• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What Do You Make Of Bush's New Iraq Plan?

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
My immediate impression: Too little, too late.

Bush has a remarkable history of ignoring advice from those with expertise and experience and then having his plans hit the fan. I expect this scheme will prove no different.

I'm beginning to suspect that the best course in almost any situation is to examine the Bush administration's take on it -- then do the opposite.
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
Booko said:
What James alraeady said.
Booko said:
I'd only add that we've been fascinated around Chez Booko for the last couple of months watching politicians of ALL political stripes position themselves to just blame the failure on the Iraqis.
Although I was unimpressed with George W.'s "plan" I must admit I am less enthused with his detractor’s ideas. I was laughing my guts out listening to the Democrats response moments after the speech. Their plan is to give them a timed withdrawal. Instantly I imagined all the "freedom fighters" shouting for joy. You can just see them laughing at America and ticking off the days on their calendars.

Admittedly George stuck his foot into a rat's nest with Iraq, but the idea that you can just "walk away" in 4-6 months is so laughable it isn't even funny. In effect, this huge "bull in a china shop" comes through and destroys the shop, and then the prospective new owners of this bull decide to put the bull out to pasture and tell the shop-owners glibly "What's the matter with you people? Clean up your mess, eh. We're out of here."

I wonder why we hear so little about the political realities resulting from a dictatorship. A dictatorship by its very nature creates a political vacuum. It is expecting a bit much for the Iraqi's to just "stand up" and take to the new political realities as they do not have a lot of experience with it in their lifetimes.

As Colin Powell noted, "If you break it; you own it." :yes:
 

Booko

Deviled Hen
YmirGF said:
Although I was unimpressed with George W.'s "plan" I must admit I am less enthused with his detractor’s ideas. I was laughing my guts out listening to the Democrats response moments after the speech. Their plan is to give them a timed withdrawal. Instantly I imagined all the "freedom fighters" shouting for joy. You can just see them laughing at America and ticking off the days on their calendars.


It's a criticism the Dems opponents often make, and it's a valid criticism I think. I keep harking back to Powell and Armitage's comment about "Pottery Barn Rules."

Admittedly George stuck his foot into a rat's nest with
Iraq, but the idea that you can just "walk away" in 4-6 months is so laughable it isn't even funny. In effect, this huge "bull in a china shop" comes through and destroys the shop, and then the prospective new owners of this bull decide to put the bull out to pasture and tell the shop-owners glibly "What's the matter with you people? Clean up your mess, eh. We're out of here."


Sure, but we did it in Vietnam and the Soviets did it in Afghanistan. Believe me, if the national debt keeps getting ever higher and there appears to be no simple justification for staying in Iraq we'll just be outta there. It would have to be something like "terrorists" or "WMD", because "basing rights" and "access to oil" and "keeping Iran in check" seem to be just too complicated for the average American to comprehend. Well, they could comprehend it if they were paying attention -- but they mostly aren't. If you can't explalin it in 25 words or less here, you've lost your audience. Welcome to Short Attention Span Theatre!

If your grams can't afford her meds and you and your kids have no health coverage and the economy tanks because of our fiscal irresponsility, most people will not care a white about whether we leave a mess in Iraq. Lots of people have no clue where it is on the globe anyway -- we're just that isolated. American opinion will easily swing to believe that those crazy jihadist Muslims (blah blah blah) are just not "deserving" and to heck with them anyway -- let them kill themselves, if that's what the choose.

I wonder why we hear so little about the political realities resulting from a dictatorship. A dictatorship by its very nature creates a political vacuum. It is expecting a bit much for the Iraqi's to just "stand up" and take to the new political realities as they do not have a lot of experience with it in their lifetimes.
Because it can't be explained in 25 words or less?

I think it's patently absurd and naive in the extreme to expect a people with little experience in democracy to just suddenly get it. Look at what it took us -- it was more than 3 years. We had a cultural history in Britain to draw on (going back to Magna Carta even), the writings of people like Paine, people discussed this in taverns and churches for years in the colonies.

