The "surge"

#26
#26
Alot of the impatience (IMO) comes from the expectations of a quick in and out like Desert Storm. But this is a totally different animal.
 
#27
#27
Alot of the impatience (IMO) comes from the expectations of a quick in and out like Desert Storm. But this is a totally different animal.
I would agree to an extent. However, a lot of the impatience is due simply to the idea that Democracratic governments cannot fight long term wars for ideals.

I believe that the best thing that could happen for the Middle East would be for Iraq to take shape as a strong, democratic, secular government. However, is that the best thing for America? That is the question that has to be answered in our own democracy. Whether or not I say yes has no bearing on whether or not 100 million other voters say...
 
#28
#28
I would agree to an extent. However, a lot of the impatience is due simply to the idea that Democracratic governments cannot fight long term wars for ideals.

I believe that the best thing that could happen for the Middle East would be for Iraq to take shape as a strong, democratic, secular government. However, is that the best thing for America? That is the question that has to be answered in our own democracy. Whether or not I say yes has no bearing on whether or not 100 million other voters say...


I completely agree with this sentiment. The problem is that the war in Iraq has never been sold to the American people that way. Its been sold as, in the alternative: 1) a response to 9/11; 2) an effort to depose Hussein before he gets nukes; 3) a confrontation with terrorists there so we don't have to fight them here.

I think the war is something else entirely, though bits and pieces of the above have been legitimate justifications on and off. What this really has become about is a test of wills between the West and radical Islam.

There is something to be said for increasing our presence every time radical Islam gets a leg up. For one thing, it sends the signal that should they ever bring war to us, we will retaliate three-fold. For another, it lets our friends and allies know that we have th stomach to help them should the need arise.

What concerns me, howver, is that the definition of "putting a stick in the eye" of radical Islam is not something tangible. Its not an objective event. And because it is not an objective event that we will ever be able to point to, we run the risk of never being able to say "we won." No matter what we do, no matter how long we do it, there will be radical Islam.

They won't capitulate.
 
#30
#30
There it is. That which cannot be changed by policy, soldiers, time, or good intentions...

More importantly, it is not something which can be measured, and it is not, therefore, anything which can be proclaimed.

We will never "achieve" the real objective here. And so no matter when it happens, when we leave Iraq, the claim by some will be that we left too early.
 
#31
#31
I didn't see the speech, but read it.

Is it just me or is Bush reaching even harder to equate Iraq with the generic war against Islamic fundamentalism?

Isn't it preey much a recognized fact that the problems in Iraq right now are sectarian betwene Shi'ite and Sunni and that those problems are not related to "terrorists" in the sense that we know them?

And yet Bush wants to expand the war effort there on the theory that we are stopping Al-Qaeda there?

Nonsense.

look who your talking about gator. even his own party doesn't respect him anymore. like i said he will go down as one of the worst presidents in history.
 
#32
#32
look who your talking about gator. even his own party doesn't respect him anymore. like i said he will go down as one of the worst presidents in history.
I am quite sure that Bush is not worried about what the grammatically and historically deficient think of his Presidency.
 

VN Store



Back
Top