Jedi Council Forums - The New Iraq, Five Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread

Jedi Council Forums » JC Community » The Senate Floor »

Post Reply | Active Topic Notification | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic

« 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 » - Previous | Next | Reload

Author	Topic: The New Iraq, Five Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
Septhaka Registered: Nov '06	Date Posted: 1/10/07 7:15pm Subject: RE: The New Iraq, Three Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
	Strangely, I found myself siding more with Bush and McCain this evening than Obama, Edwards and others. Edwards assertion that Bush's speech was too "analytical" was ridiculous. Obama's focus on "political accommodation" was misguided. As long as the Sunni and Shia militias think they can get their way via violence they don't need politics. First, you crush the militias and death squads then you start talking politics. Maliki seems credibly ready to face up to Sadr now also. This is a significant development. When Bush was referring to places they couldn't go but can go now he was basically talking about Sadr City. I am inclined to agree with Bush and McCain - this is not just a quantitatively more robust initiative but also a qualitatively more robust initiative. I think we should give it a shot. I think it might significant reduce the level of violence in Iraq to the point that the Iraqi army can get its feet under it. It won't eliminate the violence. The country will be plagued by it as long as it remains in existence. But the situation can improve from its current predicament. -----signature----- Leaving these boards effective 9/30/07
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Gonk Registered: Jul '98	Date Posted: 1/10/07 7:37pm Subject: RE: The New Iraq, Three Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread - Date Edited: 1/10/07 7:43pm (2 edits total) Edited By: Gonk
	You can't honestly refer to Saddam's rule as a period of "peace." If you define "peace" as "I didn't see anything problematic reported on CNN" then I guess you might be right. Significant and brutal violence existed during Saddam's reign. However, instead of the bilateral violence we see now - violence under Saddam was decidedly unilateral - Sunni against Shia. It was peace compared to whatever the hell's going on over there now. You didn't have Sunni spontaniously blowing away a few Shias, or Shias spontaniously torturing Arabs to death. The violence that happened under Saddam's regime was largely conducted by Saddam. Also, Saddam did not execute 5 MILLION people. He was bad, but that's like, 1 million more people than even Pol Pot was responsible for. And if Saddam executed THAT many, Iraq would never have gotten as successful as it did. Methinks you are getting the numbers mixed up with the amount of Shia who may have died in ways other than outright execution: people who died in the Iran/Iraq war, for instance, or those that died under sanctions. Saddam killed a whole lot of people, it's true. But 5 million is a lot, even for him. -----signature----- What shall we do to fill the empty spaces Where waves of hunger gnaw? Shall we set out upon this sea of faces In search of more and more and more?
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon Registered: Dec '00	Date Posted: 1/10/07 9:56pm Subject: RE: The New Iraq, Three Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
	I just read the highlights of Bush's speech. He continues to amaze me. Yeah, let's increase the number of people dying in your vain pursuit of a positive legacy.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
darkcide Registered: Jun '03	Date Posted: 1/11/07 12:25am Subject: RE: The New Iraq, Three Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
	I think the only realistic way of ending the insurgency in Iraq is by infiltrating it. It's like destroying weeds,if you pull the weeds out from the top then the roots stay intact and the weeds just grow back again. You have to destroy the roots.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Espaldapalabras Registered: Aug '05	Date Posted: 1/11/07 12:39am Subject: RE: The New Iraq, Three Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
	Bush's proposal makes me angry, and takes away whatever goodwill I had towards the man's intentions. So instead of thinking that Bush just didn't know there weren't WMDs and that he didn't know Iraq would turn out the way it did, I think he did know the entire thing was a load of crap and was so full of pride that he just assumed things would turn out great. I think most Americans are like me and have turned off Bush, he has been wrong for 4 years, there is no reason to think his new plan will work any better than the failed ones. He is right that failure in Iraq will cause all the problems he claims, but that failure rests upon his shoulders, not the American people for removing support for the war or even Iraqi politicians. As for the whole instituting democracy, we don't have it working at home, so I'm not sure how we can impose it on a country that has neither the national identity or traditions of self governance need for "democracy" to work. -----signature----- A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user. Theodore Roosevelt We should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Darth Mischievous Registered: Oct '99	Date Posted: 1/11/07 12:44am Subject: RE: The New Iraq, Three Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread - Date Edited: 1/11/07 12:51am (1 edits total) Edited By: Darth Mischievous
