OT - Republican Congressmen Confront Bush Over Iraq, Honesty

[NoMyths]

NBC's Tim Russert reporting, as likewise reported by Drudge (http://www.drudgereport.com) and others (http://www.crooksandliars.com/):

Link: http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2wh.htm
Video: http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Play/17114/1/Countdown-Republicans-Bushtalk.wmv/

REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMEN TAKE IT TO BUSH
Wed May 09 2007 20:42:16 ET

TIM RUSSERT, NBC NIGHTLY NEWS: Brian, all eyes on the Republican party. How long will they support the president's position on the Iraq War? Yesterday may have been a defining, pivotal moment.

At two-thirty in the afternoon, in the private quarters of the White House, the Solarium Room, eleven Republican congressmen had a private meeting with the president, the secretary of defense, the secretary of state, the chief political advisor Karl Rove, and the White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, and others.

This delegation was headed by Mark Kirk of Illinois and Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania. It was, in the words of one of the participants, the most unvarnished conversation they've ever had with the president.

Another member has said he has met with three presidents and never been so candid. They told the president, and one said, quote, "My district is prepared for defeat. We need candor, we need honesty, Mr. President."

The president responded, "I don't want to pass this off to another president. I don't want to pass this off, particularly, to a democratic president," underscoring he understood how serious the situation was.

Brian, the Republican congressmen went on to say, "The word about the war and its progress cannot come from the White House or even you, Mr. President. There's no longer any credibility. It has to come from General Petraeus.

The meeting lasted an hour and fifteen minutes, and was, in the words of one, " remarkable for the bluntness, and no holds barred honesty and the message delivered by all these Republican congressmen.

BRIAN WILLIAMS: And Tim...how did the president react and how did this then affect the instructions for VP Cheney heading off to Iraq?

RUSSERT: One congressman said, "How can our daughters and sons spill their blood while the Iraqi parliament goes on vacation? The president responded, "The Vice President is over there to tell them, 'Do not go on vacation.'"

[JPhillips]

blah blah blah. Nothing is as useless as a moderate Republican congressman. They'll talk the talk, but when push comes to shove they'll favor another six months of status quo.

[Chief Rum]

blah blah blah. Nothing is as useless as a moderate Republican congressman. They'll talk the talk, but when push comes to shove they'll favor another six months of status quo.

blah blah blah. Nothing is as useless as a moderate Democratic congressman. They'll talk the talk, but when push comes to shove, they'll still kill unborn children, tax the hell outta ya, and give that money to unwed crack mothers with ten kids.

P.S. Stereotypes suck.

[flere-imsaho]

The president responded, "I don't want to pass this off to another president. I don't want to pass this off, particularly, to a democratic president," underscoring he understood how serious the situation was.

It's reassuring to know that the president thinks the situation is serious because it might cost his party the White House in 2008 and not, you know, because it's cost over 3000 coalition lives and tens, if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives. Priorities.

[JPhillips]

blah blah blah. Nothing is as useless as a moderate Democratic congressman. They'll talk the talk, but when push comes to shove, they'll still kill unborn children, tax the hell outta ya, and give that money to unwed crack mothers with ten kids.

P.S. Stereotypes suck.

It has nothing to do with policy, Chief. During this presidency there's been numerous times when moderates Republicans have threatened to stand up to the President, but time after time they have backed down. I don't doubt their beliefs, but until they start speaking publicly and actually voting against the White House, I'm unimpressed.

The whole lot of them are as gutless as can be. I'm no Lieberman fan, but at least he has the guts to speak publicly and his votes back up his words.

[NoMyths]

blah blah blah. Nothing is as useless as a moderate Republican congressman. They'll talk the talk, but when push comes to shove they'll favor another six months of status quo.

At some point in all of this, I started trying to work backwards instead of forwards. I try to imagine what kind of change will inevitably come, and then envision how things will look -- what events will transpire -- when that change comes.

In some ways this is the opposite of a chronological list of our various shared catastrophes these several years. The worsening situation in Iraq has moved us closer to change, as has Hurrricane Katrina. If the war is going to end in the near future -- what will be the signs? This report would certainly be one such indicator.

My sense is that enormous change is coming within two to five years. Unfortunately, we'll be dealing with the effects of our country's terrible mistakes for the rest of our lifetimes.

[Ksyrup]

As someone who considers himself a moderate Republican, I think they're in a no-win situation, just like I am. It's obvious that we are the minority position within the party these days, so to take a public stand is pretty much useless. For these guys, it would be career suicide. And for most of us, there really is no other choice. I refuse to support a Democrat because I do not buy into their underlying beliefs for how the government should be run. And even if there was a candidate I liked, who took positions I supported, I would probably not vote for him/her because of the people who would make up the administration, not to mention the Congressmen and special interest groups that person would be beholden to for getting them elected in the first place.

I have no interest in politics anymore, which is unfortunate. But that's primarily because I don't see a place where I fit in, so I'll just sit on the sidelines and watch.

[bob]

My sense is that enormous change is coming within two to five years.

If you don't mind, please elaborate. I've heard this from several people, but no one ever says what they think will happen. I'm actually curious to hear what changes people see coming.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

If you don't mind, please elaborate. I've heard this from several people, but no one ever says what they think will happen. I'm actually curious to hear what changes people see coming.

The D.C. madam is going to release all 10,000 names on her list and we're going to have to schedule an emergency election to refill Congress along with the judicial and executive branch after they all resign in shame.

[BYU 14]

It's reassuring to know that the president thinks the situation is serious because it might cost his party the White House in 2008 and not, you know, because it's cost over 3000 coalition lives and tens, if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives. Priorities.

This is about all that needs to be said on this.....Would you expect anything else from Bush, fuck the mess we have created, as long as we keep a republican in the Whitehouse. Sorry to say for all those young Men and Women in harms way, there is no way to fix this in a year, which will eventually mean desperation, which means it will get worse for our Troops....God bless them.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

This is about all that needs to be said on this.....Would you expect anything else from Bush, fuck the mess we have created, as long as we keep a republican in the Whitehouse. Sorry to say for all those young Men and Women in harms way, there is no way to fix this in a year, which will eventually mean desperation, which means it will get worse for our Troops....God bless them.

Statements like this drive me nuts. Politics has become a situation where people root for one side or the other like it's a team sport. I generally vote Republican only because I agree with more of the stances that the Republicans have than the Democrats. With that said, if you don't think both sides play dirty pool all the time like this, you're fooling yourself. You'd be just as embarrassed by some of the comments of Democrats behind closed doors. Both sides are just trying to keep power so they can keep their jobs and keep the cash flowing into their pockets.

[Warhammer]

The problem I have is how political this battle has become. What this war should point out is the shortcomings of our military. Our military is great for a standard conflict. However, for operations of this type, we don't have the manpower to successfully occupy a country to ensure order. Additionally, we don't have the intestinal fortitude to ensure that things shape up.

Why haven't we put the entire country under martial law? Why don't we have rules of engagement to shoot first and ask questions later? The simple fact is that in war, sometimes the things that appear grisly on the surface actually save lives in the long run.

If we had a set of rules strictly enforced, people understand things. If you say that anyone out after 6 PM will be shot on sight, as long as you rigorously enforce that, people understand the rules. If you know the consequences, the attitude becomes "Well, they shouldn't have been out after 6," rather than, "Why did this happen to him?"

But we'll never do it because we cannot see the big long term picture, and instead of thinking things through, we fight based upon feelings.

[Ryche]

This is about all that needs to be said on this.....Would you expect anything else from Bush, fuck the mess we have created, as long as we keep a republican in the Whitehouse. Sorry to say for all those young Men and Women in harms way, there is no way to fix this in a year, which will eventually mean desperation, which means it will get worse for our Troops....God bless them.

It would be much more politically expedient to set the deadline and start pulling troops out. The President is not taking this position against such a deadline for political gain.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Statements like this drive me nuts. Politics has become a situation where people root for one side or the other like it's a team sport. I generally vote Republican only because I agree with more of the stances that the Republicans have than the Democrats. With that said, if you don't think both sides play dirty pool all the time like this, you're fooling yourself. You'd be just as embarrassed by some of the comments of Democrats behind closed doors. Both sides are just trying to keep power so they can keep their jobs and keep the cash flowing into their pockets.

Statements like this drive me nuts. Seriously, no one is claiming that any politician is a saint or any politician's hands aren't clean. Just because Democrats say stupid/embarassing things behind closed doors and just because both sides are "playing" politics, doesn't mean you can't criticize one side (or the other) when they screw up.

What kind of defense is that? "You think this administration is bad? Oh, well, the Democrats do bad stuff too!" Sure. Agreed. Yes, they do a lot of bad/stupid stuff. Feel free to point it out, but that doesn't mean people can't or shouldn't be able to criticize anything any politician does.

I agree, though, pollitics in this country have become much more contentious over the last 6-7 years and many issues are much more complicated than a simple "our side" vs. "your side" type argument that news networks have been shoving down our throats.

That said, BYU 14's statement is fine. The current administration and 4 years of a Republican controlled senate/white house did very little to give anyone any hope that they knew what they were doing in Iraq, had any plan for Iraq, or could do anything to fix it. I don't think Democrats have any better of an idea, but we wont know until we give them a chance. I don't think BYU 14 was claiming that the Democrats are any "better" or "more pure", just that they may bring different ideas/possible solutions to a terrible situation.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

The problem I have is how political this battle has become. What this war should point out is the shortcomings of our military. Our military is great for a standard conflict. However, for operations of this type, we don't have the manpower to successfully occupy a country to ensure order. Additionally, we don't have the intestinal fortitude to ensure that things shape up.

Why haven't we put the entire country under martial law? Why don't we have rules of engagement to shoot first and ask questions later? The simple fact is that in war, sometimes the things that appear grisly on the surface actually save lives in the long run.

If we had a set of rules strictly enforced, people understand things. If you say that anyone out after 6 PM will be shot on sight, as long as you rigorously enforce that, people understand the rules. If you know the consequences, the attitude becomes "Well, they shouldn't have been out after 6," rather than, "Why did this happen to him?"

But we'll never do it because we cannot see the big long term picture, and instead of thinking things through, we fight based upon feelings.

100% correct. The US policies related to this war effort in Iraq are very similar to a parent who tries to be friends with their kids. The kids act up a lot and cause a lot of problems. The parent then raises their arms and wonders why the kids are acting up so much when the basis of the problem is that no discipline was used to keep the kids under control.

Another thing I don't get is when the military announces publicly that in the coming days, they will launch an operation to secure this city or that province. Who the hell decided that it would be best if you gave your enemy several days advance warning that you were going to launch an assault? It's just mind-numbing at times.

I agree with the 'shoot first' point as well. While we may be trying to avoid civilian casulties, the enemy is running around intentionally killing civilians. Wouldn't a better policy be to agressively pursue the enemy regardless of civilian casulties? It may cost lives in the short run, but the long term prognosis would be a whole lot better as we would likely save 10x the number of lives in that long run.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

That said, BYU 14's statement is fine. The current administration and 4 years of a Republican controlled senate/white house did very little to give anyone any hope that they knew what they were doing in Iraq, had any plan for Iraq, or could do anything to fix it. I don't think Democrats have any better of an idea, but we wont know until we give them a chance. I don't think BYU 14 was claiming that the Democrats are any "better" or "more pure", just that they may bring different ideas/possible solutions to a terrible situation.

