I don't see a problem with building up our military given the hot spots around the globe.

 

As to the Bush plan, I'm skeptical that it will work. I just don't see the Iraqi people stepping up enough.

I think so. It was only months ago that dem leaders said there wasn't enough troops, now he is sending more troops and now that is not correct ither. Just more evidence that they do not have a plan. If everyone would rally around Bush and quit making this so political things would be a lot better. However, the only plan the dems have is to disagree with whatever Bush does.

I think so. It was only months ago that dem leaders said there wasn't enough troops, now he is sending more troops and now that is not correct ither.

 

I believe they were criticizing the President for not sending enough in the beginning and attempting to skim by with smaller numbers. However, they have been inconsistent.

 

If everyone would rally around Bush and quit making this so political things would be a lot better.

 

Your right, this is very partisan, and some people, oblivious to facts, fall in line with their parties stance on the matter. But, to say that everyone should "rally around" Bush is dangerous. No matter the administration or the issue, we need it to challenge everything to ensure things are done correctly or in the best interest of the nation. No better example than the current war. Had Bush had more support, we would still be on the losing end of this conflict, or possibly worse, and as long as he could get by with it, he probably would. Pressure has forced him to at least adopt a new strategy and attempt to solve some problems there, rather than just waiting it out.

Yes, he is right. It is easy for detractors of the Bush Administration to change their minds minute by minute in regard to foreign policy, but when they are in command, we are talking about lives at stake. I have the utmost faith in the Bush administration, and support his decision, to see this war through.

Yes, he is right. It is easy for detractors of the Bush Administration to change their minds minute by minute in regard to foreign policy, but when they are in command, we are talking about lives at stake. I have the utmost faith in the Bush administration, and support his decision, to see this war through.

 

 

Through to where? What does it look like when we get there? Can we get there?

You are right.

Through to where? What does it look like when we get there? Can we get there?

 

 

Amen!

 

Brings to mind....

 

"We're on the road to nowhere...."

..."We're on the road to nowhere...."

 

Yes, but we are making good time.

 

 

Frances

Yes, but we are making good time.

 

 

Frances

 

 

"You spin me right 'round...."

 

Through to where? What does it look like when we get there? Can we get there?

sorry, my mind was racing.

That's about the same troop levels that we had in June of 06, so I guess we are just rolling back history a few months to "Stay the course".

 

Watched Georgia tech beat Duke, couldn't handle any bushspeak last night.

I think so. It was only months ago that dem leaders said there wasn't enough troops, now he is sending more troops and now that is not correct ither. Just more evidence that they do not have a plan. If everyone would rally around Bush and quit making this so political things would be a lot better. However, the only plan the dems have is to disagree with whatever Bush does.

 

I watched "Scarborough Country" last night, and the producers of that show put together a vignette that showed Bush making speeches over the last 5 years. These speeches are a fascinating series of statements that are painful to watch.

 

 

Frances

Two wars that the united states never had a chance to win: Vietnam and Iraq. Impossible to win religious wars. You can win wars of territory, economic interest, and military strategic interest, even governmental interest, but not religious interest.

America could very well spend the next 10 years attempting to establish a stable democracy in iraq to only watch it torn apart by extremists. The fact is, our democracy (which happens to be the longest freestanding government in the world mind you) was established on belief in the christian faith. I believe that is why our government is successful. Our government does recognize every nation, and every faith but was founded on christianity. Their government will never allow for such leaniency.

 

I agree. Dennis Miller once said that Irag/US would be a 100 year war.

President Bush's plan seems to be at odds with not only the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, but also with his own senior military leadership. In fact, as recently as the summer of 2005, the President himself said that more troops were not the answer.

 

I think the plan, involving embedding U.S. troops with Iraqi forces to secure Baghdad, will put a lot more of our people directly in harm's way. This would seem to be unavoidable, as one of the apparent goals is to secure the city and take away havens for insurgents. I expect a lot more casualties from IED's, sniper attacks, and ambushes if this plan is put into action, simply because attempting to secure the entire city will require our soldiers and Marines to be continuously exposed. We already know that the insurgency is opportunistic in its selection of targets--we will be giving them plenty of targets.

 

Second, the other aspects of the plan are rather vague and don't sound all too different from what we have heard in the past. Diplomacy with the Saudis, Egyptians, and Jordanians is fine, but excluding talks with the Syrians, and Iranians, which share the largest borders with Iraq leaves two gaping holes in the plan to improve security. There was vague mention of securing these borders ("We will interupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria"), but with the majority of incremental U.S. forces going into Baghdad and the balance going to Anbar province, what are we going to do differently? The President rattled the U.S. saber in an apparent attempt to intimidate Iran (mentioning an additional U.S. carrier battle group being sent to the region), but what will this accomplish? It seems that the implied threats toward Iran will only strengthen radical Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's grip on power. How will that serve U.S. interests? He is a major proponent of the Iranian nuclear program and regularly makes explicit threats toward Israel.

 

This plan looks less like a blueprint for stabilizing Iraq and more like a recipe for further destabilization of the Middle East and a prolonged, directionless U.S. occupation of Iraq. I hope Congress steps in to restrict this foolish futility.

I have always thought the Iraq invasion was a mistake. I also think that the post-invasion was ran poorly. But what really bugs me is that so many in this country, especially in Congress, have a cut and run additude. I was brought up taught that when you make a mess, you clean it up. You don't leave it for others to deal with.

 

I also have those indelible images in my mind of helicoptor leaving Saigon. I don't ever want to see that again.