FREDGRAD: "But its just plain wrong to say we are not fighting a key battle with them and their ideology there NOW and that this battle has no bearing on our future security when we know what their plans are should they prevail in Iraq."
How does it bear on our future security? Our present policy endangers our long-term security!The battle in Iraq exists between the Shiite militias and the Sunni insurgency. The base of the Sunni insurgency stems from former Baathists, the majority of whom are secular; they gets a great deal of support from Saudi Arabia because they do not want to see Iran strengthened by a Shiite dominated Iraq. We don't know who to support. We trot Maliki out there and then shudder when it appears he is beholden to the Shiite militias and their death-squad practices. Our presence bolsters the support for and recruiting efforts of the various al Qaeda factions. They have no base there: the Kurds and Shiites will destroy them, and the Sunni insurgency only tolerates their presence because they target American troops. Our withdrawal will leave al Qaeda isolated; our continued presence does nothing but help them. Our current policy serves as a "win-win" for al Qaeda. We help them have a presence in Iraq and we cannot focus on their continued role in Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden could not have drawn up a better game plan.
XGI...agree to a point. I think our election system COULD work but we need to term limit these old career politicians first. Secondly, maybe if we made it less attractive (salary, benefits, etc.) it would finally attract people who want to serve their country rather than have the country serve them. Posted by Sprvtr at 11:08 AM : Mar 20, 2007
Agreed, It COULD work, with major reform. When one political party has received 51% of the presidential vote, seats in congress, whatever, they should NOT have 100% of the power. Another problem seems to be the fact that we, as taxpayers. pay for the primary elections for the two major parties. If there is to be a primary, let whatever party the primary benefits pay for it.
Clemenhagen1 - Al Qaeda forgeiners are a small percentage of the fighters, but Al Qaeda in Iraq (dominated by native Iraqis now, not "foreigners") is the largest, most dangerous insurgent group and all within it have sworn allegiance to Osama bin Laden and his "gang". Al Qaeda was NOT in Iraq when the war started, and I have said that knowing what we know now, I would not have supported the war...but Al Qaeda IS there now, and the sectarian violence that has erupted there was instigated by Al Qaeda; we know from their own communications and public statements that it was their strategy to foment civil war to both: wear us down as they knew the American Public would drop its support if they made this war drag out and made Iraq ungovernable, and to kill Shiites (who they view as infidels as well) - they couldn't beat us militarily, this was their strategy, to wear us down in this manner, so that we would leave and they would be left with "safe" territories to further their Jihad. So you're correct if you say 1) we shouldn't have invaded and/or 2) Al-Qaeda foreigners don't make up much of the total insurgency...but its just plain wrong to say we are not fighting a key battle with them and their ideology there NOW and that this battle has no bearing on our future security when we know what their plans are should they prevail in Iraq.
david martin is a good reporter: but on this one he's dead wrong. it is worth arguing about mistakes made. perle, wolfowitz, feith, and cheney should be prosecuted immediately.
If I were a returnee soldier from Iraq I would have a hard time faceing my family.(was in the military "51 to '55 ) Posted by middleman8 at 01:16 AM : Mar 20, 2007
I find this statement a little difficult to understand. Having served in the military, you know full well the oath you took to the country and, particularly, to the commander in cheif. RIGHT OR WRONG. No matter what you think about policy, you do your duty and, especially in the time of conflict, especially in a hostile fire zone, ask no questions about it. It isn't the folks that have done their duty who are without honor. You DO NOT have to support the war or the policy makers to support the troops. Those who think that way also think a person cannot love his country without supporting the government. Just plain wrong.
The mayor of Salt Lake City, Donald Trump, about a million citizens and one senator are calling for impeachment. More are sure to sign on.
While I agree with the majority that a vote for impeachment would probably fail, the proceeding would most certainly shine the light of day on many of Bush/Cheney's crimes, would shame them, bruise their legacy and would be an invaluable lesson to future politicians.
I would just like to say in favor of the soldier, the gentleman interviewing him seemed to favor the loss of the Iraqies and not that I don't feel sad for the loss of those children and women, it is the simple fact that he was doing his job. That's the point, not that you think he's a murderer, he is fighting for our freedom, to stop this fear of being terroriezed by these people who came to our land and ruthlessly took our families and our friends from us, with no notice to us the civilians at all.
This administration has tried to distract by continuing to mention al Qaeda, but only in the context of the Iraq War. In reality al Qaeda constitutes but a minor aspect of the Iraq complexity, but our Iraq preoccupation has allowed both the Taliban and al Qaeda to regroup in Pakistan. True resolution to the Iraq conflict has to begin with a realistic assessment of the conflict. All this talk of al Qaeda taking over in Iraq? Utter and complete nonsense! Anyone with a brain knows that the Iraqi factions (Shiite, Sunni, Kurd) will not tolerate al Qaeda in the wake of U.S. withdrawal. So it really comes down to pacifying the Sunni insurgency, and coercing the majority Shiites to share power while protecting the minority rights of Sunni and Kurd factions. The Kurds control an autonomous region, so that proves less problematic. The Sunni triangle? Much tougher nut to crack. Resolution of the Sunni/Shiite war must involve genuine diplomatic efforts with all regional powers, including the Saudis and Iranians. Can the Bush administration get beyond their fictions and egos to accomplish such heady statemanship? Uh...
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Reply to Comment The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
How does it bear on our future security? Our present policy endangers our long-term security!The battle in Iraq exists between the Shiite militias and the Sunni insurgency. The base of the Sunni insurgency stems from former Baathists, the majority of whom are secular; they gets a great deal of support from Saudi Arabia because they do not want to see Iran strengthened by a Shiite dominated Iraq. We don't know who to support. We trot Maliki out there and then shudder when it appears he is beholden to the Shiite militias and their death-squad practices. Our presence bolsters the support for and recruiting efforts of the various al Qaeda factions. They have no base there: the Kurds and Shiites will destroy them, and the Sunni insurgency only tolerates their presence because they target American troops. Our withdrawal will leave al Qaeda isolated; our continued presence does nothing but help them. Our current policy serves as a "win-win" for al Qaeda. We help them have a presence in Iraq and we cannot focus on their continued role in Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden could not have drawn up a better game plan.
Posted by Sprvtr at 11:08 AM : Mar 20, 2007
Agreed, It COULD work, with major reform. When one political party has received 51% of the presidential vote, seats in congress, whatever, they should NOT have 100% of the power. Another problem seems to be the fact that we, as taxpayers. pay for the primary elections for the two major parties. If there is to be a primary, let whatever party the primary benefits pay for it.
One more thing, thank you for your service.
Posted by middleman8 at 01:16 AM : Mar 20, 2007
I find this statement a little difficult to understand. Having served in the military, you know full well the oath you took to the country and, particularly, to the commander in cheif. RIGHT OR WRONG. No matter what you think about policy, you do your duty and, especially in the time of conflict, especially in a hostile fire zone, ask no questions about it. It isn't the folks that have done their duty who are without honor. You DO NOT have to support the war or the policy makers to support the troops. Those who think that way also think a person cannot love his country without supporting the government. Just plain wrong.
While I agree with the majority that a vote for impeachment would probably fail, the proceeding would most certainly shine the light of day on many of Bush/Cheney's crimes, would shame them, bruise their legacy and would be an invaluable lesson to future politicians.
Posted by Biggfive
WOW!!
THIS IS REALLY BIZZARE!!
THERE ARE REALLY PEOPLE THIS DUMB OUT THERE!!
I'M BEGINNING TO UNDERSTAND HOW BUSH GOT ELECTED!