Note that I never disagreed with the content of BYU14's statements. I agree that it's a terrible way to make decisions. But his point was made with the intent to say that only the Republicans make decisions that way. That couldn't be further from the truth.

[Fighter of Foo]

Statements like this drive me nuts. Politics has become a situation where people root for one side or the other like it's a team sport. I generally vote Republican only because I agree with more of the stances that the Republicans have than the Democrats. With that said, if you don't think both sides play dirty pool all the time like this, you're fooling yourself. You'd be just as embarrassed by some of the comments of Democrats behind closed doors. Both sides are just trying to keep power so they can keep their jobs and keep the cash flowing into their pockets.

I'm a libertarian/independent. The degree to which R's and D's do what you describe is what makes them different and NOT equal.

For example, Clinton was sleazy and a liar. So is Bush. That doesn't make them equally awful. I fail at understanding how people don't get this.

Ksyrup, see the link below for depressing pictures. R's are officially big guvment and I'm beyond disillusioned with them. It's yet another striking example that one party should never, ever, ever control all branches of government.

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/contents.cfm

[flere-imsaho]

Wow, this one's (http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/charts_R/r3.cfm) especially damning for a party that considers itself pro-business.

[Ksyrup]

I know. The big government stuff is probably the biggest disappointment of all of it.

As far as Iraq, I don't have a problem with the fact that we went in, but it's fairly obvious to me that they underestimated what it would take to "win" (if something like this can even be described as simplistically as winning or losing), failed to have a plan to deal with what emerged, and now are trying to put bandaids on a gaping wound to at least control the bleeding so that we can leave with some semblance of order. That said, I think we have to deal with the situation we are now faced with and take responsibility for it, so I am adamantly opposed to setting a date for pulling out because having a nice, easy target date to throw around is useful for campaigning, as if being out of there by X date allows us to wipe our conscience clean. Personally, I think it would be a far worse insult to Iraqis to leave them high and dry with the mess we created than it was to go in unprepared for what ultimately occurred.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I know. The big government stuff is probably the biggest disappointment of all of it.

As far as Iraq, I don't have a problem with the fact that we went in, but it's fairly obvious to me that they underestimated what it would take to "win" (if something like this can even be described as simplistically as winning or losing), failed to have a plan to deal with what emerged, and now are trying to put bandaids on a gaping wound to at least control the bleeding so that we can leave with some semblance of order. That said, I think we have to deal with the situation we are now faced with and take responsibility for it, so I am adamantly opposed to setting a date for pulling out because having a nice, easy target date to throw around is useful for campaigning, as if being out of there by X date allows us to wipe our conscience clean. Personally, I think it would be a far worse insult to Iraqis to leave them high and dry with the mess we created than it was to go in unprepared for what ultimately occurred.

I agree with you, except for I did have a problem with the fact that we went in. I never thought it was a good idea for many of the reasons you state and some others.

But I do agree that setting a target date just doesn't seem like the answer. I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think that's it. The Democrats are definitely trying to play politics here where politics shouldn't belong, however, many of them did vow to "bring back our troops" as part of their campaign promises and, I guess, that's what they are trying to do or at least it is what they want to make it look like they are trying to do.

[flere-imsaho]

That said, I think we have to deal with the situation we are now faced with and take responsibility for it,

So I should take responsibility for the incredible error made by the Bush Administration? I don't think so, especially as I was one of the people against the war from the start, expecting this kind of stagnation & morass.

Responsibility? National Guard troops are still being sent to Iraq lacking equipment or equipment in good repair. Soldiers are being sent back to Iraq with injuries that, in previous wars, would have excused them from service. Analysts and military commanders continue to say that in order to bring true security to Iraq, a U.S. force several times larger than what is currently in Iraq would be necessary.

Bush & Company haven't done anything to take responsibility for any of this or the myriad of other problems spawned by this war, and you want me and the American public to step up and take responsibility for what they started? Fuck that. My brother came back from Iraq with a degenerative spinal condition and will live in pain for the rest of his life. Most of the men he served with have now sunk deep into alcoholism and PTSD.

Meanwhile, what's our Commander in Chief doing?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42850000/jpg/_42850935_bush2_handsup_ap.jpg

Personally, I think it would be a far worse insult to Iraqis to leave them high and dry with the mess we created than it was to go in unprepared for what ultimately occurred.

This would be a more effective argument except that, for years now, polls of Iraqis have shown that the majority of Iraqis want us out of Iraq, for better or for worse.

[Ksyrup]

I don't have an issue with us having gone in, mainly from the standpoint that someone had to enforce the UN's threats. You can't keep drawing a line in the sand and then stepping back when that person crosses it, creating a new line, and saying, "OK, we mean it now. Don't cross THIS line," ad nauseum. Whether we had a realistic chance of coming out of this, even under ideal circumstances, any differently than we're going to at some point in the future...who knows. One thing I think we need to take from this is that freedom is more than just being free - it's a state of mind, almost, and you have to be prepared and want to accept the responsibility that comes with it. And I think we've learned that not everyone shares our views on freedom, and that you can't just give someone freedom and expect that they'll turn into the US circa 1776 and they'll live happily ever after.

[Ksyrup]

So I should take responsibility for the incredible error made by the Bush Administration? I don't think so, especially as I was one of the people against the war from the start, expecting this kind of stagnation & morass.

No offense, but this is precisely what's wrong with our country right now. It's "them against us," 24/7 in this country.

Yes, we have to take responsibility for what the people we elected have done. You don't get to exempt yourself from "us" by virtue of who you voted for any more than I do. How about I give you props for knowing exactly what was going to happen? Will that make you feel morally superior, so we can then move past your superficialities and on to what needs to be done? Geez, it's no wonder our country sucks right now.

[flere-imsaho]

I don't have an issue with us having gone in, mainly from the standpoint that someone had to enforce the UN's threats.

The lack of WMD in Iraq shows that the IAEA was enforcing the UN's threats just fine.

You can't keep drawing a line in the sand and then stepping back when that person crosses it, creating a new line, and saying, "OK, we mean it now. Don't cross THIS line," ad nauseum.

You also can't invade the country of every crackpot dictator who says mean things about your country.

Whether we had a realistic chance of coming out of this, even under ideal circumstances, any differently than we're going to at some point in the future...who knows.

Well, there have been oceans of ink spilled describing the mistakes made by the Provisional Authority in the early days after the invasion. Completely disbanding the army & police force, for one. Putting our faith in an international almost-criminal of questionable ethics who hadn't lived in Iraq for decades, for another, and the list goes on.

The point I'm trying to make here is that Bush & Co showed hardly any level of professionalism (you know hard work, due diligence, objectivity) going into this catastrophe, and they continue to lack professionalism now (Walter Reed going unnoticed for ages, continuing supply problems for the Army, myriad scandals at the White House, one of the key architects of the Iraq War getting booted from the World Bank for getting his girlfriend a cushy job at State while keeping her on the payroll at the World Bank). And you want me to sign on and take responsibility for the mess these turkeys created and still continue to control? Tell you what, let's go tell JaMarcus Russell that making the Raiders a playoff team next year is largely his responsibility.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

No offense, but this is precisely what's wrong with our country right now. It's "them against us," 24/7 in this country.

Yes, we have to take responsibility for what the people we elected have done. You don't get to exempt yourself from "us" by virtue of who you voted for any more than I do. How about I give you props for knowing exactly what was going to happen? Will that make you feel morally superior, so we can then move past your superficialities and on to what needs to be done? Geez, it's no wonder our country sucks right now.

Exactly. I voted for Dubya because I had more isses that I agreed with him on than I did the other candidate. I'm not personally responsible for the situation in Iraq solely because I did vote for Dubya. I elected the officials that I elected because I felt they would make the decisions that I agree with more often than the other candidate. Just because I voted for the candidate doesn't mean I blindly agree with everything that person does.

How do we know that the situation wouldn't have been worse (or better) with a Democrat as president? We don't. It's easy to second-guess things, but it doesn't result in much other than allowing for people to bitch about the present rather than using a more forward thinking approach to make sure the best decisions are made in future situations.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Well, there have been oceans of ink spilled describing the mistakes made by the Provisional Authority in the early days after the invasion. Completely disbanding the army & police force, for one. Putting our faith in an international almost-criminal of questionable ethics who hadn't lived in Iraq for decades, for another, and the list goes on.

The point I'm trying to make here is that Bush & Co showed hardly any level of professionalism (you know hard work, due diligence, objectivity) going into this catastrophe, and they continue to lack professionalism now (Walter Reed going unnoticed for ages, continuing supply problems for the Army, myriad scandals at the White House, one of the key architects of the Iraq War getting booted from the World Bank for getting his girlfriend a cushy job at State while keeping her on the payroll at the World Bank). And you want me to sign on and take responsibility for the mess these turkeys created and still continue to control? Tell you what, let's go tell JaMarcus Russell that making the Raiders a playoff team next year is largely his responsibility.

I'm sure you won't believe me, but most of those problems related to the Army supply issues and Walter Reed were based in decisions that were made in previous administrations (both Republican and Democratic). These weren't new problems that were fine before Dubya took office. In regards to scandals and preferential treatment for jobs, you could go through each administration and I guarantee you would find plenty of that in each one. It's all a part of the business. This isn't something new.

Once again, I'm not stating that any of it is the right thing to do. But flere is making the comment with the obvious inference that this is something that is new to just this administration. That couldn't be further from the truth.

[flere-imsaho]

No offense, but this is precisely what's wrong with our country right now. It's "them against us," 24/7 in this country.

"You're either with us, or with the terrorists."

Yes, we have to take responsibility for what the people we elected have done. You don't get to exempt yourself from "us" by virtue of who you voted for any more than I do.

This has nothing to do with the way I voted. This has everything to do with my right to dissent. It has everything to do with my right to stand up and say "Enough. This is not the right direction. Those in charge should admit their mistakes, listen to the people they represent and the experts giving them advice, solicited or not, and change the direction for this country."

Am I not to be afforded this right to dissent?

Will that make you feel morally superior, so we can then move past your superficialities and on to what needs to be done?

Superficialities? A year spent with a huge knot of pain and anxiety in my stomach due to a course of events over which I had no control and with which I did not agree? If that's superficial, I'd like to see what's weighty.

"What needs to be done?" We toppled their dictator. We've spent half a trillion dollars on operations in their country, including billions in direct reconstruction aid. What more do you want us to give them, blood? Oh wait, we've done that as well.

The Bush course for Iraq is to put more troops on the target range for the insurgents and ignore the calls of the Iraqi populace and Iraqi parliament for us to withdrawal and leave them to control their own fate. I disagree with this course of action, and I have a right to disagree.

[Ksyrup]

The lack of WMD in Iraq shows that the IAEA was enforcing the UN's threats just fine.