It's not like someone woke up one day and said, "Hey! We hate tea taxes! Let's have a revolution!" and the next thing you knew we were totally set up as a constitutional republic.

And if anyone thinks a Middle Eastern state will ever have a democracy anything like ours, they have utterly failed to understand the completely foreign nature of "separation of church and state" to the Middle Eastern Muslim mind.

They will eventually have democracy -- but it will be their own kind on their own cultural terms.
 

Booko

Deviled Hen
Seyorni said:
So it's preferable to leave the bull in the shop, or even add another bull?

Well, this is the Catch-22 in which we now find ourselves, ain't it?

And if this bull leaves, what other bull or bulls will take our place? Would it be better or worse?
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
Booko said:
Well, this is the Catch-22 in which we now find ourselves, ain't it?

And if this bull leaves, what other bull or bulls will take our place? Would it be better or worse?
Thank god someone understands me, lol. If America pulls out how long do folks think it will be before Iran moves in?

Double the oil, double the fun and double the jeopardy... all controlled by lunatics.
Frankly, which are worse incompetents with good hearts or lunatics on a mission from gawd?


I do agree with everything you wrote Booko. The cost may be very high, but it is what Americans are going to have to pay.
 

doppelganger

Through the Looking Glass
YmirGF said:
Thank god someone understands me, lol. If America pulls out how long do folks think it will be before Iran moves in?
Or put another way, what happens if the American economy and military are laid to waste in years of endless struggle trying to force a government on people who don't want it, and Iran takes over anyway when the U.S. finally just can't afford to fight anymore?
 

NoahideHiker

Religious Headbanger
RevOxley_501 said:
umm well


NOT throwing money at the problem
NOT avoiding peace talks with the Resistance organizations.
NOT shooting civilians


thats just a start

Well, this is all well and good but good luck getting this out of anyone in Washington. So you're looking for a cheap war where we sit down to talks with with terrorists and confirm that, yes indeed, terrorism does work and it's a good way to go and you want all this to be done with no civies accidently being killed.

I can't be sure but I think you are wanting France's army in there. LOL!
 

ChrisP

Veteran Member
doppelgänger said:
Friends don't let friends drive the country while drunk.
Friends don't let friends play with soft toys in the white house...

"Momma, where's teeeedddy..."
 

PureX

Veteran Member
JamesThePersian said:
Not much

No, and by the looks of it the American military don't either. Bush's substitution of his own 'genius' for the advice of his generals reminds me of nothing so much as Hitler's interference in military tactics during WWII, and we know how successful that was.

No. It's short-sighted, prejudiced and criminally stupid in my opinion. Not unexpected, though.

James
James, I think you pretty much nailed it.

All Bush is doing is sacrificing more American soldiers so as to manufacture himself yet one more illusion of progress in Iraq. Men and women will die, and we will kill a bunch more Iraqis, and Bush will claim they were all "terrorists" and that we are now making headway when in reality it will just be more of the same old pointless violence.

Bush and America lost this war by starting it. There was never any real chance for any other outcome, even if we'd gone in with twice as many troops. The Iraqis were bound to fall into a civil war over who's going to run things and there was nothing we could ever have done to change that. All we could ever do was put off the inevitable by stepping in between the two competing groups and becoming the target for both of them for as long as we remained in between. Only someone as stupid as George Bush could have NOT seen that going in, as it is a lesson that history has taught invading and occupying nations time and time again. But George Bush didn't like reading history books, or any other kind of books, so he rejected and punished all the generals who had read them, because he's the worst kind of fool: a fool who is so foolish that he actually thinks he's wise. And now he's stuck, and being the fool that he is, can only continue to repeat his same mistakes over and over, because he's incapable of recognizing that he made any mistakes at all.

