gee what a shock that I agree with the docs.

yea, it is so rare.

I am curious to know EXACTLY what it was you wanted to hear?

Mr. President, your Secretary of Defense has stated that the insurgency could last 8 to 12 years. You stated that our forces will stay until the Iraqi national force could stand on its own.

How much of the insurgency would the Iraqi force have to be able to handle before we stand down?

Mr. President, in the statements from the White House previous to the Iraq war. Secretary Rumsfeld said he did not see the war lasting longer than 6 months. Also these statements never mentioned the possibility of such a well organized resistance.

Since we were going into a nation that was purported to sponsor terrorist activities, why were we so caught unawares that such an insurgency could be fielded?

Mr. President, in your speech you quoted Osama Bin Laden: "This Third World War is raging" in Iraq. "The whole world is watching this war." ... “it will end in "victory and glory, or misery and humiliation."

Since the terrorist organization is so mobile, and if Bin Laden looses Iraq, what is to prevent him from moving his organization elsewhere, and if he does, will the mean a further commitment of our troops?

IG

#17 by InfoGeek Wednesday, June 29, 2005

am curious to know EXACTLY what it was you wanted to hear?

all I have heard from the politicians on the left are totally unreasonable demands, I just wanted to know what could have bush said about the war, plans for disengaging etc, that would have pleased the left is all.

Mr. President, your Secretary of Defense has stated that the insurgency could last 8 to 12 years. You stated that our forces will stay until the Iraqi national force could stand on its own. How much of the insurgency would the Iraqi force have to be able to handle before we stand down? Mr. President, in the statements from the White House previous to the Iraq war. Secretary Rumsfeld said he did not see the war lasting longer than 6 months. Also these statements never mentioned the possibility of such a well organized resistance. Since we were going into a nation that was purported to sponsor terrorist activities, why were we so caught unawares that such an insurgency could be fielded? Mr. President, in your speech you quoted Osama Bin Laden: "This Third World War is raging" in Iraq. "The whole world is watching this war." ... “it will end in "victory and glory, or misery and humiliation." Since the terrorist organization is so mobile, and if Bin Laden looses Iraq, what is to prevent him from moving his organization elsewhere, and if he does, will the mean a further commitment of our troops? IG

Great questions info, to bad someone did not ask them I too would have loved hearing answers for all of these.

Great questions info, to bad someone did not ask them I too would have loved hearing answers for all of these.

I agree. Excellent questions, InfoGeek, and I would hope that those on both the left and the right would be open to hearing the answers to them.

did you have fun?

yes I did...read my thread...Link

Reply By: Texas WahinePosted: Wednesday, June 29, 2005Great questions info, to bad someone did not ask them I too would have loved hearing answers for all of these.I agree. Excellent questions, InfoGeek, and I would hope that those on both the left and the right would be open to hearing the answers to them.

I know I am open to some honesty and solutions.

Reply By: ManopeacePosted: Wednesday, June 29, 2005did you have fun?yes I did...read my thread...Link

will do.