	Democracy not working here, Esp? You may disagree with the policy (most people do), but no need to go completely overboard. We're rather civil here - all things considered - with our two party system, and we don't have members of Congress killing each other. The Dems and GOP have been very civil on the transfer of power in Congress this past week. I think the President knows this is his last chance to get it right, but we'll have to see how it pans out. Of course, it probably won't work out because of the Iraqis' inability to coalesce around some sort of nationalist unity rather than the sectarian divisions. He looked tired and nervous during his speech. 20,000 troops is a much too small number to pacify Baghdad completely, but it's too much in the current domestic political environment... also, the military doesn't have the benefit of dealing with somewhat of a civilized and unified civilian society after it already took over the country, as was the case in previous wars.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Gonk Registered: Jul '98	Date Posted: 1/11/07 2:58am Subject: RE: The New Iraq, Three Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
	I think most Americans are like me and have turned off Bush, he has been wrong for 4 years, there is no reason to think his new plan will work any better than the failed ones. He is right that failure in Iraq will cause all the problems he claims, but that failure rests upon his shoulders, not the American people for removing support for the war or even Iraqi politicians. Well Eps, we've finally gone from agreeing about 75% to 100%. (well maybe not so much the American Democracy thing. Like it or lump it he was elected in 2004 -- perhaps 2008 cannot come fast enough?) And DM is also correct when talking about the 20,000 surge being a half measure. Something akin to being all Bush throwing in the last soldiers he can muster in one last ditch effort. But there's a picture emerging here... not listening to his generals, not listening to the polls when they're clearly favoring different action... not listening to Democrats and more moderate Republicans for sure. Bush may have just destroyed his Presidency, and set the last vestiges of its popularity to a lifespan of about 6 months. -----signature----- What shall we do to fill the empty spaces Where waves of hunger gnaw? Shall we set out upon this sea of faces In search of more and more and more?
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Kimball_Kinnison Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 1/11/07 5:52am Subject: RE: The New Iraq, Three Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
	Gonk posted: But there's a picture emerging here... not listening to his generals, not listening to the polls when they're clearly favoring different action... not listening to Democrats and more moderate Republicans for sure. Hold on a moment here. Today, on the Metro, I read an article in the Washington Post's Express paper (given free at Metro stations). In it, they pointed out about the "surge" that it was contrary to the advice of some generals. That means that it was in line with the advice of other generals. Now, consider that Bush took the opposite approach. Again, you could say the same thing, that it was contrary to the advice of some generals. Yes, the public is somewhat against the "surge", but that doesn't mean that Bush has to do what the public says in polls. As Edmund Burke once said, "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion." Remember also, that the generals who disagree with the action have more to gain by going public with their disagreement (because they are in line with the polls). Say what you will about your opinion of Bush's judgment, but like it or not, he was elected to be President, and as such he is not bound to follow the polls, nor everything that every general says. (You could probably find a group of generals to take almost any position, just like with any other group of people.) Bush, as President, still has the responsibility to exercise his own judgment. Kimball Kinnison -----signature----- You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Espaldapalabras Registered: Aug '05	Date Posted: 1/11/07 6:31am Subject: RE: The New Iraq, Three Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
	With the democracy comment I just meant that with our 2 party system we don't really have a wide range of choices and our system is very imperfect so trying to impose some ideal of "democracy" on others is just silly. Well Eps, we've finally gone from agreeing about 75% to 100%. I blame my college education. -----signature----- A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user. Theodore Roosevelt We should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Gonk Registered: Jul '98	Date Posted: 1/11/07 8:18am Subject: RE: The New Iraq, Three Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
	Today, on the Metro, I read an article in the Washington Post's Express paper (given free at Metro stations). In it, they pointed out about the "surge" that it was contrary to the advice of some generals. That means that it was in line with the advice of other generals. Now, consider that Bush took the opposite approach. Again, you could say the same thing, that it was contrary to the advice of some generals. Well perhaps I should qualify my statement -- but in so doing sort of qualify yours as well. I was going by some things I had read, but most recently I was going by the comments of Columnist (David?) Brooks of the New York times and what he said on PBS following Bush's speech. By his estimation -- although this was not the focus of his comment at the time -- is that this surge is going against the advice of MOST of his generals. There were generals that did agree with it: but the firm sense I got was that Brooks for one believes this is the minority opinion among these military men. And this is somewhat important because of the two regular commentators they have of the NewsHour, Brooks and Mark Shields, Brooks is if anything the man who has previously been more pro-administration. So if you take my comment that "Bush is not listening to his Generals" to mean he's not listening to ANY of his generals, you would be right. But there's a clear sense I've seen that he's not listening to the majority opinion among his generals, and that those who favor this position, or favored it as an option as of the fall of Congress, are in the minority. And Bush has chosen to go with this minority (or possibly, a minority has chosen to side with him). -----signature----- What shall we do to fill the empty spaces Where waves of hunger gnaw? Shall we set out upon this sea of faces In search of more and more and more?
