Here's what Bush should do about Iraq....

We need to hire Iraqis to rebuild Iraq, not contract American corporations to do so.

Well, now see? Here is a perfect example of an idea from a pinhead, which could be brought up before the bipartisan War Committee and discussed fully. In the end, they could collectively decide whether this was a good idea or bad idea, and issue a statement on it. Then, the issue would be settled, if they came back and said, we feel this is a bad idea, there is too much corruption for it to work effectively, people would just run off with the money and the country wouldn't get rebuilt... or maybe they say, hey... great idea, let's do that! In any event, the issue is settled, and we can move on. We don't have to listen to pinheads continue to raise the issue over and over, because the bipartisan Committee deliberated on it already, and came to a conclusion.
 
Dixie said:
We need to hire Iraqis to rebuild Iraq, not contract American corporations to do so.

Well, now see? Here is a perfect example of an idea from a pinhead, which could be brought up before the bipartisan War Committee and discussed fully. In the end, they could collectively decide whether this was a good idea or bad idea, and issue a statement on it. Then, the issue would be settled, if they came back and said, we feel this is a bad idea, there is too much corruption for it to work effectively, people would just run off with the money and the country wouldn't get rebuilt... or maybe they say, hey... great idea, let's do that! In any event, the issue is settled, and we can move on. We don't have to listen to pinheads continue to raise the issue over and over, because the bipartisan Committee deliberated on it already, and came to a conclusion.
Click to expand...
I don't know just what you think you said there but I defend your right to say it . . . whatever it was. Now that you've said it, however, can we return to the topic at hand?

Why is it, do you think, that so many Iraqis don't see us as saviors, or even simple liberators? Gosh, you don't suppose that it might be because they perceive us to have prosecuted this war purely for our own benefit and at their expense do you?
 
I don't know just what you think you said there but I defend your right to say it . . . whatever it was. Now that you've said it, however, can we return to the topic at hand?

Well, I think it's pretty clear what I said, is there something specific you don't comprehend? It was concerning the topic at hand, which is Iraq and what to do about Iraq.

Why is it, do you think, that so many Iraqis don't see us as saviors, or even simple liberators? Gosh, you don't suppose that it might be because they perceive us to have prosecuted this war purely for our own benefit and at their expense do you?

Well, you see... it doesn't matter what Iraqi people see us as, or what I think. What matters, is finding a way to accomplish something in Iraq. I don't really care who's fault it was, or why it was stupid to go into Iraq, or anything other than finding a solution to the problem at hand. I don't think I can be any more objective and reasonable, than to suggest we appoint a bipartisan committee to determine a unified strategy. Why would anyone be opposed to this, if you are genuinely concerned with finding solutions to the problems in Iraq?
 
Dixie: you need to understand that there exists a giant gap between the fact that YOU can't think of a better approach to fixing this war that your party has fucked up so royally...and the range of possible, more appropriate options.

If the universe of possible solutions was limited by your intellect, we would indeed by in dire danger.
 
maineman said:
Dixie: you need to understand that there exists a giant gap between the fact that YOU can't think of a better approach to fixing this war that your party has fucked up so royally...and the range of possible, more appropriate options.

If the universe of possible solutions was limited by your intellect, we would indeed by in dire danger.
Click to expand...

It seems to me there is a "giant gap" between people who think we need to just pull up stakes and leave Iraq this minute, admit we fucked up and apologize, pay damages and reparations and try Bush and Cheney for War Crimes.........GAP.........and Americans who want to see a viable resolution to the conflict in Iraq, which leaves US and Iraq in a better position in the end.

My approach is simple. Democrats just won the election, and control Congress, and the main point of focus, was change in Iraq. Let's put 3 D's, 3 R's, and an I, in a room together, and let them brainstorm the Iraq War, and what to do from here. Let them establish what we are doing as a nation, exactly, so that we can all come to terms with our goals, objectives, and mission, and avoid this "huge gap" we seem to now have.

I know what Bush's strategy for Iraq was, he even published it in book form, A Plan for Victory in Iraq. Apparently, America isn't satisfied with that plan, or they wanted some change made. Obviously, Democrats who won power, are not happy with this plan, it's the main focus for them, and reason they won the election. I am a fair and impartial person, not a partisan hack, I am willing to say... okay, Bush's Strategy is off the table now, let's discuss what you think we should do. I've not abandoned what I believe, or recanted any opinion I have had about Bush's Strategy for Iraq, I think it was a sound plan. I am not so egotistical or stubborn to think, America operates on what I think alone. I realize we live in a democracy, where everyone has a voice, and the Democrats have won the right to have a voice in Iraq policy.

I read your response to this, as almost wishing Democrats had not won majorities, just came close. So that you could keep hiding behind your 'powerless' status, and claiming your hands are tied. I am afraid, this election placed you in the driver seat, where you wanted to be. Now Drive!
 
again...the election just moved us up to the front seat. The person in the driver's seat is the president. He is not about to cede authority for developing Iraq war solutions to a bipartisan committee imagined by one of his pals from alabama. It seems like you are completely unaware of the character of the man in blue jeans you love so much.
 
Announce the appointment of a "War Committee" comprised of three D's and three R's , headed by Joe Lieberman, and give them the full authority to form a bipartisan policy agenda regarding Iraq.

What a dumbass. What are you watching, Fox News?

He's already done this you idiot. The bipartisan Baker Commission.

Three years too late, I might add
 
What Bush should do first is try to comprehend the problem we are facing, and realise that we, and secular Muslim leaders, are fighting extremism for the minds of the Muslim people.

Until he can get that into his head, we will continue with the same, blunt, dull-headed approach to the battle against Islamic Jihad...
 
