Like father, like son - Bush support starts to unravel over Iraq

[Sava]

I was under the impression the Iraqis attacking US/British troops, were Baathists who had lost what power they had, when Hussein's regime was toppled. It is not a widespread Iraqi rebellion against the US.

It's mostly Al-Qaeda types that have flooded into the country. Saddam kept those types out... he kept the country stable and secular. The US went in, got rid of Saddam, but didn't have any plan to stabilize the country. Poor planning, no vision for afterwards... just like Vietnam

And Vietnam was a failure because we never had a clear objective, and those directing the war were politicians.

and this is different from Iraq how? Bush isn't micromanaging as much, but he certainly isn't giving the military the tools it needs to accomplish it's goals.

The Iraqi people made their desires clear... "no bush no saddam, yes yes for Islam"

Like it or not... this is a clash of civilizations... treating it as anything else will result in failure.

[PLATO]

How can you say we have failed in Iraq? Don't you think you are being just a bit premature? Or did you expect the US to show up and everything to instantly change? Seems pretty naive to label it a failure at this juncture.

[Sava]

Originally posted by PLATO
Sava, I agree with you on the points you outlined. I would say that federal funding is very adequate for defense and education. I have no problem with national policies and national funding on these issues. But when I see my federal dollar being spent to study the maiting habits of snail darters then I think they have to much $$ for our own good. My councilman would not be able to walk out his front door if he voted for that one.

But cutting all funding because of such abuse is not the right thing to do. You don't get rid of corruption that way, it just passes the buck.

Federal policy and funding definately has its place. The problem is that it has overstepped its bounds. Many decisions do belong at the local level. Cutting federal funding (i.e. tax cuts) should force the government to reasses priorities. Unfortunately, Congress has the power of deficiet spending. Not a bad thing in itself, but the abuse the hell out of it to keep from having to make tough decisions. To bad for all of us.

I agree that federal funding has overstepped its bounds... I think corporate subsidation and local pork that congress allocates is the problem. The solutions that conservatives, reaganites, and such have propogated are like chopping off an arm because it has a mosquito bite.

[Sava]

Originally posted by PLATO
How can you say we have failed in Iraq? Don't you think you are being just a bit premature? Or did you expect the US to show up and everything to instantly change? Seems pretty naive to label it a failure at this juncture.

We haven't failed... but we are failing... and Bush isn't changing his approach to things.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sava
Gepap: well regardless of the specific differences... the overall outcomes are the same... failure...

Vietnam lasted 8 years: this has gone on 6 months. This amdin. has gotten off to a lousy start and seems as of yet unwilling to take policy steps that might mitigate their early failures and to fess up to the real eventual costs of this excercise in nationa building. BUt Iraq is not, as of yet, a failure, speically since it is possible to have clear golas vis a vi Iraq. would trully love it if instead of just harping on the WMD issue the dems. acknowledeged that now that we are in Iraq, we have to do everything we can to "win it". In esscence state that while the Bush admin. was good enough to oust Saddam (any admin would be good enough, given the quality of our military), they are not capable of winning the peace. Thus, is Americna wants final and complete victory in Iraq, vote Dem. cause the bush amdin.isn't as capable of doing what now needs to be done.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Verto
And Vietnam was a failure because we never had a clear objective, and those directing the war were politicians.

The part of this excercise to be controlled by the military is relatively over. Today it is Bremmer and then Rummy and Wolfie and Cheney back home who control the policy (OK, eprhaps they let Bush do somehting once in a while). Those folks are all politicians.

[Sava]

Vietnam lasted 8 years: this has gone on 6 months.

this has been going on for 12 years... This is just a continuation of the first Gulf War. Bush's new approach to things isn't making any progress at all. He's turned a relatively stable regime into a situation like the Balkans... secular tension is rising... and worse yet, Islamists from all around the region are flooding in and attacking Western interests with terrorism. Saddam needed to go, but without a plan in place to stabilize the country, we should not have gone in.

The situation will continue to degenerate until Bush allows the UN to step up and take control. A large peacekeeping force is going to be necessary to secure Iraq's borders and stop the influx of terrorists. The US military isn't designed for this role. The US military is designed to destroy a large conventional force... not fight a guerilla war.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by C0ckney
there's a three-way civil war in iraq these days roland? must of missed that one...

What part of "will" do you not understand?

[Dinner]

Right now every little thing that goes wrong in Iraq has the Iraqi people blaming the US. If the lights go out it's the occupiers fault, etc... If Bush had set up an Iraqi ntional government to take care of these issues then we wouldn't have gotten bogged down in these details and the Iraqis could have directed their anger at the new government instead of us.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Right now every little thing that goes wrong in Iraq has the Iraqi people blaming the US. If the lights go out it's the occupiers fault, etc... If Bush had set up an Iraqi ntional government to take care of these issues then we wouldn't have gotten bogged down in these details and the Iraqis could have directed their anger at the new government instead of us.

And then we would be in the position of trying to prop up an increasingly unpopular regime..wow, so much better...

It would be better if we had gone in with a better plan for how to keep the lights on. These guys seriosuly underestimated the possible power vacuum to be created with the fall of the regime.

[Sava]

Right now every little thing that goes wrong in Iraq has the Iraqi people blaming the US.

that's exactly why I wanted UN support for this war... but Bush pissed away the post 9-11 worldwide support he had in a little over than a year. I still remember Jacques Chirac, "We are all Americans...".

[The Andy-Man]

why should the UN have to bail the US out?

The UN should stop being the American *****!

[Sava]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
why should the UN have to bail the US out?

The UN should stop being the American *****!

Don't you realize that type of unilateralist attitude is what got the US in this mess?

[The Andy-Man]

Originally posted by Sava
Don't you realize that type of unilateralist attitude is what got the US in this mess?

If the US had accepted UN help in the first place (before the war) and tried to be a bit more considerate, then I would be all for it.

But if the US gets itself into a mess, it shouldn't be allowed to go crying to other countries to have THEIR soldiers die for US ignorance and stupidity.


If you make your own bed lie in it!
And several other clichés.

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler


What part of "will" do you not understand?

so you're saying there's going to be a three-way civil war in iraq?