You can't look back at a decision, and Saddam's flaunting of the UN's requirements, and judge it based on the inforamtion we now know. The world-wide intelligence suggested he still had WMD. The only evidence to the contrary was that none had been found...but the delay in even getting in there to look for them, not to mention the games he played with the investigators, suggested he had something to hide. Eventually, he became the "dictator who cried wolf" - at the point he was probably telling the truth, he had lied and manipulated the UN for so long, no one really felt inclined to believe him. NOT EVEN DEMOCRATS.

[flere-imsaho]

Once again, I'm not stating that any of it is the right thing to do. But flere is making the comment with the obvious inference that this is something that is new to just this administration. That couldn't be further from the truth.

That's not the inference I'm making. The point I'm making is that people want us to continue to trust the Bush Administration to do the right thing in Iraq, when they've shown time and time again that they can't do anything but make mistakes and act unprofessionally.

No, it's not new to this administration. But it's a hell of a lot more serious when we're talking about the hundreds of lives, both coalition and Iraqi, that continue to be lost each week, in a large part due to a lack of good direction from those "in charge."

You all want me to join you in taking responsibility for the mess Bush has created, and I'm saying that I won't, because I have no faith that he and his cohorts can act professionally enough to actually do the right thing.

Case in point - the point about the Army not being prepared for Iraq due to the actions of previous administrations. Well, clearly the Administration knew as much, hence Rumsfeld's comment "you go to war with the army you have." Even so, as with any project or initiative, if you identify weaknesses when planning your actions, wouldn't you proscribe corrective actions for those weaknesses? Yet here we are, in 2007, still talking about supply problems, health care issues in the VA, and other problems related directly to our troops. How many more years do they need to resolve these issues? When is the urgency of these issues going to become crystal clear to these guys.

Bottom-line: I have no faith in their ability to get things done in a correct and professional manner, and since I have no faith there, I'm not willing to accept responsibility for the mess they've created. I dissent. I've proposed an alternate plan, which is supported by a majority of Americans, Iraqis and, lately the Iraqi Parliament. But I guess my plan doesn't count.

[Ksyrup]

"You're either with us, or with the terrorists."

Not the same thing - your statement wasn't about "us" vs. "them," it was about "us" vs. "us."

This has nothing to do with the way I voted. This has everything to do with my right to dissent. It has everything to do with my right to stand up and say "Enough. This is not the right direction. Those in charge should admit their mistakes, listen to the people they represent and the experts giving them advice, solicited or not, and change the direction for this country."

Am I not to be afforded this right to dissent?

Of course you are. But your immediate response to my statement was to not want to take responsibility as a country for what happened, but rather look at it individually and say "hey, you can't tag me with that! I was against it!" That's the kind of attitude that will get us nowhere. It's being bogged down in politics and refusing to see the bigger picture.

Superficialities? A year spent with a huge knot of pain and anxiety in my stomach due to a course of events over which I had no control and with which I did not agree? If that's superficial, I'd like to see what's weighty.

"What needs to be done?" We toppled their dictator. We've spent half a trillion dollars on operations in their country, including billions in direct reconstruction aid. What more do you want us to give them, blood? Oh wait, we've done that as well.

The Bush course for Iraq is to put more troops on the target range for the insurgents and ignore the calls of the Iraqi populace and Iraqi parliament for us to withdrawal and leave them to control their own fate. I disagree with this course of action, and I have a right to disagree.

My point is that your immediate reaction is telling. You had to point out how you knew all along what would happen. Bravo for you!

What needs to be done now - IMO, it is to withdraw based on goals being met that will put the Iraqi government in the best position possible to be able to govern on its own, and not just say, "Bush is an incompetent fuckwad who killed thousands of Americans and left Iraq with no better future than it had before we invaded. I knew it all along! Now we should get the hell out by January 1, 2008, because hey, January 1 is a nice, clean breaking point and we have to stop spending money on a war I was never in favor of in the first place!"

That is a selfish position for our country to take and ignores the responsibility we have to take - regardless of how we got to this point - for what we caused. We know what administration this took place under - no need to remind us. Or to gloat. Which is frankly how your comments come off, whether intended or not. And in the face of what's going on over there, it looks petty.

[flere-imsaho]

You can't look back at a decision, and Saddam's flaunting of the UN's requirements, and judge it based on the inforamtion we now know.

Sure you can. At the time, both the IAEA's Al-Baradei and the State Department's intelligence wing thought it unlikely that Saddam had WMD or, if he still had the components he had before the first gulf war, then they had likely degraded the point of unusability by now.

Also, since that time how many people from the intelligence community have come forward to say that intelligence on Iraq's WMD was influenced by political operatives from the White House?

Eventually, he became the "dictator who cried wolf" - at the point he was probably telling the truth, he had lied and manipulated the UN for so long, no one really felt inclined to believe him. NOT EVEN DEMOCRATS.

This was never about believing Saddam. It was about looking at the available evidence and using common sense to come to a set of conclusions.

[Fighter of Foo]

I'm sure you won't believe me, but most of those problems related to the Army supply issues and Walter Reed were based in decisions that were made in previous administrations (both Republican and Democratic). These weren't new problems that were fine before Dubya took office. In regards to scandals and preferential treatment for jobs, you could go through each administration and I guarantee you would find plenty of that in each one. It's all a part of the business. This isn't something new.

Once again, I'm not stating that any of it is the right thing to do. But flere is making the comment with the obvious inference that this is something that is new to just this administration. That couldn't be further from the truth.

The degree to which things are fccked up IS new to this adminstration.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

The degree to which things are fccked up IS new to this adminstration.

I'm going to guess you have never lived inside or near the Beltway. You would hear stories from the past 50 years that would make you cringe. You've got to have blinders on to make the statement you just did.

[flere-imsaho]

Not the same thing - your statement wasn't about "us" vs. "them," it was about "us" vs. "us."

When the White House lumps dissenters in with terrorists, then "us" vs. "us" definitely becomes "us" vs. "them".

Of course you are. But your immediate response to my statement was to not want to take responsibility as a country for what happened, but rather look at it individually and say "hey, you can't tag me with that! I was against it!" That's the kind of attitude that will get us nowhere. It's being bogged down in politics and refusing to see the bigger picture.

I'm happy to agree with you here. The country, as a whole, needs to take responsibility for allowing Bush and his gang of unprofessionals to run this into the ground. And it's my opinion that part of that responsibility is for Americans, at any level, to try and get the message through to Bush that we no longer have faith in his decision-making process, that we no longer agree with the direction he's set, and that we want something else to happen.

My point is that your immediate reaction is telling. You had to point out how you knew all along what would happen. Bravo for you!

That's absolutely not my point, and you know it. Person A tells Person B not to do something because it will make a mess. Person B goes ahead and does it anyway. Person C then comes along and tells Person A to help Person B clean up the mess, with the caveat that they can only do it the way Person B says it should be done. I'd say Person A has the right to be aggrieved. Further, I'd say Person A has a right to be listened to.

What needs to be done now - IMO, it is to withdraw based on goals being met that will put the Iraqi government in the best position possible to be able to govern on its own, and not just say, "Bush is an incompetent fuckwad who killed thousands of Americans and left Iraq with no better future than it had before we invaded. I knew it all along! Now we should get the hell out by January 1, 2008, because hey, January 1 is a nice, clean breaking point and we have to stop spending money on a war I was never in favor of in the first place!"

Jeez, who's demonizing whom now?

I support the actions of the Democratic leadership in Congress to ask the White House to set up a plan to withdraw based on goals, but unfortunately the White House has come back and said "No goals, no timetables, don't tell us how to do our job." So, sadly, I'd say the potential for collaboration there isn't very high. So you'll have to excuse me if, as a result, I must make clear my lack of faith in the White House's ability to do anything in a responsible manner.

That is a selfish position for our country to take and ignores the responsibility we have to take - regardless of how we got to this point - for what we caused.

It's selfish for the country to demand accountability and responsibility from the White House? I hope not.

We know what administration this took place under - no need to remind us. Or to gloat. Which is frankly how your comments come off, whether intended or not. And in the face of what's going on over there, it looks petty.

I think you need to look at my comments through another lens. I'm not here to gloat, and I'm not here to say "I told you so." I'm emotional and highly charged about this issue because I've lived with the personal cost of this fiasco. And yeah, I'll admit that it colors my views on the issue, and I'm happy to have people take what I say with a grain of salt because of it.

Fixing this problem requires collaboration between the White House and the majority of Americans who want the war to end and the troops to come home. Collaboration is a two-way street and to date the White House hasn't shown any willingness to listen to the people with whom they're supposed to be collaborating. Until that happens yes, it's "us" vs. "them", and that's a shame.

And so, in that light, don't ask me, at this point, to take responsibility for this fiasco and sign on to fixing it, when the means to fix it are still invested in a White House who won't listen to me or the majority of Americans who share my viewpoint on this. And don't ask me to give this non-listening White House my support when it was their lack of professionalism and their bad decisions that put my little brother in pain for the rest of his life.

[flere-imsaho]

I'm going to guess you have never lived inside or near the Beltway. You would hear stories from the past 50 years that would make you cringe. You've got to have blinders on to make the statement you just did.

I once knew a former aide to Kissinger who told me that during the later part of Nixon's administration, he was drunk so much that Strategic Command put in a place a protocol that required additional checks and balances should he ever give the nuclear launch command.

Assuming it's true, that's probably more screwed up than anything the Bush Administration has done. Having said that, the systemic level of corruption & incompetence in the Bush Administration is pretty impressive.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I once knew a former aide to Kissinger who told me that during the later part of Nixon's administration, he was drunk so much that Strategic Command put in a place a protocol that required additional checks and balances should he ever give the nuclear launch command.

Assuming it's true, that's probably more screwed up than anything the Bush Administration has done. Having said that, the systemic level of corruption & incompetence in the Bush Administration is pretty impressive.

Yes, I noticed how you continue to point out the problems that Republican presidents had.

[NoMyths]

If you don't mind, please elaborate. I've heard this from several people, but no one ever says what they think will happen. I'm actually curious to hear what changes people see coming.

As I said, I tend to work backwards now, so I'm more interested in the signs that things are changing, rather than focusing on any one of several possible outcomes for the region. It appears that our military involvement in Iraq, however, is going to be substantially reduced during that period as we withdraw from the sectarian conflict. The American version of the war may be ended within half a decade. The region will be in chaos with no end in sight, and anti-Americanism will flourish near and abroad in exactly the manner Bin Ladin would have hoped. The only mission that will apparently be accomplished is his.

I do believe that pro-war and pro-administration (former or no) supporters should have a hard time sleeping, because as much as one may wish to make the issue of responsibility an abstract concept by blaming the politicians they elected, the fact remains that those politicians would not have been able to bring things to this point without the votes, support, and parroted talking points of their constituents. It's not as if there weren't reasonable people making the best case they could for why invading Iraq would be a historically bad decision. As an anti-war voice in this community, I certainly was subject to heated criticism and insults, most of which boiled down to "you just hate Bush".