Bush got us into this mess, the Democrats will begin the process of leading us out!

They havent even taken over the House or Senate yet... Geesh give them some time. The new leadership does not even take power till January.

Clearly what needs to happen is that we need to acknoldge a mistake was made when we invaded a sovrin nation based on flaued evidence without the support of the world community. Then we need to admit that we need the world community's help and ask for it.

The UN could send a multinational force into Iraq to establish a peace and begin the process of setting up a government. We all need to realize that what took a few short years to fuck up will take 40 years to clean up.
 
Lol...

Jarod said:
Bush got us into this mess, the Democrats will begin the process of leading us out!

They havent even taken over the House or Senate yet... Geesh give them some time. The new leadership does not even take power till January.

Clearly what needs to happen is that we need to acknoldge a mistake was made when we invaded a sovrin nation based on flaued evidence without the support of the world community. Then we need to admit that we need the world community's help and ask for it.

The UN could send a multinational force into Iraq to establish a peace and begin the process of setting up a government. We all need to realize that what took a few short years to fuck up will take 40 years to clean up.
Click to expand...


The UN ya have got to be kidding!...If ya remember they are the cowards who cut and ran from Iraq after the 'first' attack on their compound after the invasion!
 
Yeah there's a great idea, lets turn it over to the UN. They know how to control insergents and keep the peace in the area. They only have to supply about 200,000 peace keepers.

Of course they will have to move back into there old facility. But wait? isn't that the facility they ran away from when some mortors were fired at them? The one they never remanned?

Yeah lets let the un take care of things there. They can over see the civilwar and watch the slaughter from their bunkers.

The insergents could never stand up to the power of the mighty un.
 
Battleborne said:
The UN ya have got to be kidding!...If ya remember they are the cowards who cut and ran from Iraq after the 'first' attack on their compound after the invasion!
Click to expand...


Thats because they were there for a different reason with a different mandate. They were not under a mandate to fight for the peace.

The UN has been very effective in other situations simular to Iraq. Bosnia and Hatii for example.
 
Not....

Jarod said:
Thats because they were there for a different reason with a different mandate. They were not under a mandate to fight for the peace.

The UN has been very effective in other situations simular to Iraq. Bosnia and Hatii for example.
Click to expand...


The UN under the helm of non other than Wes Clark bombed the hell out of Bosnia covering US aircraft with the UN symbol...he put Islam back in the saddle...and what about the Israel/Lebbanon war the UN cut and ran when observer posts were hit by mortors also...geez!
 
Battleborne said:
The UN under the helm of non other than Wes Clark bombed the hell out of Bosnia covering US aircraft with the UN symbol...he put Islam back in the saddle...and what about the Israel/Lebbanon war the UN cut and ran when observer posts were hit by mortors also...geez!
Click to expand...

They were there as OBSERVERS, when OBSERVERS are attacked they run. What an idiot you are. The UN was not in Lebanon as fighters, they were not set up to fight. They were able to conduct the Bosnian deal without the loss of a single American life!
 
Why did....

Jarod said:
They were there as OBSERVERS, when OBSERVERS are attacked they run. What an idiot you are. The UN was not in Lebanon as fighters, they were not set up to fight. They were able to conduct the Bosnian deal without the loss of a single American life!
Click to expand...


you call me an idiot...I called you no such name for your opinion! Also wrong about the observer thingee...sorry son this VN vet disagrees...while in Nam a friend of mine...Jerry was his name(Still is) was a forward observer and called artillery in on 'his' position as it was being overrun by the NVA...he lost 1/4 of his forearm but saved the day...got a Silver Star for it! and a Purple Heart!:pke:
 
Battleborne said:
you call me an idiot...I called you no such name for your opinion! Also wrong about the observer thingee...sorry son this VN vet disagrees...while in Nam a friend of mine...Jerry was his name(Still is) was a forward observer and called artillery in on 'his' position as it was being overrun by the NVA...he lost 1/4 of his forearm but saved the day...got a Silver Star for it! and a Purple Heart!:pke:
Click to expand...



I dont give a shit if you are a viet nam vet. You are still wrong. When your friend Jerry was a forward observer he was in the United States army. An army that was a combatant in the conflict and set up as such. The UN was not in Lebanon as a combatants, they were not set up for that type of fight. They were not prepared to set up for anything but getting out of the way. If the UN went to Iraq to help us, they would have to be set up for it!
 
UNMO's in Lebanon stayed and reported on the Israeli attacks on El Khiam until the Israeli ordinance struck their Observation Post and killed all four of them
 
Whatever...

Jarod said:
I dont give a shit if you are a viet nam vet. You are still wrong. When your friend Jerry was a forward observer he was in the United States army. An army that was a combatant in the conflict and set up as such. The UN was not in Lebanon as a combatants, they were not set up for that type of fight. They were not prepared to set up for anything but getting out of the way. If the UN went to Iraq to help us, they would have to be set up for it!
Click to expand...



dude a coward is still a coward in my books...but go ahead and support the UN to youir hearts content...they are losers and always will be...spin away though!
 
Battleborne said:
you call me an idiot...I called you no such name for your opinion! Also wrong about the observer thingee...sorry son this VN vet disagrees...while in Nam a friend of mine...Jerry was his name(Still is) was a forward observer and called artillery in on 'his' position as it was being overrun by the NVA...he lost 1/4 of his forearm but saved the day...got a Silver Star for it! and a Purple Heart!:pke:
Click to expand...

Battleborne.... you may be a VN vet, but I am a Lebanon vet and you don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about. There is a significant difference between an armed forward observer whose job it is to call in air strikes, and an unarmed UN military observer whose job it is to report movement of Israeli forces in the UNIFIL operation area south of the Litani river.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top