works for me- iraq is an artifical creation anyway, a figment of wonston churchill's imagination. kurds should've been given their independence 3 years ago.
Exactly, the British and the French drew the lines on a map that is the Middle East today. Why not carve up the country into more manageable sections. If Turkey doesn't like Kurdish indepenence too bad. If Iran doesn't like it, then I'm surprised it is already in process. Plus if Iraqis had any sort of national identity to the current borders, they wouldn't be shooting each other. I'd carry the carving knife to Palestine too and permanently separate Gaza from the West Bank. Make them two separate entities, removing the need for access between the two across Israel. When something isn't working, sometimes it is better to tear it down and start over.
You'll find far more agreement on posts like this one, than on the Rove/Limbaugh talking points you posted earlier, to my never-ending bewilderment, that Trader_J is eager to attach himself to. I would think that you'd be embarrassed to have your position pimped by him. That, as much as anything, should give you a clue that you are on the wrong turf. So many of the nation-states of the Middle East were created by colonial powers, with no regard for their ethnic/religious/cultural, or historical makeup. Personally, I think the Kurdish people deserve their own state. I also think an independent Kurdistan would be very difficult, politically, as Turkey, Iran, and Syria would ardently, and perhaps violently, oppose such a nation. Why? Because of their own significant Kurdish populations, who are living in historically Kurdish areas. Keep D&D Civil.
it's a big tent, and while i don't agree with everything Bush does, almost uniquely among contemporary politicians he understands who we're fighting and why we fight, and has the courage to ignore the polls and work to get the job done. he may not be entirely successful (but he's had little help in that regard), and he may have made some tactical mistakes (we should be much more ruthless in our war waging, and we should have long since neutralized syria), but he gets the big picture. if a single democrat could articulate the same unwavering focus on the WOT, i think you'd see a vastly different political landscape.
I always have loved playing strategic video games. I have three main types of attack strategies: hit n run, flanking manuvers and massive assaults with superior forces. The U.S. tactics in Iraq fall into none of those categories, but the insurgency has two out of three. I wonder when the insurgency will get enough members to cut the U.S. supply lines from Kuwait? If the Iraqis quit shooting each other, they could wreak havoc on our forces in Baghdad by going after the supply chain.
Actually it's his misunderstanding (such as drastically underestimating the scale of sectarian tensions in Iraq, resulting in bloody, horrendous carnage on a massive scale) which is most glaring.... ....and reality if it doesn't jibe with his version....which results in: .... a really nice way of putting "responsible for the single greatest foreign policy debacle since Vietnam and has managed to make the US less secure than ever before".
basso, have you read Woodward's book? It points out, and it isn't made up... he has the interview tapes to back it up, that when Bremer came to Iraq to take over, he told the transition team, who were busy negotiating with the lower level officers of the Iraq army, and had a deal in place to bring the troops back to their barracks, that whatever deal they had was meaningless. That there would be no dealing with the officers of the Iraqi army. That the army didn't exist, anyway, and that this came from the very top. To just forget it. Bremer was told that we had broadcast to the Iraqi military to go home, stop fighting, and go home, and we would take care of them. That they were sitting at home, with their weapons, and wanted $25 bucks a man to feed their families and pay bills until they started getting army pay again. It was all worked out. Bush and Rumsfeld were responsible, directly, for this ****-up. They have been attempting to keep it covered up ever since it became clear that it was a colossal mistake to pretend the Iraqi army didn't exist. This one mistake led directly to the insurgency, and the civil war raging right now. And you think Bush has done a GOOD JOB?? That only he understands what needs to be done to fight his "war on terror??" basso, the man hasn't done anything right since Afghanistan, and he's managed to screw up that success by putting 7 times as many men, and countless resources, in Iraq, instead of there, where we should have been insuring that a nation was created there that could last, that the Taliban stayed beaten, and that we freakin' killed or captured bin Laden. I just don't get it. Bush has been a disaster. He should have fired Rumsfeld a very long time ago, and the fool keeps singing his praises. Unbelievable. Keep D&D Civil.
It is strange that you believe he has a unique understanding of who we are fighting, yet he not ignores polls he ignores evidence that would give more information about who we are fighting. The letter I mentioned sepcifically states that Al-Qaeda wants the U.S. forces to stay in Iraq. Yet Bush ignores this, and doesn't seem to understand that. It would be one thing if he said while they may get some benefit from the U.S. staying, have to do the right thing, and clean up the mess we made so we are staying anyway. But he doesn't. He won't even mention the fact that Al-Qaeda wants the U.S. forces to stay in Iraq and pretends like staying there is the opposite of what they want. Though you do the exact same thing, so I guess it makes sense that you and Bush see eye to eye on the issue. It is just mind boggling that people who claim to want to fight the terrorists and accuse others of doing the terrorists bidding, don't hold themselves to the same standard in regards to such a major issue.
Of course he pays attention to polls... every politician does and when they say they don't, you know they are not being truthful... that goes for politicians of any party. And Bush does understand who he is fighting... Democrats at home... and he's fighting to have unlimited access to the trough of public spending and the accoutrements of power. And again I ask... what is the job?
I wanted the US to be sucessfull in Iraq. That's why I want to throw the incompetant boobs who blew any chance of success out. You're doing a heck of a job Rummy! At this point, there is no good outcome, but it is sooo easy for Islamic extremeist to play the current situation to their advantage. Just like North Viet Nam they have an endless supply of cannon fodder and even more of a philosophy of martyrdom. They don't care about collateral damage and our combat power is severely limited by it. They have no limits on murdering our innocent sympathyzers; they can sabotage your every attempt to build good will. At least half of the population sees us as a foreign occupier. How are we going to 'win' ? The opposition has no central government we can take over. We couldn't actually control the ground without, what, a million troops. How can you stop the American body count? What number will the American people accept before it become failure becomes recognized by even the most ardent Bush supporters? At 100 a month you'd be looking at around 30,000 by the 08 elections. Hell, John Kerry could get elected at that rate. Ths attempt at nation building was lost in the first 6 months when the US chose anarchy over compromise. And when you screw up your job, you are supposed to get fired. If you ask me , well what the hell are we supposed to do now? I'd say move into secure bases, provide training and support, come to the rescue when absolutely needed by forces you trust and start coming home. It sucks but we screwed up and we can't fix it.
this is such a load of b.s. bush pays as much attention to polls as any politician. just because they tell you something over and over again, doesnt make it true.