My personal experience has been instructive, especially in this community. I argued against invading Iraq since long before the actual event, as we all know. It's not a situation where one can feel good about being 'right', though -- instead, we're faced with exactly the chaos and terrible results that many of us argued were a more real danger than WMD we were supposed to fear. I also argued that if we did invade, we had a responsibility to stabilize the region, as the potential outcomes of failure were terrible to consider. At this point, I see little sign that such stability is possible any longer, considering how badly mismanaged this war has been.

[flere-imsaho]

Yes, I noticed how you continue to point out the problems that Republican presidents had.

Kennedy was a wanton womanizer and it's ironic that he's idolized by the same generation that he led straight into the Vietnam War. Johnson should be faulted for continuing that gruesome war without any clear plan or direction. Carter never understood how to delegate, a key failing in any executive, and was at a loss as to how to handle any of the macro problems that faced his presidency. Clinton's personal behavior in office compromised the dignity of the White House in a way that even SNL's mocking of Gerald Ford couldn't do. His personal infidelity made it possible for the country to focus on insignificant issues in politics while allowing structural problems with the economy to go unnoticed during the boom years of the late 90s. Plus, from an ideological standpoint, it's clear that after 1994 he pretty much punted on any of the "big" ideas he had for the presidency and coasted. Lastly, and this is a partisan point, although Breyer and Ginsburg were good appointees to the Supreme Court (that's a liberal view, of course), he should have taken the opportunity to appoint justices who were considerably younger, as George W. Bush has done.

Happy now? :p

[flere-imsaho]

In Post #37, NoMyths explains my viewpoint much better than I could.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Happy now? :p


That's the spirit! Trash one, trash all! :)

[JediKooter]

Honesty + Politician = Oxymoron

[MrBigglesworth]

Why haven't we put the entire country under martial law? Why don't we have rules of engagement to shoot first and ask questions later? The simple fact is that in war, sometimes the things that appear grisly on the surface actually save lives in the long run.

If we had a set of rules strictly enforced, people understand things. If you say that anyone out after 6 PM will be shot on sight, as long as you rigorously enforce that, people understand the rules.
100% correct. The US policies related to this war effort in Iraq are very similar to a parent who tries to be friends with their kids. The kids act up a lot and cause a lot of problems. The parent then raises their arms and wonders why the kids are acting up so much when the basis of the problem is that no discipline was used to keep the kids under control...

I agree with the 'shoot first' point as well. While we may be trying to avoid civilian casulties, the enemy is running around intentionally killing civilians. Wouldn't a better policy be to agressively pursue the enemy regardless of civilian casulties? It may cost lives in the short run, but the long term prognosis would be a whole lot better as we would likely save 10x the number of lives in that long run.
It boggles my mind how anyone can look at the situation in Iraq and say, 'You
know why they don't like us? We just aren't killing enough of them.'

Step 1: Kill more Iraqis.
Step 2: ?
Step 3: Victory!

http://www.jalopnik.com/cars/images/2006/04/Underpants_Gnomes_South_Park.JPG

Iraqis aren't children, and we aren't parents. Iraqis are people.

[bob]

As I said, I tend to work backwards now, so I'm more interested in the signs that things are changing, rather than focusing on any one of several possible outcomes for the region. It appears that our military involvement in Iraq, however, is going to be substantially reduced during that period as we withdraw from the sectarian conflict. The American version of the war may be ended within half a decade. The region will be in chaos with no end in sight, and anti-Americanism will flourish near and abroad in exactly the manner Bin Ladin would have hoped. The only mission that will apparently be accomplished is his.

I do believe that pro-war and pro-administration (former or no) supporters should have a hard time sleeping, because as much as one may wish to make the issue of responsibility an abstract concept by blaming the politicians they elected, the fact remains that those politicians would not have been able to bring things to this point without the votes, support, and parroted talking points of their constituents. It's not as if there weren't reasonable people making the best case they could for why invading Iraq would be a historically bad decision. As an anti-war voice in this community, I certainly was subject to heated criticism and insults, most of which boiled down to "you just hate Bush".

My personal experience has been instructive, especially in this community. I argued against invading Iraq since long before the actual event, as we all know. It's not a situation where one can feel good about being 'right', though -- instead, we're faced with exactly the chaos and terrible results that many of us argued were a more real danger than WMD we were supposed to fear. I also argued that if we did invade, we had a responsibility to stabilize the region, as the potential outcomes of failure were terrible to consider. At this point, I see little sign that such stability is possible any longer, considering how badly mismanaged this war has been.

thank you for telling me what you meant.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

It boggles my mind how anyone can look at the situation in Iraq and say, 'You know why they don't like us? We just aren't killing enough of them.'

Obviously, that's not even close to what was suggested by either of those posts. No one wants any civilians to get hurt. With that said, our enemies are now using our good nature against us to gain further advantage and prolong this engagement. At some point, you have to just realize that war is war and that people will needlessly die. U.S. soldiers have to fight with caution, worried that one mistake or dead civilian may end up being trumpeted on (insert one Muslim news channel) as a war atrocity. Meanwhile, they're killing 40 civilians a day in the streets and those same channel don't even raise a finger to chastise that action.

[MrBigglesworth]

The only evidence to the contrary was that none had been found...
Quite a substantial data point though, no?

The world-wide intelligence suggested he still had WMD.
It suggested it, but wars of choice should not be fought based on a suggestion. France, Germany, and Russia were among the world powers that decided that more time was necessary (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/2003/0211frangerru.htm) in order to determine if he had WMDs. History has vindicated their position.

NOT EVEN DEMOCRATS.
In the Iraq Resolution vote 133 congressmen voted against the resolution, 126 of the votes cast were from Democrats, 6 from Republicans, and 1 from an independent. 81 Democrats voted for it. In the Senate, 23 Dems voted against it and 29 voted for it. A majority of Democrats in congress voted against the resolution.

That's not to say that no Dems believed we should go to war. But it wasn't a cut and dry issue like you are making it out to be. 3 G8 members outright opposed the war, only 1 gave anything more than token support. And a majority of Dems were against it, compared to an overwhelming majority of R's.

[MrBigglesworth]

Obviously, that's not even close to what was suggested by either of those posts. No one wants any civilians to get hurt.
You want a shoot first policy in Iraq. The reason we don't have that right now is because it would be more dangerous to the people in Iraq. So presumably, if we change it we will get more civilians hurt. You are advocating for a policy that will get more innocent civilians killed by US forces. Presumably it's because you feel it will be better in the long run. I don't see how doing more of what got us into this will now get us out. You are missing step 2.

You want to "aggressively pursue the enemy regardless of civilian casualties", but "don't want any civilians hurt"? These are mutually exclusive. You can't not be concerned about civilian casualties and also be concerned about them. Again, to square the circle of killing them so that they live, you need step 2.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

You want to "aggressively pursue the enemy regardless of civilian casualties", but "don't want any civilians hurt"? These are mutually exclusive. You can't not be concerned about civilian casualties and also be concerned about them. Again, to square the circle of killing them so that they live, you need step 2.


I'll clarify. I want the US forces to avoid casulties when possible. However, when it's a situation where a US soldier is put in harm's way, the civilian can no longer be the primary concern. Right now, that's not the situation.

[MrBigglesworth]

I'll clarify. I want the US forces to avoid casulties when possible. However, when it's a situation where a US soldier is put in harm's way, the civilian can no longer be the primary concern. Right now, that's not the situation.
Still though, where is step 2? Effective counter-insurgency requires winning the 'hearts and minds' of the civilians to get them on your side and to have them stop joining the insurgency. It's hard enough to do that with soldiers with guns in the street. It's even harder to do that with soldiers shooting guns at people in the street. Nobody wants US troops to be in danger, and we all want a stable Iraq. But those goals are more and more in opposition to each other, and are looking more and more unattainable. The only solution I can come to is that we have to withdraw. Not because I think things will be all flowers and puppies if we do, but because it's the best of multiple evils. Basically, we can have chaos in Iraq right now, or chaos in Iraq 10 years and thousands of American lives and billions (trillions?) of dollars from now.

[Galaril]

" trillion dollars on operations in their country, including billions in direct reconstruction aid.

This argument aside that is an incredible number. WTF I can't get the twon I live in to come fill in a pot hole in front of my home for the last 3 years. That's it me and the kid sfirst light tomorrow commence oil drilling ops in the backyard maybe if I can strike some black gold I can get the hole filled in:cool:

[ISiddiqui]

I'll clarify. I want the US forces to avoid casulties when possible. However, when it's a situation where a US soldier is put in harm's way, the civilian can no longer be the primary concern. Right now, that's not the situation.

There is an easier way to avoid casulties ;). I'm sure Mrs. Pelosi can tell you :D.

And as stated by Bigglesworth, an effective counter-insurgency requires that we don't make greater enemies of the population while trying to put down the insurgency. Because that'll just swell the numbers of said insurgency. And that's just counter productive.

[Warhammer]

It boggles my mind how anyone can look at the situation in Iraq and say, 'You
know why they don't like us? We just aren't killing enough of them.'

Step 1: Kill more Iraqis.
Step 2: ?
Step 3: Victory!

Iraqis aren't children, and we aren't parents. Iraqis are people.

I agree with your last sentence. They are people. They are people that could use our help in establishing order.

This is a classic military case of a persisting defense. We are the occupying force, the insurgents, dissidents, terrorists, whatever you want to call them, our enemy is pursuing a persisting defense, because they cannot win a pitched battle with us. Their whole tactics are based upon outlasting us. We must occupy their nation, and break their will to resist. All they need to do, is outlast the public support in this country and wait for us to go home. THEY HAVE SAID THIS! Many Al Qaeda leaders have said that all they need to do is kill Americans, and eventually we will go home. We know their game plan.

The counter to a persisting defense is a persisting offense. What this is, is occupying their territory with a high force to area ratio. This is accomplished by building strongholds in an area and conducting combat sweeps that decapitate the commanders and instigators of the rebellion. After you quell all unrest in an area, you leave a force behind, and move the bulk of the troops forward, and repeat. A great example of this is the English conquest of Wales in the 1200s.

Let me draw a parallel. When I was growing up in Germantown, TN, no one ever sped through town. Why? If someone went over the speed limit, they would pull you over. When I first started driving, I was given a ticket for 2 mph over the limit! They had a minimum of two squad cars patrolling the major routes through town, and had squad cars near the high school when they let out. No one would speed through town. If they got pulled over for speeding, you knew you were getting a ticket. If someone would complain about getting a ticket for a few mph over the speed limit, someone would immediately ask, "You were in Germantown, weren't you?"

Over the last 10 years or so, the police force stopped enforcing the speeding laws so strictly. The result is now you can drive 10 mph over and expect not to be pulled over. Every one speeds through town because they know they can get away with it.

My point about shooting first and asking questions later is based expressly on this behavior. If we tell the Iraqis that we're going to institute Martial Law, and a curfew, etc., and anyone out after a certain time is going to be shot, and we do just that, they are going to learn not to do that behavior. If someone gets shot for being out after 6 PM, they deserve it. They know the rules.