This is a truly refreshing line of thought coming from a pro-Bush fellow. The proverbial Bush supporters always act predictably, which is verbal attacks of deflection. And this takes different forms, the most extreme being the mainstream media being accomplice by deliberately not reporting on stories which are being extensively reported on in other parts of the world. It's a good question you pose and it's always lost in the political muddle. So what would I do? I'll respect your wish and not go into the lies used for getting to Iraq. I will only focus on what you said. They're there now, they're not leaving, that's it. Take it from there.
Stop Shaming The Dead And Wounded
The political veil would be drawn back from Dover and the troops would get the same respect shown to them from 1776 to 2002. Not only would that be of great comfort to the families of the lost and wounded, but it would also provide new life's blood support from those who are sentimental and nostalgic and who remember the days when a returning serviceman was treated with honor and respect. I actually think doing so would give Bush some boost in the polls because like it or not, the fact is that many veterans don't like Bush because he dodged his generation's war and he invited the enemy to attack his own troops. If he would at least allow them to be recognized, officially, then that would give him a boost. Also let's remember he's hiding them for a reason. Yet that's still no reason, or to me it's not a good enough reason, to shame the dead and wounded. Returning under cover of darkness would end.
I know this is not a solution to the events in Iraq, it's something that would make the public more sensitive to the cost of the war. Unless that's what's really being hidden.
Iraqi Civilian Sensitivities
A war of occupation has historically been doomed from the start, but there are things that could be done to minimize your casualties when trying to maintain control over an occupied territory. The most important and basic of these is the need to assimilate your troops into the occupied culture, to understand or at the least have a basic rudimentary understanding of the culture of the people and lands they occupy. And this can be a culture shock to US/Iraq supporters here. An American, any American in fact, could be forgiven for not realizing he created a firestorm just because he was careless enough to drop a Koran in a shit-filled toilet. To us, or any North American, that's just a power trip. Or it's just some guys blowing off steam, or it's just sorority-style pranks not worthy of further mention. But over there, to the men and women of Islam, it's desecration. It's defiling God's word. Of course I wouldn't get in a huff if someone flushed my Catholic Bible down the water closet. It means nothing to me. And it would likely mean nothing to any of you. But again, to them over there, it's evil to do so. And this is something that makes the US lose Iraqi supporters every day of the occupation.
Why It Would Be Job One
The civilian population is the most important resource the occupying army can use for benefit. I guess it can be easy for you people to forget, but the violence committed by the US creates new enemies, maybe not die-hard in-the-trenches armed-to-the-teeth enemies, but definitely I-know-where-the-IED-is-but-I'm-not-going-to-bother-telling-you-about-it enemies. And these seemingly harmless Iraqi citizens who are against the US cause will feed the freedom fighters, will store weapons and anything else the freedom fighters would deem important enough to hide from the Americans, will not tell the Americans about what they know of the resistance because like cancer, everyone in Iraq knows at least one relative or close friend who has been negatively affected by the US occupation. And they are the most dangerous enemy of all. A guy with a gun or mortar is something the GI's are trained to deal with and bypass. Training tells them what to do. But the civilians who support the freedom fighters are flexible in a volatile and unpredictable way. Their help could mean the thirst of a freedom fighter being quenched during a long protracted combat operation under the hot Iraqi sun, or it could mean a flat tire from the nails they may toss on the road of an approaching American convoy, or it could even mean the death of ten or twenty or even fifty American GI's because they allowed the freedom fighters to bury a Soviet rocket launcher in their garden a while back. They are the ones who will determine the victor, and their getting some form of satisfaction should be paramount on any occupational army's to-do list.
Case of the Missing War Crimes
I would cease the killing of unarmed unidentified Iraqi civilians and only fire upon those who are a danger, not a group walking down a street all bunched up in an obviously unmilitiralistic way i.e. they were civilians walking with no evasive movements let alone a threat worthy of a missile strike. The war crimes would stop immediately, and that would actually create support among the Iraqis, especially those who think the US is acting in it's own interests with no though for their lives whatsoever. No more illegal napalm, no more policies for legal torture, no more unidentified 'enemies' being killed on a daily basis, only a fair occupation. And before you start laughing at the term 'fair' keep in mind what I said earlier. That there are different forms of occupation. At present it's an indifferent army with an angry hostile public. I would strive for an occupation which is as gentle as possible on the citizens under their control. An occupation army is never going to be popular and will always attract death from those who want their own country back. But it can also be a reciprocation of sorts. If the US is truly caring about the Iraqi people (contrarily to the US led sanctions which killed a million kids), then the people they occupy will know it.
Goodbye Mercs
Nothing to add here except the Iraqi citizens would know that things had just changed for the better. For credibility, you need to have men under your own operational control, and the mercs are a force unto themselves. The Fallujans knew it, and they did to them what any of you would do to any Chinese HalliYingBurtonYang who would drive through your destroyed neighborhood located in Dodge City. Talk about arrogance! The mercs fill an important gap that requires their staying? No, to me credibility is far more important than force. But only if you're serious about wanting to bring anything good to the nation.
Torture? What's That?
Torture as de facto policy is gone. Ended. Finished. All that's left to do is to crayola crayon a big Welcome Back! sign and await the huge portion of returning Iraqi citizenry. Also, put up seven ballons on the wall. For the festive look. In all seriousness people, of you're claiming to be bringing another nation something that is good, employing torture is not and will never help you with your cause. We wouldn't expect someone to like us and value us if we punch someone in the face while giving them a free dentist tooth replacement voucher. Nor would you see reason not to kill someone who is molesting your kids, for these facts have been documented at the US run prison. Why there isn't an uproar in America over this is beyond me. Actually I think I know. Americans know and recall that Hussein's torturing of his own people was one of the earlier excuses for invasion. So to realize you've been suckered would be a mortal blow to the common American ego. Hence their deliberate avoidance of a CHR (cold hard reality), namely the fact that the US is now torturing Iraqis in the same prisons Hussein tortured his people in. The comparisons are endless. "John, don't you slap your sister Jane!.....*mom slaps Jane*...Didn't you hear me John? *slap's Jane*, I said to NOT SLAP JANE!! *slaps Jane once more*.....In this light it's plain to see their deliberate avoidance of this subject.
Food for Thought
An occupation of another foreign land is doomed to fail eventually. The focus should be on the occupied citizenry, to make things more comfortable for them in any small or large way they can think of. And before you focus on the word 'uncomfortable', recall the whole point of an occupation is to placate the occupied and try for the least amount of casualties within the possibility spectrum. It's natural to want to be mean or rude to these 'suspects', but in order to stay in line with the official US Iraq policies, the only action one can take and maintain credibility with is to set the good example and display to the Iraqis what tolerance and a free society can accomplish. This would be moot of course if the delivery of supposed western-style democracy wasn't the official excuse for occupying Iraq.
Some Things to Ponder
If you were truly caring for the Iraqi people, why the US-led sanctions that led to a million Iraqi deaths which by the way Former SofState Albright called "worth the price"?
If you were truly wishing to rid the Iraqis of a government which tortures its citizens, why do the invaders torture the citizens too, IN THE SAME PRISONS HUSSEIN USED!?!
If things are better in Iraq as Bush states, why is there less clean water than before the start of the occupation? Why is there raw sewage stagnating in areas that never had the problem since they had an efficent sewage system before the occupation? Why is the power on for roughly 3 to 6 hours per day when at the beginning of the occupation there were on for roughly 10 to 12 hours per day? Why have over 90% of the dead US servicemen died after the speech where Bush told his men and his country that the mission was accomplished, that the war was over?
The Simple Version
If the US invaded Iraq because of the threat of Iraqi WMD, then the US should now leave since the reason for their objectives have been found to be incorrect. If the US invaded for control, future control, over the massive colossal oil reserves under Iraqi soil, then they shoud stay so long as they state it for the official record. Like I've always said about this, if the US said they were doing it for oil then fine, whatever. If the US went into Iraq under the UN international banner, then fine, whatever. While not supporting the invasion, I wouldn't righteously oppose it as strongly as I do. Honesty and nations following accepted international laws go a long way in my book.

