also you guys have had effective control of Iraq for over a hundred days now, why can't you fix their power plants, gas and water supplies? (Unless the National Grid, British Gas and Thames Water have the contracts for these services in which case I fully understand! )
Quote:
So Bandito you see no risk of the Democrats, or even some Democrats, attaching themselves to the "Bring our Boys Home" campaign?
Yes, I see risk. The risk is for the Democrats. Americans already choose the Republican approach 2 to 1 in all matters concerning the Military and National security issues. Americans are starkly aware that Democrats are weak on National Defense and have been going back to Harry S Truman. So let them keep showing how soft they are on the War on Terrorism and that will translate in to another four years of GW Bush.
Especially when it's mostly the servicemens families who are asking for their return.
There are a very few that are, (No where near a majority) if you have documentation to show otherwise you may post it.
This may be of Interest
So you agree that the international troops Bush is asking for is just a cover to allow him to dump the blame on loss of American lives onto them during the election campaign?
No, not exactly. Face the facts; the US Military conducted one of the quickest and most successful military victories in the history of mankind, with minimal loss of American life. The price we paid in life pales in comparison to Vietnam, Korea, WWII or our own Civil War. I am not minimizing the American heroes that have paid the ultimate price, but you must keep the situation in perspective.
You must understand George Bush. Even as Governor of Texas he had a way of taking the issues away from Democrats and making them his own. This is just another attempt to do just that. By putting a small international face on this it will deflect criticism but has nothing to do with blame for American casualties. It’s a political move, right or wrong.
And also to "one of the quickest and most successful military victories in the history of mankind". You weren't exactly facing a fearsome opposition were you? A few tens of thousands of starving, ill-equipped conscripts with 10 tanks between them and no air support. I think the Andorran Border Guards would have also achieved a glorious victory with not much of a problem.
as shown by http://www.guardian.co.uk/hutton/story/0,13822,1040335,00.html
Quote
126. The JIC reported [on February 10 2003] that there was no intelligence that Iraq had provided CB materials to al-Qaida or of Iraqi intentions to conduct CB terrorist attacks using Iraqi intelligence officials or their agents. However, it judged that in the event of imminent regime collapse there would be a risk of transfer of such material, whether or not as a deliberate Iraqi regime policy. The JIC assessed that al-Qaida and associated groups continued to represent by far the greatest terrorist threat to western interests, and that threat would be heightened by military action against Iraq.
127. The JIC assessed that any collapse of the Iraqi regime would increase the risk of CB weapons finding their way into the hands of terrorists.
And also to "one of the quickest and most successful military victories in the history of mankind". You weren't exactly facing a fearsome opposition were you? A few tens of thousands of starving, ill-equipped conscripts with 10 tanks between them and no air support. I think the Andorran Border Guards would have also achieved a glorious victory with not much of a problem.
True enough as far as the opposition. However, to listen to the pundits of the left their cries of “there are going to be body bags coming home in the thousands”, and “the war would drag on indefinitely,” etc.
The point is the left has been wrong about everything regarding this excursion into Iraq from the beginning, and it appears that their track record continues. Now the cry is “Vietnam” and “quagmire”.
All our predictions are based on information available by the UN as well as parties interested (US, Britain and others), and of course common sense and a desire not to swallow whole whatever fairy tales our governments sprout. The assertion that the war was going to be long came from the US and Britain's endless warnings that Iraq had one of the most formidable armies ever, and was definitive, constant and present threat to others. But as it happens that turned out to be lies (as pretty much everything else the US and British governments have proclaimed). The Allies must have been the first ones to be fully aware of Iraq's piss-poor military capacity. But of course, admitting this to the world would have undermined their case that Saddam was the biggest danger to the world today. LOL.
On issues where there was information available other than the Allies', "the Left" (a wrong assumption anyway since opponents of the war have proven to be of all political denominations and walks of life) has been proven right again and again.
We said Saddam no longer had WMDs: correct.
We said Saddam posed no danger to others: correct.
We said Saddam had no links with Al Qaida: correct.
We said the Allies would not keep their pre-war promises regarding UN role: correct.
We said the Allies would not keep their pre-war promises regarding oil control: correct.
We said that terrorist presence would increase if Saddam was removed: correct.
We said that a war would leave the country in much worse turmoil than it was under Saddam: correct.
We said the US would be in for a long occupation: correct.
We said the US would interfere in the reform process and install a puppet regime: so far correct.
We said that an invasion and conquest would not result in a true democratic government in Iraq: so far correct with no prospect of free elections in the foreseeable future.
We said a war would only achieve further straining relations with the Arab world rather than improving them by gracefully "liberating" the Iraqis: correct.
In fact, I'm really struggling here to find a single prediction uttered by the warmongers, however minor, that has turned up to be true.
Iraq is no Vietnam yet (the rate of deaths is nowhere near), but things are certainly not going Uncle Sam's way with a guerrilla war and an organised resistance that has taken more lives now than the Iraqi army did during the war. There is no prospect of leave for the 150,000 troops stationed there and a gloomy scenario for years to come.
No, I think "the Left" got it pretty much right about the war my friend.
I don't give credit to the President for the military victory over Iraq.
That credit goes solely to the United States and British Military.
Takes more to win than smashing a country to bits im afraid. How typically shortsighted you right wingers are Bandito, tenaciously clinging to some misguided view of what's best for the world whilst the world plunges into even greater insecurity precisely because of that militant myopia.