In WWII, we became the only nation that dropped an atomic weapon on another country in anger. Did we do this to kill civilians? In part, yes. However, the big reason we did it was to save the lives of US soldiers. We knew that if the bomb worked, we'd kill thousands of civilians, but we could save the lives of thousands of US soldiers, and many more thousands of civilians that would have been displaced by our invasion of Japan. Sometimes to prevent the death of more people, it is necessary to kill a lesser amount of people.

Another example of this is Napoleon. Many people think that Napoleon was a butcher and would resort to battles needlessly. The reason behind his desire to bring his enemies to battle was not to waste lives, but to save them. Fewer lives were lost in major battles in those times than were lost due to diseases during the campaigns. Napoleon lost far more troops during the retreat from Moscow due to the elements, starvation, and disease than he did to the Russians. As a matter of fact, the Russian army was as badly off as Napoleon's was at the end of that campaign. It was primarily the Austrians and Prussians that forced Napoleon out of Germany with the help of the Russians, not the other way around. Although, by 1814, the Russians had made good their losses of 1812. What's worse, losing 10,000 men in one day's worth of fighting, or losing 400,000 over the course of 60 days?

Your reaction to my post is exactly what I was talking about in my previous post that we no longer think out strategies, we feel them out. That is why we have lost the "Occupation of Iraq," even though we won the "Battle of Iraq." I don't want people to die needlessly, but everytime a bomb goes off and kills more civilians, those are more needless deaths.

We talk about timetables for withdrawl. Some even say that we must have an announced deadline, and then we leave. Imagine if Churchill had said this during WWII...

We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender. Unless this war continues until May 30, 1943. Then we'll pull all our troops out of harms way.

Another quote of Churchill should be remembered:

You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.

Our goals need to be what is best for our nation. Not the Iraqis, not the Iranians, not the Germans, what is best for us. It is my belief that a stable, democratic Iraq is in our nation's best interests. We need to see this through. Unfortunately, it is in Iran's and Syria's interests for an unstable or theocratic Iraq. They are doing everything in their power to ensure their national interests, are we?

[Warhammer]

And as stated by Bigglesworth, an effective counter-insurgency requires that we don't make greater enemies of the population while trying to put down the insurgency. Because that'll just swell the numbers of said insurgency. And that's just counter productive.

Not if you enforce rules evenly and across the board. Do I get ticked off that I pay taxes? If they are not too steep, no. Where I get ticked off is where the guy down the street pays less in taxes than I do because of some stupid loophole.

Again, I'm not saying we be abusive, but we need to let them know that we're not going to put up with any crap. And we need to be consistent.

[dawgfan]

In other words, we are an empire and Iraq is one of our colonies.

[st.cronin]

In other words, we are an empire and Iraq is one of our colonies.

Pretty much, yep.

[Warhammer]

In other words, we are an empire and Iraq is one of our colonies.

Think of it more like the Philippines from 1898 - 1945.

Now, if we want to create Texxon as the 51st state, I might go for that. :D

[ISiddiqui]

In other words, we are an empire and Iraq is one of our colonies.

That's EXACTLY the POV I got from Warhammer's post.

I didn't think we were going to annex Iraq. And if we aren't, wouldn't it be more logical for the GOVERNMENT OF IRAQ to decide if martial law and curfews are what is required?

Think of it more like the Philippines from 1898 - 1945.

You mean our COLONY, the Philippines? Like I said, I don't think we are looking to annex Iraq (like we did with the Philippines after the Spanish American War).

[st.cronin]

ISiddiqui, you need to update your blog.

[ISiddiqui]

I already posted "I have nothing more to say" ;)

Maybe I'll come up with something

[Warhammer]

That's EXACTLY the POV I got from Warhammer's post.

I didn't think we were going to annex Iraq. And if we aren't, wouldn't it be more logical for the GOVERNMENT OF IRAQ to decide if martial law and curfews are what is required?



You mean our COLONY, the Philippines? Like I said, I don't think we are looking to annex Iraq (like we did with the Philippines after the Spanish American War).

Actually, I'm not sure that we ever annexed the Philippines or Cuba. We set a timetable for Philippine freedom, and during that timeframe we built roads, schools, infrastructure, etc. The problems that we there were some of the people wanted to be given their freedom right away. After WWII we gave them their freedom. Cuba occured earlier, I'm thinking 1913, but I could be wrong about that.

EDIT: I should have used Cuba as the example. The Teller Amendment dealt exclusively with Cuba which was granted independence in 1902. I was thought the Teller Amendment dealt with the Philippines as well.

In any case, what I would love to see is for us to invest in Iraq as we did in Europe and in Japan after WWII, a Marshall Plan for Iraq, if you will. Then after we establish security and infrastructure, we turn it over to the people.

[Crapshoot]

Actually, I'm not sure that we ever annexed the Philippines or Cuba. We set a timetable for Philippine freedom, and during that timeframe we built roads, schools, infrastructure, etc. The problems that we there were some of the people wanted to be given their freedom right away. After WWII we gave them their freedom. Cuba occured earlier, I'm thinking 1913, but I could be wrong about that.


You spent 50 years in the Philippines, though the Filipino's refuse to call this "occupation" - they claim they were independent.

[ISiddiqui]

Actually, I'm not sure that we ever annexed the Philippines or Cuba. We set a timetable for Philippine freedom, and during that timeframe we built roads, schools, infrastructure, etc. The problems that we there were some of the people wanted to be given their freedom right away. After WWII we gave them their freedom. Cuba occured earlier, I'm thinking 1913, but I could be wrong about that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Paris_%281898%29

Spanish commissioners argued that Manila had surrendered after the armistice and therefore the Philippines could not be demanded as a war conquest, but they eventually yielded because they had no other choice, and the U.S. ultimately paid Spain 20 million dollars for possession of the Philippines.. The Treaty specified that Spain would cede to the United States the archipelago known as the Philippine Islands, and comprehending the islands lying within the a specified line.

Yes, the US annexed the Philippines. They were given to the US by Spain in the Treaty of Paris.

Cuba was more of "we occupy until you gain freedom" and was independant by 1902 (but really controlled by the US under the Platt Amendment).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine-American_War

Some Americans, notably William Jennings Bryan, Mark Twain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Twain), Andrew Carnegie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Carnegie), and other members of the American Anti-Imperialist League (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Anti-Imperialist_League), strongly objected to the annexation of the Philippines.

Anti-imperialist movements claimed that the United States had betrayed its lofty goals of the Spanish–American War by becoming a colonial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism) power, merely replacing Spain in the Philippines.

And, of course, you don't install a "Governor" of a non-colony:

(same linked article as above)

In 1900, President William McKinley appointed William Howard Taft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Howard_Taft) as the chairman of a commission to organize a civilian government in the Philippines, which had been ceded to the United States by Spain following the Spanish-American War and the 1898 Treaty of Paris. Although Taft initially had been opposed to the annexation of the islands and told McKinley that his real ambition was to become a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States), he reluctantly accepted the appointment when McKinley suggested that he would be “the better judge for this experience.”

From 1901 to 1903, Taft served as the first civilian Governor-General of the Philippines, a position in which he was very popular among both Americans and Filipinos.

[Warhammer]

Ack, see my edit....

[Fighter of Foo]

This is a classic military case of a persisting defense. We are the occupying force, the insurgents, dissidents, terrorists, whatever you want to call them, our enemy is pursuing a persisting defense, because they cannot win a pitched battle with us. Their whole tactics are based upon outlasting us. We must occupy their nation, and break their will to resist. All they need to do, is outlast the public support in this country and wait for us to go home. THEY HAVE SAID THIS! Many Al Qaeda leaders have said that all they need to do is kill Americans, and eventually we will go home. We know their game plan.

....

The counter to a persisting defense is a persisting offense. What this is, is occupying their territory with a high force to area ratio. This is accomplished by building strongholds in an area and conducting combat sweeps that decapitate the commanders and instigators of the rebellion. After you quell all unrest in an area, you leave a force behind, and move the bulk of the troops forward, and repeat. A great example of this is the English conquest of Wales in the 1200s.

Another example of this is Napoleon. Many people think that Napoleon was a butcher and would resort to battles needlessly. The reason behind his desire to bring his enemies to battle was not to waste lives, but to save them. Fewer lives were lost in major battles in those times than were lost due to diseases during the campaigns. Napoleon lost far more troops during the retreat from Moscow due to the elements, starvation, and disease than he did to the Russians. As a matter of fact, the Russian army was as badly off as Napoleon's was at the end of that campaign. It was primarily the Austrians and Prussians that forced Napoleon out of Germany with the help of the Russians, not the other way around. Although, by 1814, the Russians had made good their losses of 1812. What's worse, losing 10,000 men in one day's worth of fighting, or losing 400,000 over the course of 60 days?


Putting aside feeling toward the war itself, this is the clearest example of my problem with the president and why the republican representatives in the original article had to go have a stern talk with the Bush as if he were a 12 year old.

Given what we know about occupations, the complete and total failure to deal with any of the resulting problems in Iraq, and the corresponding audacity to request and receive even more power while doing so is a fcck up of monumental proportions. This is much, much, much worse than any other president since Hoover.

It's not partisan to say so. It's honest.

[Warhammer]

Putting aside feeling toward the war itself, this is the clearest example of my problem with the president and why the republican representatives in the original article had to go have a stern talk with the Bush as if he were a 12 year old.

Given what we know about occupations, the complete and total failure to deal with any of the resulting problems in Iraq, and the corresponding audacity to request and receive even more power while doing so is a fcck up of monumental proportions. This is much, much, much worse than any other president since Hoover.

It's not partisan to say so. It's honest.

I agree with you. Bush has really let us down. If you fight a war, you go in there to win. You don't go in to fight a political war or you lose. Hell, even Hoover wasn't a big screw up. FDR got many of his ideas from Hoover, but he took them to further extremes than Hoover did. Hoover's problem was not sympathizing with the common man.

[lungs]

EDIT: I should have used Cuba as the example. The Teller Amendment dealt exclusively with Cuba which was granted independence in 1902. I was thought the Teller Amendment dealt with the Philippines as well.


I'm not so sure I'd be quick to use Cuba as an example. Granted, it took another 57 years, but our Cuban adventure didn't turn out so well in the end.

[ISiddiqui]

:D

Beat me to it... and make no mistake for most, if not all, of those 57 years, Cuba was the US's client state. We ran much behind the scenes.

[path12]

That is a selfish position for our country to take and ignores the responsibility we have to take - regardless of how we got to this point - for what we caused. We know what administration this took place under - no need to remind us. Or to gloat. Which is frankly how your comments come off, whether intended or not. And in the face of what's going on over there, it looks petty.

Shit. I never post in politic threads. But I just wanted to say that those of us who were against this war and/or are liberal have been portrayed as terrorist sympathizers, pussies, unpatriotic and worse by the hate wing of the Republican party for going on 25 years now. So you will have to forgive us if we are not too sympathetic to the 'why cast blame, let's all just join hands and fix this problem' meme.