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Jabbadabbado Title: Senate Floor Moderator Registered: Mar '99	Date Posted: 1/11/07 8:43am Subject: RE: The New Iraq, Three Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
	Bush may have just destroyed his Presidency, and set the last vestiges of its popularity to a lifespan of about 6 months. This was definitely my overriding impression of the speech. To change the emphasis of what DM wrote, it really did feel like the "last stand" of the Bush presidency. -----signature----- "There is a country out there where tens of millions of white Christians, voting freely, selected as their leader a black man of modest origin, the son of a Muslim. There is a place on Earth - call it America - where such a thing happens."
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
G-FETT Registered: Aug '01	Date Posted: 1/11/07 12:05pm Subject: RE: The New Iraq, Three Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
	I can't believe he has been stupid enough to send in even more troops at this stage. I mean, I knew he was stupid, but I never realised he was this stupid... Hasn't he ever heard the saying; When your in a hole, stop digging? -----signature----- I felt a great disturbance in the force. As if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror. Then were suddenly silenced. The Saga returns; August 15th 2008.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Mr44 Registered: May '02	Date Posted: 1/11/07 7:08pm Subject: RE: The New Iraq, Three Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
	I think at this stage, nothing short of a hat trick in Iraq is going to matter, and it's going to be "damned if you do, damned if you don't." I ceratainly don't how "the surge" is going to play out, but I do hate how everything is broken down into sound bites- "Iraq, Brought to you by THE SURGE!" There are some positives of the surge (the additional troops are finally going to be used in a targeted manner) and there are negatives (sending more troops during the lowest in popularity) But I'm not sure I accept all of the criticism either. For instance, Bush is being dinged for not following the recommendations of the Study Group, (and my feelings on that pointless exercise are well known) but one of the primary recommendations of the group was to increase US troops engaged in "training Iraqi troops." Magically, the 10,000-20,000 increase was the amount recommended by both the group, and McCain. Call it a "surge" or "training increase" or whatever, I think the goal is what matters, not the label. -----signature----- When you enter a room full of armed men, shoot the first person who makes a move- hostile or otherwise He has started to think and is therefore dangerous... -- Colonel "Paddy" Mayne, co-founder of the SAS
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
DVCPRO-HDeditor Registered: Nov '06	Date Posted: 1/11/07 7:16pm Subject: RE: The New Iraq, Three Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
	Perhaps our esteemed Mr. Bush has "issues" with reality. Y'know, like living in his own. He wants to send 20,000 more people to risk death so that he can magnify himself. He's willing to throw their lives away to prove that he is God's instrument for spreading democracy across the globe. The man is, in my estimation, insane. The end of all this just can't come soon enough. -----signature----- If you are confused about something I post, just assume that I'm playing Lucifer's Advocate.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Darth Geist Registered: Oct '99	Date Posted: 1/11/07 7:29pm Subject: RE: The New Iraq, Three Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread - Date Edited: 1/11/07 7:43pm (4 edits total) Edited By: Darth Geist
	Not to hijack the discussion, but I had an idea today on how to mellow the violence in Iraq, even if just a little. I thought I might call it "War Games for Peace." Do me a favor and find the flaws in this idea (and pardon me for copying from my blog): ***** For years now, trying to enforce peace in Iraq has been like trying to hammer the old square peg into the round hole -- and now, apparently, our solution is to get a bigger hammer. To recap: We're occupying a hostile, mostly-anarchic territory whose inhabitants have been fighting one another nonstop for the last 1400 years, except for that time when a brutal dictator beat them all into submission. We can