Ed suggests troops are coming home

musicismylife78

Well according to the newspaper reports from the Brisbane shows, Ed seems to think we will be bringing the troops home, or the new house and senate will at least.

I think he may be being a little too optimistic.

The Democrats voted for the war in the first place, and continue to cower and hide and not speak out harshly against the war, fearing they will be labeled unpatriotic, unamerican or worse.

Ed usually is spot on, but I think this may be wrong on his part.

The war, barring some massive antiwar movement much more radical than the current one, will continue until Bush hands his power to the next president in 2009. He said this in many speeches.

jlew24asu

Bush is open to new ideas from the Iraq Study Group. its a step in the right direction.

Some people in congress want our troops to all be home in 6 months and some want more to go to secure the country. both have solid arugments.

El_Kabong

jlew24asu wrote:

Bush is open to new ideas from the Iraq Study Group. its a step in the right direction.

Some people in congress want our troops to all be home in 6 months and some want more to go to secure the country. both have solid arugments.

and who is the isg?

-James Baker <was in reagan and daddy bush's administration, on carlyle group board, bush's chief legal advisor for the 2000 election, In late 2003 he was drafted by the President to assist in the operations of the US-led occupation of Iraq, a special envoy to the president to persuade other countries to relieve Iraqi debts...>

-Lee Hamilton <as chair of the committee investigating iran/contra thought reagan, bush or anyone did anything wrong and there was no need to investigate, on the advisory board of the cia and home land security>

-Robert Gates was on it but stepped down when bush nominated him to replace rummy, head of cia, helped pre-cook intel back even back in 81 <including lying about russia making them look like a bigger threat than they were, which even encyclopedias state>, involved in iran/contra, iran/iraq war, on the board of defense contractors and a company involved in electronic voting

-Edwin Meese <worked in reagan and bush admins, reagans attorney general, involved in iran/contra, as attorney general knew iran/contra violated several us laws and acts but ignored it>

-Lawrence Eagleburger <daddy bush's sec of state, also in nixon and reagan admins, kissingers assistant>

-Vernon Jordan

quite a few iran/contra connections there...

jlew24asu

El_Kabong wrote:

and who is the isg?

-James Baker <was in reagan and daddy bush's administration, on carlyle group board, bush's chief legal advisor for the 2000 election, In late 2003 he was drafted by the President to assist in the operations of the US-led occupation of Iraq, a special envoy to the president to persuade other countries to relieve Iraqi debts...>

-Lee Hamilton <as chair of the committee investigating iran/contra thought reagan, bush or anyone did anything wrong and there was no need to investigate, on the advisory board of the cia and home land security>

-Robert Gates was on it but stepped down when bush nominated him to replace rummy, head of cia, helped pre-cook intel back even back in 81 <including lying about russia making them look like a bigger threat than they were, which even encyclopedias state>, involved in iran/contra, iran/iraq war, on the board of defense contractors and a company involved in electronic voting

-Edwin Meese <worked in reagan and bush admins, reagans attorney general, involved in iran/contra, as attorney general knew iran/contra violated several us laws and acts but ignored it>

-Lawrence Eagleburger <daddy bush's sec of state, also in nixon and reagan admins, kissingers assistant>

-Vernon Jordan

quite a few iran/contra connections there...

you wouldn't be happy unless michael moore headed an Iraq investigatory panel.


sometimes something is more then nothing.

El_Kabong

jlew24asu wrote:

you wouldn't be happy unless michael moore headed an Iraq investigatory panel.


sometimes something is more then nothing.

and how did you arrive at this conclusion?

to borrow a line from you...let me know when you have something to offer

jlew24asu

El_Kabong wrote:

and how did you arrive at this conclusion?

to borrow a line from you...let me know when you have something to offer

I did. I said Bush is taking new ideas from an Iraq study group. at least its something. sure, those guys have experience dealing in the middle east. and?

Ms. Haiku

Yes, I think politicians cower. I was surprised, and quite frankly appalled at the lack of backbone in our elected officials at the start of the war.

know1

After we bring them home, I hope the daily news continues to update us every day with the number of Iraqis killed by violence.

(my hope is that it will be less, but my fear is that it will be a lot more).

soulsinging

know1 wrote:

After we bring them home, I hope the daily news continues to update us every day with the number of Iraqis killed by violence.