[ISiddiqui]

Shit. I never post in politic threads. But I just wanted to say that those of us who were against this war and/or are liberal have been portrayed as terrorist sympathizers, pussies, unpatriotic and worse by the hate wing of the Republican party for going on 25 years now. So you will have to forgive us if we are not too sympathetic to the 'why cast blame, let's all just join hands and fix this problem' meme.

Standard Operating Procedure. Demonize the left, call them every name in the book, but once things go South, start yelling at those who point it out, saying we need to band together and stop casting blame, etc.

Fuck 'em. They can't have it both ways.

[MrBigglesworth]

The counter to a persisting defense is a persisting offense. What this is, is occupying their territory with a high force to area ratio. This is accomplished by building strongholds in an area and conducting combat sweeps that decapitate the commanders and instigators of the rebellion. After you quell all unrest in an area, you leave a force behind, and move the bulk of the troops forward, and repeat. A great example of this is the English conquest of Wales in the 1200s.

Let me draw a parallel. When I was growing up in Germantown, TN, no one ever sped through town. Why? If someone went over the speed limit, they would pull you over. When I first started driving, I was given a ticket for 2 mph over the limit! They had a minimum of two squad cars patrolling the major routes through town, and had squad cars near the high school when they let out. No one would speed through town. If they got pulled over for speeding, you knew you were getting a ticket. If someone would complain about getting a ticket for a few mph over the speed limit, someone would immediately ask, "You were in Germantown, weren't you?"

Over the last 10 years or so, the police force stopped enforcing the speeding laws so strictly. The result is now you can drive 10 mph over and expect not to be pulled over. Every one speeds through town because they know they can get away with it.
According to Gen. Patreaus, the commander in Iraq and the author of the Army's counter-insurgency manual, the operation you describe needs about 20-25 security personnel per thousand residents. That means that you would need between 400k and 500k soldiers. We have about 150k there now. We have no way to come up with 250k-350k more. This plan is simply not feasible. You don't have a step 2.

My point about shooting first and asking questions later is based expressly on this behavior. If we tell the Iraqis that we're going to institute Martial Law, and a curfew, etc., and anyone out after a certain time is going to be shot, and we do just that, they are going to learn not to do that behavior. If someone gets shot for being out after 6 PM, they deserve it. They know the rules.
How would you like to live in in a town where they shoot you if you are out after 6? Would you be supportive of the dictators that imposed their will on you? Or would you be more inclined to resist?

We talk about timetables for withdrawl. Some even say that we must have an announced deadline, and then we leave. Imagine if Churchill had said this during WWII...
Iraq is a counter-insurgency, not a world war. WWII has no relevance to the current situation.

Our goals need to be what is best for our nation. Not the Iraqis, not the Iranians, not the Germans, what is best for us. It is my belief that a stable, democratic Iraq is in our nation's best interests. We need to see this through.
We can agree that we do what is in our best interests. I agree that a stable Iraq is in our best interests. I also think that owning the Sears Tower is in my best interests, but I don't think it's feasible, so I am not devoting any of my time today trying to buy the Sears Tower. Our goals in Iraq are similarly out of our reach.

Unfortunately, it is in Iran's and Syria's interests for an unstable or theocratic Iraq. They are doing everything in their power to ensure their national interests, are we?
Why would an unstable Iraq be in Iran's or Syria's best interests, except insofar as it drains us of resources, a problem which would be solved by getting out of there? A stable Shiite country would be very beneficial to Iran.

[Groundhog]

I agree with your last sentence. They are people. They are people that could use our help in establishing order.


One of the few (only?) polls taken from the Iraqi people, late last year, had 71% of Iraqis wanting the United States to withdraw within a year or less. I'm fairly certain if they were asked which Iraq they would rather live in - the Iraq of the past couple of years, or the Iraq in the final couple of years of Hussein - the numbers would be similarily weighted (though probably closer to 100) to the later.

They are people that clearly don't desire foreign help to establish order, because everyday they get to experience exactly how much help it has been to them so far. Right now the foreign military presence is attempting to keep them safe from attacks that mostly stem from the presence of the foreign military anyhow.


In WWII, we became the only nation that dropped an atomic weapon on another country in anger. Did we do this to kill civilians? In part, yes. However, the big reason we did it was to save the lives of US soldiers. We knew that if the bomb worked, we'd kill thousands of civilians, but we could save the lives of thousands of US soldiers, and many more thousands of civilians that would have been displaced by our invasion of Japan. Sometimes to prevent the death of more people, it is necessary to kill a lesser amount of people.

My problem with the whole dropping atomic weapons on Japanese civilians (which is certainly not "in part"; it's exactly what they did and what they intended to do) is that it's the exact same 'gameplan' that the extremists are employing in Iraq right now - target civilians to force the opposing government to give up. Hell, the A bombs weren't even the worst thing they hit the civilan centres with, it was the fire bombings that did most of the damage. The fact that it was State organised and on a much larger scale than any attack in Iraq doesn't make it any more legitimate or any less reprehensible. I'm not going to argue the benefits of how many US lives it saved or that it brought an end to the war, because that's not the point here. It's a double-standard.

If WWIII broke out tomorrow and the two main powers were the US and, say, a massive European alliance, would everyone be OK if the European powers nuked New York and Los Angeles to bring a quick end to the war and save perhaps many other lives on both sides?

[JPhillips]

A simple question that never gets answered, "Who's side are we on?"

Sunni?

Shia?

Which faction?

Which leader?

We can't ever win because we're trying to avoid picking sides. We don't want to pick sides because we don't want any of the current power brokers to ruin the country. We're hoping to find a pony.

[WVUFAN]

One of the few (only?) polls taken from the Iraqi people, late last year, had 71% of Iraqis wanting the United States to withdraw within a year or less. I'm fairly certain if they were asked which Iraq they would rather live in - the Iraq of the past couple of years, or the Iraq in the final couple of years of Hussein - the numbers would be similarily weighted (though probably closer to 100) to the later.

I've never been in favor of the war if we're simply gonna go in and help reestablish a government. I'm in favor of coming in and taking full, complete and permanent control over a country. If we're gonna devote resources and manpower, we deserve to get the benefits for it.

It's not a popular opinion, but then again, I firmly believe one of the reasons we lost this war, and completely the reason we lose Vietnam is because we allowed popular opinion to decide policies. It allows dissenters to effectively pull heart-strings and point and say "Look! Look at all the poor defenseless terrorists we're mistreating! Look at all the "innocent" Iraqis we're killing", when a base fact of life is that civilians are killed in wars. People who have never been in the military at all, much less served in a combat zone are effectively handcuffing the military, when they have no right to do so.

So, yes, dissenters ARE hurting the war effort.


If WWIII broke out tomorrow and the two main powers were the US and, say, a massive European alliance, would everyone be OK if the European powers nuked New York and Los Angeles to bring a quick end to the war and save perhaps many other lives on both sides?
If I were the ones with the nukes and had to decide whether thousands (or even millions) of "innocent" enemy citizens died by nuking, or thousands of our troops dies with a group attack, you're damn right I'm launching the nukes. My responsibility is NOT to enemy troops or even to citizens of enemy countries, my responsibility is the safety of OUR troops and OUR citizens.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

It's not a popular opinion, but then again, I firmly believe one of the reasons we lost this war, and completely the reason we lose Vietnam is because we allowed popular opinion to decide policies.

Since Bush never adjusted his plan to political or popular opinion, your argument is incorrect, plain and simple.

Vietnam was also not lost due to public opinion or politics. Nice try though.

Edited: due to horrible grammar.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

If I were the ones with the nukes and had to decide whether thousands (or even millions) of "innocent" enemy citizens died by nuking, or thousands of our troops dies with a group attack, you're damn right I'm launching the nukes. My responsibility is NOT to enemy troops or even to citizens of enemy countries, my responsibility is the safety of OUR troops and OUR citizens.

You have no idea how securing the protection of future American lives due to present actions works. You kill civilians of another country; other countries have no problem killing yours.

Edit: I should have added thank god you're not the one with the nukes.

Millions of civilians, really?? What about your responsibility to the human race? Why stop there? Why not go for billions? In fact, why don't you just nuke every piece of land in the world and kill every non-American human in the world and be safe that way.

[Glengoyne]

Sure you can. At the time, both the IAEA's Al-Baradei and the State Department's intelligence wing thought it unlikely that Saddam had WMD or, if he still had the components he had before the first gulf war, then they had likely degraded the point of unusability by now.
....


Well there is that, and the fact that Hans Blix said that while they didn't have proof that the Iraqis had WMDs, he said that the Iraqi government hadn't yet come to the fundamental conclusion that they would actually have to disarm.

Saddam played chicken with the international community, we called him on it when the UN was too dysfunctional to do so, and Saddam payed the ultimate price. I'm okay with that sequence of events. What disappointed me so was that we had glossed over the whole notion that we'd be required to provide security in the aftermath. As for the Iraqis throwing flowers at our feet. They did. The majority of Iraqis were happy to have Saddam out of their lives, and grateful that the US had intervened. The problem is that we created a power vacuum that was siezed upon by dissidents and criminals. Then we went deep into denial on the whole sorry state of affairs. A tactic that simply allowed things to get worse than better. I'm with the Republican congressman here in this thread. We're at a point where I don't care what the President says. I'm at a point where Petraus is just about the only guy I'll listen to, although Gates is making good progress in my book.

On the bit about the President particularly not wanting to turn this over to a Democrat President... I'm certain there was a good amount of simply not wanting to lose the Whitehouse to the Dems, but I'm also confident that he thinks the Dems will put ending the war well ahead of actually trying to solve the problem in some sort of lasting manner.

[Groundhog]

I've never been in favor of the war if we're simply gonna go in and help reestablish a government. I'm in favor of coming in and taking full, complete and permanent control over a country. If we're gonna devote resources and manpower, we deserve to get the benefits for it.

Absolutely, and I agree with you - nobody devotes the money, man power, and political turmoil that comes with war unless they are getting benefits from it. This is the realism of this war and every other war, but it's something that few admit; certainly nobody from the government, anyhow.


It's not a popular opinion, but then again, I firmly believe one of the reasons we lost this war, and completely the reason we lose Vietnam is because we allowed popular opinion to decide policies. It allows dissenters to effectively pull heart-strings and point and say "Look! Look at all the poor defenseless terrorists we're mistreating! Look at all the "innocent" Iraqis we're killing", when a base fact of life is that civilians are killed in wars. People who have never been in the military at all, much less served in a combat zone are effectively handcuffing the military, when they have no right to do so.

So, yes, dissenters ARE hurting the war effort.

If not for the dissenters, the US would have done much like they did in Vietnam and just completely attempted to convert all of Iraq to rubble. That's just not possible anymore, thanks to Vietnam.

Everybody in their country has every right to criticize their military and their government. It's the governments fault for not convincing its citizens it's a just war. The government has continually lied about its motives - changing them on a yearly basis - and how is this supposed to help popular support for the war?