do our damnedest to become the next brutal dictator, or we can do what we've been doing (which hasn't worked out so well so far), or we can try something a little more outside the box. I'm talking about inviting both sides to sit down, go online, and play Gears of War. Hey, quit laughing. All right, go ahead, but then hear me out: Ever since the dawn of war, new soldiers have had qualms about killing the enemy -- after all, people are people, no matter which country they're from. Officers in World War I had constant trouble with their troops deliberately shooting over the enemy's heads. A huge part of training soldiers for battle involves dehumanizing the enemy, transforming them from "people who happen to be on the opposite side" to "faceless targets to be shot on sight." It's just not in most peoples' nature to kill other people, and when you have situations where wartime enemies relate to each other as people, the violence between them takes a nose dive (witness the Christmas Truce of World War I). Of course, with this particular war, it's hard to get close enough to the enemy to even meet them, let alone learn to relate to them. But if you meet them online, there's no risk to either of you -- and if you meet them online in a game like Gears of War or Call of Duty, where you're both supposed to "kill" each other, then you can both do what you do best, see who's better, and -- best of all -- both walk away. Now, of course, no one's going to agree to move the war online, play pretend from now on instead of fighting for real. But, if both sides (or all sides, as it were) happen to regularly host open games, then anyone from any side can safely enter, blow the living crap out of the enemy (or vice versa), maybe get a little chat in (assuming they both speak the language), and then log off unhurt. Hell, even the wounded could join in -- games are great distractions from physical pain. Chat could get ugly -- "I killed ten of your buddies today!" probably wouldn't be an uncommon taunt -- but you could always retaliate by chainsawing the other guy in the face. Problem solved. Mind you, I don't claim to know the first thing about life in Iraq right now. But I do know games; I know about the distractions they can provide from real-life troubles, the friendships and rivalries that develop between competitors online, and I know that every hour combatants spend trading virtual lead is an hour when no one's dying for real. Inviting everyone to play together wouldn't stop the war by any means, but it could provide an excellent way to blow off steam, provide an opportunity to meet (and compete) with the enemy on neutral, non-lethal ground, and -- just maybe -- help mitigate the all the damage. Mellow things out, even just a little bit. Hell, after everything else we've tried, why not? ***** Again, help me find the flaws. Some I can see already include: - How would everyone get set up? Sure, some people would be happy to donate game consoles to the troops, but how many people would ever be interested in donating game consoles to the insurgency? How many consoles do insurgency members already have? Does Xbox Live exist in that part of the Middle East? Does any online gaming service? If not, would it be possible/feasible to create a new one or move an existing one there? - Online gaming can also be used to meet and chat. In the context of war, that would give both sides the means to meet up, from any distance, have a pretty much untraceable conversation, and then make all record of that conversation vanish. (Granted, admins could almost certainly log in-game chat -- they can with most games -- but then, which admins are we talking about here -- if they exist -- and whose side, if any, are they on?) - I haven't independently confirmed this, but there have been rumors of high-end gaming consoles being imported to the Middle East, then dismantled for parts to use in other computers. Can anyone confirm or deny? Thoughts? -----signature----- When George Lucas was in his early twenties, he was wrecking his health in the burning Tunisian desert, risking a new and fragile career on a movie no one believed in. When I was in my early twenties, I was complaining on the Internet about George Lucas.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History

« 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 » - Previous | Next | Reload

Jedi Council Forums » JC Community » The Senate Floor »