Bush: Troops to Stay in Iraq for Years

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Saddam has been painted as some kind of evil incarnate, but is he?

Maybe not by Chinese standards. By enlightened, Western standards, however, he most definitely was evil.

Since the invasion, almost 300,000 people have died in Iraq, mostly from the complete collapse of services. About 30,000 have died in combat. That latter number is the number tha most people will admit to America being responsible for, even though we created the collapse in services as well.

We've run the country for three years. Saddam ran the country for 30. He killed 300,000 people over that time. That's 10,000 a year. Using the smaller number, we've killed 30,000 over three years. That's 10,000 a year.

How are the Iraqi people better off?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
I agree thats all he needed to do and the fact that he didn't places him squarely in the camp of diplomatically inept. Doesn't change the fact that Clinton knowing left a turd behind that was never going to be passed.

Yeah, he really did it so it'd screw the guy after him .

Clinton signed a treaty that he believed it. Whether or not the Senate was going to ratify it is irrelevent. If that is your definiton of "left a turd behind" to screw the next guy, every modern President is guilty, because they've all sign treaties that they knew probably wasn't going to pass.

To compare Clinton signing Kyoto, and then Bush coming in afterwards, and Bush saying we aren't going to make a decision on whether to bring troops home until the next administration is an incredibly ludicrous comparison that makes me wonder if you've taken leave of your sense.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Quite honestly I find your figures of 300000 since 2003 quite exaggerated and the figures during Sadaam's reign similarly deflated.

Sources?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Clinton signed a treaty that he believed it. Whether or not the Senate was going to ratify it is irrelevent. If that is your definiton of "left a turd behind" to screw the next guy, every modern President is guilty, because they've all sign treaties that they knew probably wasn't going to pass.

I believe I pretty much affirmed that view when I said every administration leaves ****burgers for the next. And likewise it does not apply only to modern era presidents.

[chequita guevara]

http://www.counterpunch.com/chretien03142006.html

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
I believe I pretty much affirmed that view when I said every administration leaves ****burgers for the next. And likewise it does not apply to modern era presidents.

And I think its absolutely ludicrous to call Kyoto, or any other unratified treaty, as a '****burger' for the next President. If Bush wanted to, he didn't even have to deal with it. How is that in any way, shape, or form a '****burger'?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

To compare Clinton signing Kyoto, and then Bush coming in afterwards, and Bush saying we aren't going to make a decision on whether to bring troops home until the next administration is an incredibly ludicrous comparison that makes me wonder if you've taken leave of your sense.

Considering this adminstration had said time and again fromthe beginning that this War on Terrorism, of which they inlcude the Iraqi theatre, is one that will encompass potentially generations, I don't see how people are all that surprised.

Heck for WWII FDR decided to run extra terms and then still left it for Truman to clean up after he croaked. Truman left Korea unfinished. LBJ left Vietnam for Nixon to clean up. Bush Sr left Iraq unfinished. Clinton left Bosnia unfinished with troops deployed. Why is W any different?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

I agree with Sid the Kid.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
http://www.counterpunch.com/chretien03142006.html

Sorry I don't see 300000 dead from lack of infrastructure there. What I see is the following

28000 - 38000 ( if you prefer the Iraqi body count figure)
2300 US
4000 Iraqi Police
16000 wounded US


I see the article from Counterpunch bounding the number at 180000 - 500000 that self admits it is highly criticized in certain circles and uses statistical techniques unique to this situation. Not what I would call that resounding acceptance but I could be wrong.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
I agree with Sid the Kid.

Color me shocked.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by dannubis


Ted, normally I can agree with most of your points of view. However, he wasn't cheering about dead US soldiers. He simply said he didn't care.

And quite frankly, me neither.

Three years ago 50 % of the American citizens wanted a war. Well, now you've got it. And like you said, which is very commendable btw, now you have to live with it.

I'm not referring to the post he made above where he said he didn't care.

I'm referring to his posts from the past. He brought up the past, well since he did I thought I would too.