Whether the war is right or wrong, the US's reasons for entering Iraq have never changed. They continue to feed their motives through ever-evolving rhetoric that can best be classified as "lies", pure and simple. Their actual motives are common knowledge, and you've spelt them all out perfectly. As a government you can't spell them out so plainly or you'll get branded a monster, and that's the root of the problem.


If I were the ones with the nukes and had to decide whether thousands (or even millions) of "innocent" enemy citizens died by nuking, or thousands of our troops dies with a group attack, you're damn right I'm launching the nukes. My responsibility is NOT to enemy troops or even to citizens of enemy countries, my responsibility is the safety of OUR troops and OUR citizens.

Then why not just bring back the use of chemical warfare? Why not just completely nuke Iraq off the face of the Earth? There are certain ethics that all civilized countries should hold themselves to and expect others to hold as well. The balance of power will not stay as it is forever, and if your country shows a blatant disregard for ethics than you can expect to get the same back at some point.

[WVUFAN]

Absolutely, and I agree with you - nobody devotes the money, man power, and political turmoil that comes with war unless they are getting benefits from it. This is the realism of this war and every other war, but it's something that few admit; certainly nobody from the government, anyhow.

Very true. I'll also admit that the Bush administration has completely and utterly botched this conflict. The blame falls solely on them, but the cause I think in many ways is due to public opinion effecting war policies, and that should never happen.


If not for the dissenters, the US would have done much like they did in Vietnam and just completely attempted to convert all of Iraq to rubble. That's just not possible anymore, thanks to Vietnam.
In some ways, yeah. I've been seeing a pattern in the way some dessenters are presenting their opposition that strikes me as very much in parallel to Vietnam's protestors -- they've gone from "We oppose the war, but support our troops" to "Look at the evil things our troops are doing". The latter I feel is not really something that should be said unless you've been and seen what some of our troops have. Case in point -- the Abu Graib (sp?) incident and the incident with the treatment of female collaborators. That was my reason for bringing up Vietnam.


Everybody in their country has every right to criticize their military and their government.
Sure, but it's hard to justify that criticism unless you have a point of personal reference, and many dissenters do not have that.


It's the governments fault for not convincing its citizens it's a just war. The government has continually lied about its motives - changing them on a yearly basis - and how is this supposed to help popular support for the war?
Problem is not that the government is lying about the way, it's that they're shooting for popular support to begin with. War isn't supposed to be popular. It shouldn't be up for popular debate. No rational country WANTS our troops in harm's way, but there are times when they must be.

Not saying Iraq is one of those times, I'm just talking in generalities. :)


Then why not just bring back the use of chemical warfare? Why not just completely nuke Iraq off the face of the Earth? There are certain ethics that all civilized countries should hold themselves to and expect others to hold as well. The balance of power will not stay as it is forever, and if your country shows a blatant disregard for ethics than you can expect to get the same back at some point.
Ethics only truly work if both sides of the conflict agree to abide by them. The Geneva Convention is a JOKE, because it's completely useless, as only the US/allied countries are abiding by them.

In truth, you do WHATEVER is necessary to win the war. If that means nukes or chemical warfare, that that's what you do. Ethics really have no place in a war.

[MrBigglesworth]

It's not a popular opinion, but then again, I firmly believe one of the reasons we lost this war, and completely the reason we lose Vietnam is because we allowed popular opinion to decide policies. It allows dissenters to effectively pull heart-strings and point and say "Look! Look at all the poor defenseless terrorists we're mistreating! Look at all the "innocent" Iraqis we're killing", when a base fact of life is that civilians are killed in wars. People who have never been in the military at all, much less served in a combat zone are effectively handcuffing the military, when they have no right to do so.

So, yes, dissenters ARE hurting the war effort.
So since having the people run the country has been disastrous, your advice is to replace our democracy with a military dictatorship?

[WVUFAN]

So since having the people run the country has been disastrous, your advice is to replace our democracy with a military dictatorship?

Yes, until a proper government run by and controlled by Americans can be inserted.

Of course, I'm talking Iraq, not the US. We're already run by the military, y'all just don't know it. :)

Seriously, leave the planning, implentation and execution of the war to the military. The public, or rather the majority of it, do not have the experience nor ability to make decisions or demand changes.

[SirFozzie]

Looks like the visit had an effect. Good.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18601278/

Bush concedes over Iraq benchmarks

By Andrew Ward in Washington
Updated: 17 minutes ago

President George W. Bush on Thursday agreed to negotiate war-funding legislation that would set targets for progress in Iraq, amid mounting pressure from Democrats and Republicans over the war.

Mr Bush said it "makes sense" to establish benchmarks against which to measure efforts to bring stability to the strife-torn country.

The comments increased the chances of compromise with the Democratic-controlled Congress over continued funding for a war that is fast losing support on Capitol Hill.

Congress has been at loggerheads with the White House for weeks over Democratic efforts to place conditions on any additional funding for the war.

The House of Representatives on Thursday rejected legislation pushed by anti-war Democrats that would have required US withdrawal from Iraq within nine months. But the House later passed a bill that would guarantee funding for combat operations for only two more months, prompting a fresh vote on the war in July.

The House legislation, which Mr Bush has threatened to veto, is likely to be replaced by a compromise bill agreed by the Senate before being sent to the White House.

Democrats leaders have agreed to drop earlier demands for a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq in return for setting tough benchmarks for progress.

"Time's running out, because the longer we wait the more strain we're going to put on the military," said Mr Bush.

Mr Bush has looked increasingly isolated in recent days, as a growing number of Congressional Republicans have voiced doubts about the chances of US success in Iraq.

On Tuesday, a group of moderate Republican House members visited the White House to deliver a blunt warning about waning support for the war within Mr Bush's own party.

Ray LaHood, one of the Republican lawmakers who attended the meeting, said he had never before heard a president addressed in such a "frank and no-holds-barred" way.

"I was very sober about it and he listened intently," Mr LaHood told CNN. "He appreciated the fact that people were prepared to open up and give it to him."

John Boehner, House minority leader, said earlier this week that Republicans would be looking for a "Plan B" if conditions have not improved by September, when military commanders are expected to assess whether US strategy is working.

"I think this president is more isolated than any president since Richard Nixon in his final days," Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer said, referring to the US leader who resigned over the 1970s Watergate scandal.

Speaking after a briefing at the Pentagon, Mr Bush urged Congress to reserve judgment until the build-up of US troops ordered in January is completed next month.

"[The] plan ought to be given a chance to work," he said. "And we need to give the troops under his command the resources they need to prevail.

"We should be able to agree that the consequences of failure in Iraq would be disastrous for our country."

But he acknowledged that, in the short term, the "surge" strategy had increased rather than reduced violence. "As we have surged our forces, Al Qaeda is responding with their own surge," he said. "We're also seeing high levels of violence because our forces are entering areas where terrorists and militia once had sanctuary."

[ISiddiqui]

It's not a popular opinion, but then again, I firmly believe one of the reasons we lost this war, and completely the reason we lose Vietnam is because we allowed popular opinion to decide policies. It allows dissenters to effectively pull heart-strings and point and say "Look! Look at all the poor defenseless terrorists we're mistreating! Look at all the "innocent" Iraqis we're killing", when a base fact of life is that civilians are killed in wars. People who have never been in the military at all, much less served in a combat zone are effectively handcuffing the military, when they have no right to do so.

Last I checked, we don't live in a military police state. So popular opinion should decide policies. The US had no problems with doing some bad stuff during WW2 (though a lot of it was hidden, I have to admit) mainly because the people believed it was a conflict worth sacrificing for. In Vietnam and in Iraq, the government has FAILED to convince the people that sacrifices are needed, as Groundhog pointed out. The government, in both conflicts, lied to the American people to get them on board, and in both cases faced the consequences.

If you don't want people dissenting, do a better job selling your reasons. In Iraq especially, the administration went from one reason to another as soon as the first reason blew up in their faces.

The one thing you are definately wrong about is that public opinion should ALWAYS effect war policies. The military works for us, not the other way around.

[WVUFAN]

The one thing you are definately wrong about is that public opinion should ALWAYS effect war policies. The military works for us, not the other way around.

I disagree completely. It would be like tellilng a doctor what procedure to do when operating on you. Sure, you have the "right" to do it, since you're paying him, but do you have the expertise to do it? Of course not. Same with war policies.

The reason why WWII was so successful is because it really wasn't a war of popular opinion. It wasn't a media war and information about the war was strictly controlled. And that's the way it should be.

[ISiddiqui]

I disagree completely. It would be like tellilng a doctor what procedure to do when operating on you. Sure, you have the "right" to do it, since you're paying him, but do you have the expertise to do it? Of course not. Same with war policies.

Or telling a Congressman how he should vote?

Remember, our Constitution calls the President the "Commander in Chief". He is elected by the people of the United States. Popular opinion determines the head of the military. So why exactly shouldn't popular opinion matter in how a war is conducted? And if popular opinion shouldn't matter is such respects are you suggesting a Constitutional Amendment that the President should give up his power as "Commander in Chief" to a general during wartime?

Btw, the patient always has the right to tell the doctor what procedures he can and cannot perform on you. That's why doctors have to get consent forms.

[ISiddiqui]

The reason why WWII was so successful is because it really wasn't a war of popular opinion. It wasn't a media war and information about the war was strictly controlled. And that's the way it should be.

I'm sure the popular opinion was very much on the side of kicking the crap out of the country that attacked us. That's indicated by FDR winning another term in the middle of it.

I'm thinking that more information about the war wouldn't have made any difference in the opinions of the people fighting an aggressor.

On the other hand, the American people do have some problems with being the aggressor country.

[WVUFAN]

Or telling a Congressman how he should vote?

Remember, our Constitution calls the President the "Commander in Chief". He is elected by the people of the United States. Popular opinion determines the head of the military. So why exactly shouldn't popular opinion matter in how a war is conducted? And if popular opinion shouldn't matter is such respects are you suggesting a Constitutional Amendment that the President should give up his power as "Commander in Chief" to a general during wartime?

Side note -- funny you should mention the President as the Commander in Chief -- I've always believed there should be an amendment requiring prior military service as a requirement to serve as President. In any case ...

The most successful wars were ones where the President didn't heed public opinion about how a war should go. Truman didn't ask public opinion as to whether to drop the bomb. No public opinion polls were taken as to whether to launch the attack on Normandy. The public does not have the know-how to make those decisions. The same thing applied to today. Leave the war to the experts.


Btw, the patient always has the right to tell the doctor what procedures he can and cannot perform on you. That's why doctors have to get consent forms.

Using this same analogy, the "doctors" got the consent forms when Congress approved the invasion. I'm talking specifics in the surgery (or war in this case) -- you leave HOW the surgery goes to the doctors.

[MrBigglesworth]

Seriously, leave the planning, implentation and execution of the war to the military. The public, or rather the majority of it, do not have the experience nor ability to make decisions or demand changes.
Like ISiddiqui said, we don't live in a police state. Our military is under the control of civilians, because we live in a democracy and war is politics by other means. The military is not in a position to determine the foreign policy of this country, and how wars are fought can have a very big influence on foreign policy. If wars can not be won for a price that the people are willing to pay, they should not be undertaken.