By the way your use of the symbol of racial prejudice and hate really fits you. Have a swastica for your next post

--oh lets not start that debate all over again...keithpup...

This is a truly refreshing line of thought coming from a pro-Bush fellow. The proverbial Bush supporters always act predictably, which is verbal attacks of deflection

The reason that the dems and libs and the left in general get that kind of treatment is because of their own behavior. When possible solutioins are asked for all they can come up with is to slam GW and the administration.

This is a truly refreshing line of thought coming from a pro-Bush fellow. The proverbial Bush supporters always act predictably, which is verbal attacks of deflection The reason that the dems and libs and the left in general get that kind of treatment is because of their own behavior. When possible solutioins are asked for all they can come up with is to slam GW and the administration.

sad really the left cannot come up with any ides {cept for kingbee}

Reply By: Reiki-HousePosted: Wednesday, June 29, 2005

pretty nice reply, well thought out and ALMOST no anti-united state or anti Bush rhetoric.

Some food for thought for me, i will have to re-read your reply a few times to get it.

thsnk you.

MM

Thanks Modman but in all honesty, what does stating things the US has done and is doing right now in Iraq have to do with anyone being 'anti-American' or 'anti-Bush' and the like? I have no party affiliations. I have no thoughts of being a leftist or whatever everyone here seems to be so hung up on. I do not and never have thought in partisan ways because it's my belief that the focus on 'ligerals' and 'conservatives' and all that do nothing but create a gridlock, a political gridlock which ensures a hazy image which sometimes gets far to difficult for the average citizen to understand. What I mean is that the party affiliation card is always played when facts go against your party's belief. Like someone like ShadowWar. If I tell him about the accurate "fixed evidence" memo which the entire planet minus the US all know about, I'm Anti-Bush. Not Anti-Bush with accurate facts, but just Anti-Bush. So he closes his mind to real documented facts and passes it off as merely someone who dislikes Bush. But he never confirms or mentions the known facts so it's clear he's simply ignoring truisms which go against his support for the illegal Iraq intervention and occupation. Me, I don't have that problem. Me, I always tell the truth. Me, I only deal in truth. I never make anything up like some people do. I don't use clearly biased media sources as my backup gospel, nor do I try pass it off as evidence to my point. One fascinating fact about this kind of ignorance and closed-mindedness is that many of these very real events, even the ones that make the US look pretty bad, have been reported from all sides of the spectrum. Al-Jazeera and CNN/MSNBC being the two extremes. It's too bad because if anyone could acknowledge this reality it would go very far, in my mind, in making the US mission in Iraq more tolerable/reasonable, if not more acceptable/credible.

sad really the left cannot come up with any ides {cept for kingbee}

Actually, Kingbee is a good example of a liberal.  NJ, Zoomba, Lucas, joeknowledge and Tex good example of the left centrists.  Thatoneguy (I do miss him) between those 2 groups, but more towards kingbee.

Zink and Dabe are the LLL.