|
|
 |
|
#1
08-03-2006, 01:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
More troops in Iraq
or we need to get the heck out.
FRom all I have read and heard I think this is degenerating into Civil War. We need to send many more troops to Baghdad and other key cities, many more. Or get the hell out. Its live up to the mess we made, or abandon ship. Its long term commitment with many more troops, or leave and let chaos reign. 
|
|
#2
08-03-2006, 01:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rumsfeld looked too incompetent today in the hearings. Quoted news from 2003,2004,2005...hmmm.
Civil war...yes. Get out now...yes. More to follow.
|
|
#3
08-03-2006, 01:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Get out now and cut off all funding to any Middle East country and put the billions into alternative energy research. Enough with all these religious lunatics.
|
|
#4
08-03-2006, 01:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
This article doesn't tell the whole story. When Hillary asked him a tough question, Rummy folded like a 4/3 against a Q.
All in or all out. http://apnews.myway.com//article/200...D8J92EJG0.html
|
|
#5
08-03-2006, 01:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/
|
|
#6
08-03-2006, 02:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Interesting that two of us can watch the exact same thing and see it completely differently.
Rummy ducked. Said he has always been "positive". Hillary opened the record for review of his previous statements, as he avoided the direct question. The luster is off the polish.
|
|
#7
08-03-2006, 02:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#8
08-03-2006, 02:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Be honest, didn't you? And did I make a claim that you did? Bold Ruler, Please put out YOUR thoughts. Don't attempt to project mine. OK?
|
|
#9
08-03-2006, 02:29 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#10
08-03-2006, 03:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#11
08-03-2006, 03:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Man when Senator McCain asked that General, when we first went in id he EVER consider that this might degenerate into a Civil War, and he paused what seemed an eternity and then answered with a meek, "no"... man o man. And this was the General that reported that in his opinion it could degenerate into a Civil War given the current situations.
Rummy and the boys vastly underestimated how many troops we would need. Thought the Iraqis would shower us with gifts. We could have easily had this country under control with 350,000 ground troops like that one General that got sent away stated we needed from the get go. And the send less than about 1/3. Further reinforces clearly that you need to go whole hog, or not go at all. Israel faces the same dilemma. They have got to really do some damage on the ground with massive numbers of ground troops. And now it looks like they may have a short time frame. As long as the rockets keep reigning down on Israel I dont see how they leave without a throrough sweep of Southern Lebanon.
|
|
#12
08-03-2006, 04:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
If you think there is any hope of victory in Iraq at this point, I must respectfully disagree. US military forces, despite their "good" intentions, will not prevent or decide the outcome of civil war. Early on in this debacle, Rumsfeld was asked if this is a "quagmire". He ducked answering that question three years ago when he had no clue of an "exit strategy". Same way he ducked Hillary's queston today, "Based on your track record, why should we believe you now?" His answer, " My goodness! ...blah, blah blah...no answer." then a discourse about the history of wars..."the cold war lasted 40 years." Truth be told, the civil war has been going on for quite a while now. Check it out if you read international press, not just US propaganda. As far as Israel is concerned, they have a much smaller military than the US. They are stretched very thinly now. They continue to create the potential for future reprisals. I'd really like for them to be successful and peaceful, but they are creating their own negative outcomes, and dragging the US (their main supporter and supplier) down with them. Here's an article that the rest of the world has access to: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0803-02.htm
|
|
#13
08-03-2006, 04:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Israel cannot be allowed to live with a neighbor that will bomb them at will. Let us remember that Hezbollah made a calculated decision to start this. In the meeting of the Muslim nations yesterday/today, Iran's president again stated that Israel cannot be allowed to Exist. Israel could get 20,000 troops into Lebanon. That will be enough, this is a very small area compared to what we are trying to take on. But Hezbollah will eventually reinfiltrate and the problems will start again if things are not done correctly. And that is because Lebanon is no longer an independent country. I guarantee if Hezbollah had to do it all over again they would have stayed out. More and more it appears that total victory is the only way. Japan and Germany understand that. BTW. Anyone on the board want to volunteer for the UN stabilizing force to be sent to that area? The UN force that goes in must be allowed to fight back. So that leaves out the French...
|
|
#14
08-03-2006, 05:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Short of using our wmd's in Iraq, the very thing we invaded to prevent, there will be no positive outcome for the US. Sadr has a growing malitia. 80% of Iraquis want the US out. Both generals, when asked at today's hearing,if they anticipated the current situation said,"NO". This is a failed policy. Truth be told, all the Dubbya's horses and all the Dubbya's men, will never be able to put Humpty Dumpty together again. Do I hear "stay the course?" again??? Now, Israel. Yes, Hezzbolah initiated the attack. Did Israel reply with a "collective response"? Was their response dissproportionate to the initial action? Does their continued military action gain or discredit American culpability? Read the article I posted. In my view, they continue to diminish US standing in the region (read: their actions are causing us to be suspect in fragile relationships we've sought to develop). Should they defend themselves? Of course. I'll just say it should be proportionate. And no, I don't think they have sufficient military to continue a lasting presence. They were unable to do so in 2000. Bombing a country into the "stone age" might gain security short term. Far too many people on both sides have already died. However, "you can kill people, but you can't kill ideas." It's time for them to talk with their enemies. Failure to do so will affect the US. Their actions undercut our credibility in the Arab world. Finally, would I serve in the UN peace keeping forces? In a NY moment...yes. Peace. Last edited by Downthestretch55 : 08-03-2006 at 05:24 PM.
|
|
#15
08-03-2006, 05:48 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I believe the U.S. will be in Iraq until 2015.
After a few years, we will all forget the justification for going in there.
|
|
#16
08-03-2006, 06:00 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
What War????
|
|
#17
08-03-2006, 06:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
and the billion a week that it costs to maintain their presence. btw...they need resupply desperately...get ready for the next round of defense contracts. Oh right! Fall elections are coming up. The phones will be ringing to "contributors" to buy "air time". I wonder who pays for it??? HMMMMMM? One thing I DO agree with Bold Ruler on, this money could be much better spent on positive priorities. My sorrow is for the loss of human beings. The waste of our hard earned tax dollars is secondary. And the long term consequences of these "policy decisions" will continue to be horrific for a very long time. "Trust, once destroyed, is never regained."
|
|
#18
08-03-2006, 06:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
You just might be right, especially after the oil starts flowing. Only problem, everytime Halliburton fixes it, the danged pipeline gets blown up. Solution: guards every 50 feet? It will get tired by 2010, let alone 2015. Other thoughts short term?
|
Linear Mode
