Do you agree with the goals of the Iraq Study Group in Iraq? Should we use Iran and Syria to help sustain Iraq? Is it the right move to focus all efforts on training the Iraqi forces and stop the actual combat in Iraq? Is it feasable to have combat troops out of Iraq completely by 2008? Any opinons..
Well to end a war you have to negotiate with your enemies. To do that you have to TALK to them. There is no other way. Especially if you are the ones LOSING the war. WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Korea, etc. were all ended with negotiations. Except for Hitler of course, who did not negotiate, and we can all see how well it turned out for him and his country...
Thats how I feel as well. Just because you don't approve of a governments policies and ideals doesn't mean you ignore them and give them no respect. Respect is key with people from the middle east.
The whole thing is a farce..instead of war crimes trials we get a "study group" Kinda late for analyzing after BUsh blew the country up and killed everybody ain't it? The whole thing is just another ploy to save Bush's ass and devert from the truth..Bush is a murdering war criminal and should be behind bars.
Of course the Iraq Study group is a farce...this was the plan the whole time...get Georgie boy and the neo-clowns to invade iraq and totally "screw up" on purpose so then big Georgie and James baker and the gang can come in and "correct" it, have you ever heard of the hegalian dialect or "Problem-Reaction-Solution"?
The Iraqi study group is another classic example of the "Hegalian Dialect": Create a problem, Create Panic, and then Offer the Solution to the problem that created the panic.
Only one problem. They ain't got a solution! It does highlight the big new rupture in the Republican party. Hawks, neocons and the religious right are all in a tizzy right now. But if the real powers that be have their way, our Dems will keep things going "forward" as a way to reconcile and unite the country to back the plan. I'm actually glad Bush isn't jumping on it. It's still not right. It still favors a long range military presence in the region, and will allow oil companies to continue their activities too. We should also be withdrawing our military from other countries in the region, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Afghanistan, Kazakstan, etc. If it wasn't for young soldiers dying every day in Iraq & Afghanistan, we'd stay there forever. I'm sure they are rushing robotic military products as fast as they can. With a robot army we'd go forward all right. Our leaders think it's only the dead US soldiers we object to (most americans really don't care about the Iraqi dead). Another state of denial.
Skip True..That's because there isn't one...the key word is "offer" a solution, doesn't mean it IS a solution. Like I said, the whole thing is a deversion from the criminal investigations, to blur and distract and to buy some time. Bush only has two more years left, if he can just slide through then the neocons can blame the whole mess on the next president and Bush looks like a hero, after all that is the most important issue here....
Iran and Syria are absorbing the refugees that have been created. They are Iraq's neighbors they should be in on the solution. Once we bombed the shit out of Iraq, we should have secured the borders...why didn't we? Why did we allow the populus to loot and run around with arms? What exactly was our goal? What is our goal now? Our own forces aren't truly trained, we are sending over student troops/National Guard. Who's doing the training the independent contractors that oversaw Abu Gharaib?
Skip: "I'm actually glad Bush isn't jumping on it. It's still not right. It still favors a long range military presence in the region, and will allow oil companies to continue their activities too. We should also be withdrawing our military from other countries in the region, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Afghanistan, Kazakstan, etc." Bush isn't for it publically so all the Liberals buy into it and think it's good because "bush doesn't like it". When in reality it just pushes for more troops...any liberal whos buys this really is just as dumb as any bush loving republican.
I don't see what Syria or Iran have much to offer, so why negotiate with them? A) they don't want things to get better in Iraq, and B) the violence in Iraq is beyond anyone's control. Even if they wanted to end it, they couldn't.
Pepik, I don't see what you have to offer on this forum except neo-con spin. First of all, nobody wants chaos and violence in iraq as much as the US government and the military industrial complex that controls them. The longer they are in there, the more money. Iran and Syria have literally been kissing our ass hoping they aren't clusterbombed next and yet FOX news is still out daily saying we should nuke Iran and Syria, and so are you. Guess what Pepik, the American people got a little bit smarter over the last 4-5 years, and we're not buying your neo-con bullshit anymore, we don't want to go into wars that you guys tell us we need just to see our loved ones die for nothing. So why don't you stop wasting your time.
Pepik Tell that to the millions of refugees going to those countrys because Iraq is too dangerous to live in. I sure don't see Bush offering aid to those people even though he's the cause of their problems.
Thats just the thing, Iran and Syria don't want violence going on in Iraq , as much as they dislike the U.S. they don't like having refugees swarming to their countries and they certainly don't like hearing bombs going off just across the border.
Oh no hgh...Pepik is right...the whole middle east has nothing to offer "US" so we should just carpet bomb it and turn it into a shopping center.
america is the home of economic rationalism. they want to outsource the problem, drag someone else into the mess and take the fall for it? then bomb them to teach them a lesson for getting involved, my moneys on the syrians and iranians not having a bar of it.