He's cheered on the deaths of US soldiers in the past. This is a fact. Maybe he responded with, "oh well I just didn't care" to try and preempt that.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Heck for WWII FDR decided to run extra terms and then still left it for Truman to clean up after he croaked. Truman left Korea unfinished. LBJ left Vietnam for Nixon to clean up. Bush Sr left Iraq unfinished. Clinton left Bosnia unfinished with troops deployed. Why is W any different?

Oh lord. You are serious?

FDR DIED in office. I'm sure he wasn't planning that. Truman had this thing called the new term limit rule and couldn't wrap up Korea before he left. LBJ left Vietnam for Nixon because he was so incredibly unpopular he wasn't going to win. Bush Sr finished as much of Iraq as he wanted/could have. Clinton also had that whole 2 term thing and couldn't bring the situation to a end before he left.

In contrast, Bush has had plenty of time to change course, to do something different, to pull out, whatever. Yet, he says, we're doing the status quo and if someone else wants to come in and clean it up, they are welcome to it. Instead of not having enough time to have a satisfactory conclusion to the issue, Bush is, instead, not even trying to do so, saying his successor will do it.

The Presidents you mentioned above were attempting to end their crises. Bush is just saying, don't look at me! Look at the other guy!

You really can't see it?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Yeah, he really did it so it'd screw the guy after him .

And for the record whoever said there had to be intent or malign purpose?

Do you truly think any President including the twit W honestly wants to set the next President up to fail?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
And for the record whoever said there had to be intent or malign purpose?

That'd be the point of a '****burger'. You leave it for the next guy to sort out and take the hit on.

Do you truly think any President including the twit W honestly wants to set the next President up to fail?

As opposed to themselves? Yes.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Heck for WWII FDR decided to run extra terms and then still left it for Truman to clean up after he croaked. Truman left Korea unfinished. LBJ left Vietnam for Nixon to clean up. Bush Sr left Iraq unfinished. Clinton left Bosnia unfinished with troops deployed. Why is W any different?

Oh lord. You are serious?

AS a heart attack.

FDR DIED in office. I'm sure he wasn't planning that.

So? Doesn't mean it was left for someone else to clean up and point of the matter was he kept Truman so in the dark that it bordered on negligence on FDR's part not to have reasonable succession planning.

Truman had this thing called the new term limit rule and couldn't wrap up Korea before he left.

Different than W in what regard? Hostilites ended and troops were there to pacify the region.

LBJ left Vietnam for Nixon because he was so incredibly unpopular he wasn't going to win.

So? He saw the handwriting on the wall knew he couldn't win and chickened out from running another term. Cowardice plain and simple. The complete abdication of responsibility if you ask me.

Bush Sr finished as much of Iraq as he wanted/could have.

Of all the people mentioned this one I agree upon. He clearly defined from the start the end goal and accompished it. Unfortuantely that end goal was short sighted and gave us what we have today or minimallly what we had prior to the Iraqi invasion.

Clinton also had that whole 2 term thing and couldn't bring the situation to a end before he left./

That sounds vague familiar. Where have I heard that before? Ohhhh yeah its what we say about W.

In contrast, Bush has had plenty of time to change course, to do something different, to pull out, whatever. Yet, he says, we're doing the status quo and if someone else wants to come in and clean it up, they are welcome to it. Instead of not having enough time to have a satisfactory conclusion to the issue, Bush is, instead, not even trying to do so, saying his successor will do it.

W is one of the worst communicating presidents bar none. But don't fall for this stay the course meaning new approaches are not being tried. Commanders in the field are reinventing the doctrines of war when it comes to guerilla insurgencies. The question is will they adapt quickly enough.

The Presidents you mentioned above were attempting to end their crises. Bush is just saying, don't look at me! Look at the other guy!

No, the other presidents committed the country to a course of action that had conseqeunces that far outlasted their Presidential terms. Requiring other presidents to take action or comitt to "staying the course" as well.

Simliarly for better or worse Bush has done the same.

You really can't see it?

Clear as the hand in front of my face.