[ISiddiqui]

Side note -- funny you should mention the President as the Commander in Chief -- I've always believed there should be an amendment requiring prior military service as a requirement to serve as President. In any case ...

Ah, so you are for a military police state. Why am I not surprised :p.

Congress makes laws, I'm thinking by the same logic, only trained lawyers should be able to serve in that body.

The most successful wars were ones where the President didn't heed public opinion about how a war should go.

You mean like... Iraq?

The same thing applied to today. Leave the war to the experts.

The same thing applied to today. Leave the lawmaking to the experts. As said above, I guess that means you want the people to but out and let lawyers with training at ABA approved law schools be the only ones who decide what laws to pass, right? They are the experts after all.

Using this same analogy, the "doctors" got the consent forms when Congress approved the invasion. I'm talking specifics in the surgery (or war in this case) -- you leave HOW the surgery goes to the doctors.

A war is more like the entire visit. Surgery is more akin to a battle. And if the battle doesn't go well and the doctor wants to try something else, you can say no.

You leave how the surgery goes to the doctors and the battles to the generals. But you leave the entire visit to the patient like you leave the entire war strategy to the civilian leadership.

A declaration of war has NEVER been a license for the military to go hog wild and do whatever it wants. Though, I guess if it were up to you, the US may actually be two countries as President Lincoln shouldn't have had the power to fire ineffectual generals during the Civil War, seeing as how he didn't have military experience prior.

[Groundhog]

Very true. I'll also admit that the Bush administration has completely and utterly botched this conflict. The blame falls solely on them, but the cause I think in many ways is due to public opinion effecting war policies, and that should never happen.

The US is in theory a democracy. The majority of people are not benefiting from the current war in Iraq. That's where the issue lies, and being a supposed democracy, that's why the public opinion is affecting war policies. It's not enough to end the war, but it's enough to hamper it.

*shrug* unless you want a dictatorship, then I fail to see the issue here.

In some ways, yeah. I've been seeing a pattern in the way some dessenters are presenting their opposition that strikes me as very much in parallel to Vietnam's protestors -- they've gone from "We oppose the war, but support our troops" to "Look at the evil things our troops are doing". The latter I feel is not really something that should be said unless you've been and seen what some of our troops have. Case in point -- the Abu Graib (sp?) incident and the incident with the treatment of female collaborators. That was my reason for bringing up Vietnam.

Individual actions by troops (like that rape/murder case a little while back for example) are horrific, but they are merely a side-affect of the problem. Too many troops are being forced to perform far more duty in Iraq than they should, and it's not healthy for them mentally of physically.

As disgusted I am with some of the things I've seen reported on the actions of various individuals in the US forces, I know that they are operating under intense and anything but ideal circumstances. The blame rests with the guys who sent them over there.

Problem is not that the government is lying about the way, it's that they're shooting for popular support to begin with. War isn't supposed to be popular. It shouldn't be up for popular debate. No rational country WANTS our troops in harm's way, but there are times when they must be.

Not saying Iraq is one of those times, I'm just talking in generalities. :)

They have to shoot for popular support, again, it's supposed to be a democracy, not a dictatorship. It *should*, by definition, be up for popular debate. That's not how it works evidently, but it's supposed to be one of the defining features of our system of government.

Ethics only truly work if both sides of the conflict agree to abide by them. The Geneva Convention is a JOKE, because it's completely useless, as only the US/allied countries are abiding by them.

Ignoring the fact that the US clearly does not abide by the Geneva convention in numerous cases that have come to light since the beginning of this war (even if it means the breaches occuring in places that don't recognise the conventions), that's not the point. You need to hold yourself to a higher standard. This isn't a government that they are fighting, it's insurgents. You can't say "they aren't doing it, so we won't either".


In truth, you do WHATEVER is necessary to win the war. If that means nukes or chemical warfare, that that's what you do. Ethics really have no place in a war.

This paragraph rang true for a long time, but not anymore thankfully. It just doesn't hold water anymore, and as it becomes increasingly harder for countries to hide their actions in war, so to has it become even harder for them to do "whatever is necessary".

The world is and will be a better place for it.

[MrBigglesworth]

With the 'doctor analogy', when you go to a doctor you don't give the doctor carte blanche to do whatever they want. They give you recommendations, tell you the positives and negatives, and let you make the decision for yourself. The military works the same way. I'm sure you wouldn't advocate for having a doctor decide when to give you a vasectomy.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Last I checked, the Constitution and successful functioning of the U.S. is based on the simple fact that the President and Congress decide war policy, not the generals. The generals carry out that policy. The President and Congress don't decide what hill to take, but they do decide what countries for troops to invade and when to pull them out.

You say Truman didn't ask for public opinion to drop the bomb. Likewise, no one here is asking for public opinion on whether to drop cluster bombs on portions of Iraq. But public opinion is pretty important to decide what the hell are we doing here? Generals aren't equipped (or have been tasked EVER in the history of the U.S. Republic) to decide that question.

[Glengoyne]

Last I checked, we don't live in a military police state. So popular opinion should decide policies. ...


I think very few things should be decided by popular opinion. I'm much more of a fan of the conept of the democratic republic than of an actual democracy where the unwashed masses dictate policy. I'd rather have a relatively small number of well intentioned and educated members of society making the decisions based on their long term effects, than to allow popular whimsy dictate our actions.

Note: I understand my above description is utopian in nature, and doesn't really reflect our current political reality, nor did it when there was a democrat in the White house. I do seriously believe that a few properly equipped people making important decisions is more sustainable than relying on popular opinion.

That said, in this case our well intentioned and educated leaders ignored many of their responsibilities. They may have been well meaning, I'm still giving them that, but they seriously dropped the ball when it came to assembling any sort of master plan that might actually have accomplished any of their long term goals.

[MrBigglesworth]

Looks like the visit had an effect. Good.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18601278/

Bush concedes over Iraq benchmarks
I'll believe that Bush is interested in a compromise when I see the final bill. The Daily Show had a great line when the attorney general scandal was just starting out and Bush said he would 'compromise' by allowing his aids to be questioned by congress behind closed doors, not under oath, and with no transcripts. One of the Daily Show correspondents said that it was "a major concession from the president's initial offer to Congress, which was that they go f-ck themselves."

[JPhillips]

That said, in this case our well intentioned and educated leaders ignored many of their responsibilities. They may have been well meaning, I'm still giving them that, but they seriously dropped the ball when it came to assembling any sort of master plan that might actually have accomplished any of their long term goals.

Any chance of me getting an apology since I was getting blasted for saying basically the same thing years ago. ;)

[larrymcg421]

No, you shouldn't tell a doctor how to perform a certain operation, but if I go in for stomach pains and the doctor chops off my foot, then it doesn't take a medical expert to know he fucked up and you can best be sure I'll be giving him an earful.

[Glengoyne]

..



My problem with the whole dropping atomic weapons on Japanese civilians (which is certainly not "in part"; it's exactly what they did and what they intended to do) is that it's the exact same 'gameplan' that the extremists are employing in Iraq right now - target civilians to force the opposing government to give up. Hell, the A bombs weren't even the worst thing they hit the civilian centers with, it was the fire bombings that did most of the damage. The fact that it was State organized and on a much larger scale than any attack in Iraq doesn't make it any more legitimate or any less reprehensible. I'm not going to argue the benefits of how many US lives it saved or that it brought an end to the war, because that's not the point here. It's a double-standard.

If WWIII broke out tomorrow and the two main powers were the US and, say, a massive European alliance, would everyone be OK if the European powers nuked New York and Los Angeles to bring a quick end to the war and save perhaps many other lives on both sides?

I don't think of this as a double standard. Rather an indication that things have changed over the years. In ww2 it was pretty common for all parties to target civilians. The notion has arisen since that warring parties should avoid targeting civilian populations. I believe the change in perception is a measure of the lethality of the weapons available.

Targeting civilians was common then, but is now not acceptable. I don't believe this is an us versus them double standard, but rather a measure of different standards in place at different times.

[Glengoyne]

Any chance of me getting an apology since I was getting blasted for saying basically the same thing years ago. ;)

I don't know if I owe you an apology. I believe, possibly in self delusion, that I only blasted folks for making irresponsible accusations. Sort of the "Bush lied", "Mission accomplished", and "Blood for Oil" folks. I've been critical of the administration's management of Iraq, pretty nearly from the weeks immediately following the fall of Baghdad.

[JPhillips]

Like I expected. All eleven of those moderates voted against the short term funding bill that would have put benchmarks on Iraqi progress in place.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

blah blah blah. Nothing is as useless as a moderate Republican congressman. They'll talk the talk, but when push comes to shove they'll favor another six months of status quo.

Yup. You were indeed right. This thread might as well have just said, "Ya da ya da."

[MrBigglesworth]

I don't think of this as a double standard. Rather an indication that things have changed over the years. In ww2 it was pretty common for all parties to target civilians. The notion has arisen since that warring parties should avoid targeting civilian populations. I believe the change in perception is a measure of the lethality of the weapons available.

Targeting civilians was common then, but is now not acceptable. I don't believe this is an us versus them double standard, but rather a measure of different standards in place at different times.
I think the change is more to do with the nature of modern warfare in that most wars are between an obvious favorite and a huge underdog. In that situation the ability to target civilians is usually only in the hands of the favorite. For example, the US could if it wanted wipe out the civilian population of Iraq. Israel could kill everyone in Lebanon. But Iraq can't do the same to the US, and Lebanon can't do anything more than lob in a few rockets to Israel. Targeting civilians is more morally acceptable when your country is facing extinction. In modern warfare, the countries that have the power to target civilians are rarely facing extinction.

[Glengoyne]

I think the change is more to do with the nature of modern warfare in that most wars are between an obvious favorite and a huge underdog. In that situation the ability to target civilians is usually only in the hands of the favorite. For example, the US could if it wanted wipe out the civilian population of Iraq. Israel could kill everyone in Lebanon. But Iraq can't do the same to the US, and Lebanon can't do anything more than lob in a few rockets to Israel. Targeting civilians is more morally acceptable when your country is facing extinction. In modern warfare, the countries that have the power to target civilians are rarely facing extinction.

I like your distinction better.

[MrBigglesworth]

Looks like the visit had an effect. Good.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18601278/

Bush concedes over Iraq benchmarks
I'll believe that Bush is interested in a compromise when I see the final bill. The Daily Show had a great line when the attorney general scandal was just starting out and Bush said he would 'compromise' by allowing his aids to be questioned by congress behind closed doors, not under oath, and with no transcripts. One of the Daily Show correspondents said that it was "a major concession from the president's initial offer to Congress, which was that they go f-ck themselves."
Fool me once, shame on...shame on you. Fool me--you can't get fooled again.

The Democrats, in a meeting with Bush's top aides on Capitol Hill, said they would strip from an emergency appropriations measure billions of dollars in domestic spending. They also pledged to give Bush authority to waive compliance with a timetable on the war.

But no agreement emerged.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070518/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq_101;_ylt=AnDTqIMO9CsPaLi4mGAbURME1vAI