Congratulations to America, to conservative Christians, and to the republican party, for producing and electing the worst president in U.S. history.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
YmirGF said:
Thank god someone understands me, lol. If America pulls out how long do folks think it will be before Iran moves in?

Double the oil, double the fun and double the jeopardy... all controlled by lunatics.
Frankly, which are worse incompetents with good hearts or lunatics on a mission from gawd?


I do agree with everything you wrote Booko. The cost may be very high, but it is what Americans are going to have to pay.
First off, Iran is not being run by lunatics. It's a stable nation in spite of it's religious furver. Secondly, as much as Iranians dislike U.S. government, they genuinely like Americans, and aspire to a somewhat more open and democratic society for themselves, and have in fact been slowly and steadily moving in that direction for decades, and WITHOUT U.S. HELP OR THREATS.

Also, it is foolishness to think that because Iran is an Aribic and predominantly Muslim nation that it could so easily step into the mess in Iraq and suddenly control it. It would be a very difficult undertaking for Iran to take over Iraq, and the factions in Iraq who want to be in power will resent Iranian control just as they resented us. And to tell you the truth, Iran taking over Iraq would be the BEST scenario for Iraq. Because the alternatives will be either an even more violent and unstable nation than Iran taking over, or more likely, Iraq becoming another Afghanistan - a free area for every criminal, jihadist, power-mad suicidal dictator in the Islamic world, and brother that is no small number, and no small problem.

If we had any damn sense, we'd befriend Iran mighty quick, and invite them to take control of Iraq, and offer them as much help in doing so as we are able to give. Because right now, Iran is the only relatively stable player on the whole field. And believe it or not, Iran and we have similar ideas and interests in where Iraq ends up.
 

Capt. Haddock

Evil Mouse
PureX said:
.

Also, it is foolishness to think that because Iran is an Aribic and predominantly Muslim nation that it could so easily step into the mess in Iraq and suddenly control it.

Just a pedantic point, but Iran is NOT an Arab country. They're Muslims, yes, but if you call an Iranian an Arab, them's fightin' words.

Here's an idea: why don't we hire the Ethiopians to go into Iraq. Anybody notice how the Ethiopians have been cleaning the floor with Somalia's Islamists lately? They obviously know a thing or two. God knows they could use the cash. Anyway, the Bushistas love outsourcing, don't they? Pity Dick Cheney doesn't own stock in Ethiopia.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Capt. Haddock said:
Just a pedantic point, but Iran is NOT an Arab country. They're Muslims, yes, but if you call an Iranian an Arab, them's fightin' words.
Thank you. I stand corrected.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
It makes me think that Sun Tzu really did know warfare. Bush does everything he said not to do, and what he predicted would happen should you fail to follow his teachings is happening in Iraq and America.
"All of war is based on deciet.....if you are strong, make it seem you are weak, if you are weak, make it seem you are strong." Bush and Rice made it clear moral, both in the citizens and army, is low and thier are thousands of troops under Bush's service.
"Whoever is first in the field and awaits the coming of the enemy, will be fresh for the fight; whoever is second in the field and has to hasten to battle will arrive exhausted."
Even the ancient Asians would call this war a mess.
 

linwood

Well-Known Member
PureX said:
If we had any damn sense, we'd befriend Iran mighty quick, and invite them to take control of Iraq, and offer them as much help in doing so as we are able to give. Because right now, Iran is the only relatively stable player on the whole field. And believe it or not, Iran and we have similar ideas and interests in where Iraq ends up.

For some reason I can`t put my finger on this has a ring of logic to it.

Can you explain your thoughts on this in more detail?

I`m interested on your take of Irans "similar ideas and interests" mostly
 

robtex

Veteran Member
Sunstone said:
Do you agree with Bush's refussal to negotiate with the Syrians and Iranians?

