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

[Bereta_Eder]

Journalist: What's wrong with the French?

George Bush Senior: They're French

True words.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I'd like to make comment on some things said here.

A) Bush tried longer than he should have to get the U.N. on-board.
B) This was a return to the original war, since conditions of the CEASE FIRE were not met.
C) 1441
D) The U.N. , by their own inaction, is worthless.
E) France, is France. That says it all.
F) There was no place but down to go in the polls, since no President has ever had a higher rating than Bush.
G) There will always be protestors and chicken****s.
In the first days of the U.S., they were known as Tories.

Well said Sloww. Everyone is saying that there was no plan for post war Iraq. I doubt that. The questions is: What was the plan? Where are we in relation to that plan? What adjustments have been made to compensate for plan deviations? Are we evaluating force levels based on current info?

These are legitimate questions. To simply say "We had no plan! We are failing!" is to not apply any realistic logic to the situation.

Bottom line: Rummy, Are we on plan or not!?!

[GePap]

The admin.s plan was based on a whole of sunny assumptions, such like:

We will get a joyous welcome when we go in, large sections of the Iraqi army will surrender in an organized way, Iraqi beaurocrats will stay on the job or will return to work days after the end, meaning that the US will be able to coopt and use the ld arms of the regime,the least quesitonable ones to run the place: we will find all the WMD's we said would be there, proving our case: everyone will be cowed by our overwhelming victory and no one will want to pick on us...

None came true to the extent the admin. thought they would, if they came true in any way at all.

As for Bush tryign to get the UN on board for too long: bullsh1t. The US based its UN timetable almost completely on its military buildup. The time between when the military fet enough pieces were where they needed to be to attack and the time we atatcked was very short. And given the current state of WMD programs, 1441 does not realygive us anything, since as far as we can tell, the Iraqis were tellign the truth on most of the salient points, so you can;t ecven use it as an excuse anymore.

[Ted Striker]

The problem with the UN is that nobody else has any peacekeepers available. Everyone is pretty much stretched thin.

Eurocoms have the best forces next to the US and they are all pretty much used up.

[GePap]

The French and Germans have tens of thousand of men defending their state from..whom? Fellow NATO members?
Besides, peacekeepers don;t have to be top-notch troops. The Indians and Russians have plenty of troops too that would serve just as well.

[Sava]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I'd like to make comment on some things said here.

A) Bush tried longer than he should have to get the U.N. on-board.
B) This was a return to the original war, since conditions of the CEASE FIRE were not met.
C) 1441
D) The U.N. , by their own inaction, is worthless.
E) France, is France. That says it all.
F) There was no place but down to go in the polls, since no President has ever had a higher rating than Bush.
G) There will always be protestors and chicken****s.
In the first days of the U.S., they were known as Tories.

Tories weren't the ones with "dissenting" opinions... the "patriots" were the ones rebelling against the unjust rule of King George...

[Ted Striker]

French and Germans are spread thin also. French all over Africa and Germans are busy down in the Balkans and in Afghanistan. Germans also have Consitutional restrictions.

Russians don't have anybody available as their army is busy blowing up Chechnya.

India might be a possibility but them and the Pakis might blow up at each other again at any minute.

That only leaves Chinese available.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap
The admin.s plan was based on a whole of sunny assumptions, such like:

We will get a joyous welcome when we go in, large sections of the Iraqi army will surrender in an organized way, Iraqi beaurocrats will stay on the job or will return to work days after the end, meaning that the US will be able to coopt and use the ld arms of the regime,the least quesitonable ones to run the place: we will find all the WMD's we said would be there, proving our case: everyone will be cowed by our overwhelming victory and no one will want to pick on us...

None came true to the extent the admin. thought they would, if they came true in any way at all.

GePap, i know that this is the popular theory of the Press, but I have yet to see any administration timetable or interim goal agenda. In spite of all that is bad in Iraq, there is far from anarchy. Organizational structure seems to be being put in place. Most of the "resistence" seems to be imported. I am willing to accept that we are off plan, but it is hard to do that when we really don't know the plan.

Our 1st question should be, "What is the plan?" don't you think?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
That only leaves Chinese available.

Hmmm...With trouble brewing in Korea, would they really move troops to the ME? (Assuming that ANYBODY wanted them.)

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap
As for Bush tryign to get the UN on board for too long: bullsh1t. The US based its UN timetable almost completely on its military buildup. The time between when the military fet enough pieces were where they needed to be to attack and the time we atatcked was very short. And given the current state of WMD programs, 1441 does not realygive us anything, since as far as we can tell, the Iraqis were tellign the truth on most of the salient points, so you can;t ecven use it as an excuse anymore.

Even Hans the Wonder boy admitted that they violated 1441. Did anyone really doubt what "serious consequences" meant to GW? C'mon...going back to the UN at all was due to the Cry Baby French making a worldwide issue and the subsequent need of Tony to try to get acceptance.

[Ted Striker]

Not really.

They certainlty have numbers, but like you said, there is no chance the US is going to let them in there.

China isn't very big on the whole UN peacekeeping thing anyway.

[The Andy-Man]

Originally posted by PLATO


Hmmm...With trouble brewing in Korea, would they really move troops to the ME? (Assuming that ANYBODY wanted them.)

with the potential to field an army 300million men strong, i think they coudl spare a few

[PLATO]

I can't recall a time that China ever deployed beyond their boarders in a peaceful way. Anybody??

[Sava]

I don't know about you guys, but the last thing I want is China involved in ME affairs.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Sava
I don't know about you guys, but the last thing I want is China involved in ME affairs.

ditto X 100