(my hope is that it will be less, but my fear is that it will be a lot more).

it will either increase before stabilizing and decling, or just increase. this is a country just waiting for civil war. you cannot force a democracy on people who cannot communicate with each other and are unwilling to compromise on anything. this is a lost cause.

chopitdown

soulsinging wrote:

it will either increase before stabilizing and decling, or just increase. this is a country just waiting for civil war. you cannot force a democracy on people who cannot communicate with each other and are unwilling to compromise on anything. this is a lost cause.

i think we need to put it in the iraqi citizens hands. We need to tell them, we will help you if you want it, that means the citizens take responsibility for ratting out the insurgents, the citizens doing everything they can to help the cause. They haven't shown (aside from some people joining the iraq army) a huge dedication to their own freedom / democracy. I'm sure it's not easy, but if we put the onus on the citizens to take control of their country for a common good; I think that will help more than anything. Just leave it to them. If they don't figure out a way to work together w/o violence, we tell them "hey we tried to help you but you didn't want the help apparently and we're out". I think it's come to this. I am all for supporting the troops, i'm all for a new iraq, but at some point the citizens of Iraq need to work together to help bring about peace and if they don't want help (and show they're willing to do their part), then I say we get out.

know1

My point isn't so much as to whether it really will increase, or whose responsibility it is.

My point is will the news continually discuss the death tolls as they are now. If they continue to do so, and the deaths rise considerably, will people in the U.S. blame the U.S. government as they are now?

Byrnzie

know1 wrote:

My point isn't so much as to whether it really will increase, or whose responsibility it is.

My point is will the news continually discuss the death tolls as they are now. If they continue to do so, and the deaths rise considerably, will people in the U.S. blame the U.S. government as they are now?

I think no matter what happens the U.S will be blamed for this catastrophe, as it should be. If the U.S now just ups and leaves and the place turns into a blood bath, then who will be to blame for this? We created this mess.
I personally believe now that the U.S should stay there and suffer the consequences, whatever they may be. It's their responsiblity to see it through. Anything else will lose them all credibility and respect in the world. More so than that loss of credibility and respect suffered by the U.N after it was forced to abandon Yugoslavia.

trappedinmyradio

the troops are not coming home. if anything different happens, it will be more boots in the sand...

RainDog

Byrnzie wrote:

I think no matter what happens the U.S will be blamed for this catastrophe, as it should be. If the U.S now just ups and leaves and the place turns into a blood bath, then who will be to blame for this? We created this mess.
I personally believe now that the U.S should stay there and suffer the consequences, whatever they may be. It's their responsiblity to see it through. Anything else will lose them all credibility and respect in the world. More so than that loss of credibility and respect suffered by the U.N after it was forced to abandon Yugoslavia.

See it through to what, though? Iraq as the 51st state? There were no WMDs, Saddam is gone, Iraqis voted on their government, and people are signing up as cops and soldiers. We won. A phased redeployment beginning in the next couple of months is the overall best option.

RainDog

trappedinmyradio wrote:

the troops are not coming home. if anything different happens, it will be more boots in the sand...

I guess that depends on whether the new congress will pay for it.

What would more boots in the sand (I assume you don't mean buried) accomplish at this point?

know1

OK - I'll put it this way.

What if the news for the past year was not only reporting the daily death toll, but was also reporting a daily "death averted" statistic?

Does anyone think that the so-called "war" would be viewed differently?

trappedinmyradio

RainDog wrote:

I guess that depends on whether the new congress will pay for it.

What would more boots in the sand (I assume you don't mean buried) accomplish at this point?

i believe that they are going to move to an "overwhelm them" strategy.

but, then again, my friend's brother was in iraq and was part of a sniper team...he said that they knew where insurgents were bunkering down and they could have killed them all in a day, but they didn't. they just checked to make sure they were still where they thought they were. so, who fucking knows.

Byrnzie

RainDog wrote:

See it through to what, though? Iraq as the 51st state? There were no WMDs, Saddam is gone, Iraqis voted on their government, and people are signing up as cops and soldiers. We won. A phased redeployment beginning in the next couple of months is the overall best option.

Security. The Iraqi's will not manage their own security as there are religious divisions within the security forces there now contributing to the problem.

trappedinmyradio

know1 wrote:

OK - I'll put it this way.

What if the news for the past year was not only reporting the daily death toll, but was also reporting a daily "death averted" statistic?

Does anyone think that the so-called "war" would be viewed differently?

it depends on how one would measure a death-averted tally. and how are the measures meaningful when you related them?

Byrnzie

know1 wrote:

OK - I'll put it this way.

What if the news for the past year was not only reporting the daily death toll, but was also reporting a daily "death averted" statistic?

Does anyone think that the so-called "war" would be viewed differently?

"death averted"? That's not gonna make headlines. People aren't interested in near misses, especially when it concerns a foreign country. The media has trouble even reporting the casualties and atrocities every day.

RainDog

know1 wrote:

OK - I'll put it this way.

What if the news for the past year was not only reporting the daily death toll, but was also reporting a daily "death averted" statistic?

Does anyone think that the so-called "war" would be viewed differently?

There is no way to concretely determine a "death averted" statistic. Hell, you do that everyday you live. Somehow, I don't see an anchor reporting "In other news today, 6.5 billion people managed to avert death."