I think this is an important note in all of this. Bushes inablity and refusual to negociate in the middle east in general including the ones listed here sends a clear message to the middle eastern countries of comply or face military consquences. This program, which his father used as well has more of a chance of creating a solidary of muslim nations against the great satan of the west than it does of reaching any long-term resolutions. I understand Bushd doesn't have a strong vocabulary or negociation background, but in executive branch, and within his goverment he has some excellent negociators and in long run, which is how this should be viewed, instead of a bomb Iraq, kill rebels and than split plan, neogciations is the best tool for the job in USA mideast relations and a gun, by contrast should be last on the list.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
linwood said:
For some reason I can`t put my finger on this has a ring of logic to it.

Can you explain your thoughts on this in more detail?

I`m interested on your take of Irans "similar ideas and interests" mostly
Like it or not, Iran is a stable and prosperous nation. And it's soon going to become a nuclear nation as well. We can stomp our feet and wring our hands all we want, but this is a fact of life and our tantrums are not going to change it. So instead of behaving like silly toddlers about it, it would make a whole lot more sense to look closely at Iran for some points of mutual interest and goals, and to begin working on developing a positive relationship with what will soon be a major first-world nation.

If we were to do so, we would soon discover that the Iranians are not a bunch of crazy religious zealots, or terrorists, or bizarre foreign madmen. What they are is intelligent, forward-thinking people who are fiercely proud of the progress their nation has made over the last 25 years and of their having done so independent of U.S. (or anyone else's) meddling. They detest the U.S. government because of the way we've treated Iran in the past (and rightly so), and because we continue to support Israel blindly and unconditionally. However, they admire the American people and aspire to become a more free and open society, themselves, as time passes. They do want to emulate our economic and creative freedom, but they do NOT want the cultural malaise that has come with it in the U.S.; they are Muslims after all, and are deeply offended by much of the cultural immorality that we allow in the name of freedom, and spread to the rest of the world. Which is why they have been progressing very slowly into the company of "modern" nations and is why even the youngest and most progressive-minded Iranians tend to still support the conservative Mullahs (sp?) when we speak against them. They want a slow and careful progression into a more modern and open society, but they also want to keep their Muslim morals and principals and to avoid the cultural decay that they have seen happen to the other first-world nations, like ours.

Because Iran is a stable and progressive nation, it is in their interest to help the nations around them toward peace and stability as well. And toward a more progressive and less extremist relationship with themselves and the rest of the world. In this, we share the same goals for Iraq. I do not believe that the Iranians are stupid enough to want to "take over" Iraq. That would bring them nothing but trouble, just has it has us. I also do not believe that Iran wants to see Iraq turn into a haven for all the world's religious zealots, extremists, jihadists, terrorists and despots, whether they are Muslim or not. This would create a very dangerous environment right next door to them, and they definitely would not want this any more that we would. So in actuality, I believe that Iran and the U.S. actually share the same fears and desire the same general outcome for Iraq. And if we were to work together with Iran, and allow them to take the lead (because they are a Muslim nation) in rebuilding Iraq, we just might be able to salvage an otherwise completely wrecked nation, and in the process, we just might find an new and important ally in the region.

There are many issues, such as Israel, that we and Iran would have to agree to disagree on, for the time being, but there are some very important issues that I believe we share a common goal with iran, on, and could work together with them on solving. And one of them is Iraq.
 

Lindsey-Loo

Steel Magnolia
I basically just feel that it's too little, too late (in the words of my history teacher). Additional troops might help, might not. I doubt they'll ever get over there, though, because the democrats have congress, and the $$$. So we'll probably never find out. Half of me just wants pull out of Iraq completely, cause I feel that we're just wasting time and lives over there, and not accomplishing anything. But I can't ignore the fact that pulling out would just give the terrorists the oppurtunity to plan more attacks on us...
 

Ozzie

Well-Known Member
Sunstone said:
What do you make of Bush's new Iraq plan? Do you think 21,000 additional troops will turn the tide? Do you agree with Bush's refussal to negotiate with the Syrians and Iranians?
Palliative care for a terminally ill policy.
 
Top