I don't have a good feeling about this...

Bush is now looking at reducing the troops in Iraq. I have a feeling this is from the pressure the moon bat liberals in Congress.

If this happens, and so soon after the Bin Laden tape, who do you think will consider this a victory? Other than the Dhimmicrats.

Not a good thing at all.

The majority of Americans want US troops to be withdrawn so doesn't Bush have a responsibility to the people he represents? Shouldn't he be doing what they want?

Shouldn't he do what is right? What if the people are misinformed?

It doesn't matter. I agree an elected leader does have some power to follow what they believe is right but may not be popular, but the current situation is not one of those times. There has been majority opposition for a long time, and regardless of whether he believes what he is doing is right or if he believes they people are misinformed, Bush now has a responsibility to follow the wishes of the people he represents.

Bilbo Baggins wrote:It doesn't matter. I agree an elected leader does have some power to follow what they believe is right but may not be popular, but the current situation is not one of those times. There has been majority opposition for a long time, and regardless of whether he believes what he is doing is right or if he believes they people are misinformed, Bush now has a responsibility to follow the wishes of the people he represents.

many liberals vote the party line not what the people want

Elections are the opportunity to vote for what you want, but representatives should be exactly that; representative of the views of their constituents. And people shouldn't just back a policy because their party proposed it, they should back it because they believe in it. And a significant majority of Americans believe the US should withdraw from Iraq and have felt like that for a long time.

So a President should read the polls daily and make huge earth moving decisions based on what the poll taker says he found? Are you really that stupid?

Are you aware that by the end of WWII, after Germany's defeat, the majority of Americans no longer supported the war against Japan? So would you be saying that Truman should have looked at the polls and surrendered, bringing all of our soldiers home in early 1945, never having forced Japan to surrender?

No, but when a President decides to go to war on false pretenses (unlike WW2, which was a proper war), he should perhaps be a bit more responsive to the desires of the people he represents. Its not like people have now just decided that the war isn't worth it, majority of Americans have wanted to be out of Iraq for more than a year. So what does the President do? He sends in more troops. Brilliant.

I actually think that the troops need to stay in Iraq. I don't like the control the US has over the Iraqi government because it appears they are going to become another client state, but I don't think things will get better if the soldiers leave. Be nice if the UN could help out, but you guys pissed them off enough going in there so don't think thats gonna happen.

In summary, I'm a big supporter of grassroots democracy, with politicians doing a bit less policy making and listening to their constituents more.

Bilbo what you are advocating is not what this country has set up. Pure democracy would never work.

Well first off, when you roll out the "false pretense" chant I'll assume that you actually believe the "Bush Lied" crowd. If you're brain is actually that rotted out you've probably never noticed that Bush acted on exactly the same intelligence that Clinton spoke of in 1998. So Clinton lied too. Well that would be both Bill and Hillary along with Kerry and Allbright and nearly the entire tribe of democraps. You probably have also ignored that Bush had the same head of CIA that Bill Clinton had and the only difference is that Bush invaded Iraq based on that Intelligence and Clinton used that intel to bomb Iraq.

Now if you'll check around you'll find that I'm not any kind of George Bush fan but I'd still prefer him to BJ Bill Clinton, at least the man had the balls to back up his words. Personally I'm split over whether Saddam actually had WMDs and got them out to Syria (or elsewhere) before the invasion or maybe that he did too good a job of acting like he still had WMDs and we fell for it. Whichever, everyone believed Saddam had WMDs.

As for "control" the US has over the Iraqi government you must be kidding. If we had any control over the Iraqi government you would actually see some progress. IMHO our big mistake was injecting democracy into a ancient tribal culture that is more interested in killing other tribes for grievances hundreds of years old than running a country. My plan would give Iraq to the Kurds and let them run the whole show. They're the only people in Iraq that have pacified their area and established a civilization. I like the Kurds and trust them more than any other people in the ME.

Now for the funny part. It sure looks like Hillary and even Obama say they'll keep troops in Iraq for just about as long as most of the GOP candidates. So it all about power, getting in power, staying in power, power power power. I'm pretty sure that if Gore had won in 2000 he would have ended up invading Iraq on the same intel that Bush used and the GOP would have been screaming "Gore lied, people died" and threatening to cut off funding for the war.

At last some company.........

Yes, I do believe Bush lied. He knew full well that Saddam had no WMD's, the war was and has always been about oil. I think thats pretty much a no brainer. Bush lied through his teeth, fabricated 'intelligence' and beat up some big story about WMD's. In regards to the Clintons, I didn't like Bill and I don't like Hillary. Actually I don't really support the Democrats at all, though I do recognise the lesser of two evils.

I'm not kidding about the control the US has over the Iraqi government, its just unlucky for you guys that they have no control over the violence there either.

Finally, as I've already said, I want troops to be in Iraq but I would rather they were UN than US. The international community should help out here, but only when they have an equal say in regards to policy, and not under US command. You guys have made enough mistakes, now give others a chance to clean up your mess.

Bush is just a fucking Dem.
There isn't much difference between what he's done in the past 7 years and what a Dem would have done.

He makes me wanna puke.

Bush is just a fucking Dem.
There isn't much difference between what he's done in the past 7 years and what a Dem would have done.

If theres one person in the world who isn't a Democrat its George Bush. I don't even like Democrats and I can see that.

Bilbo Baggins wrote:

Bush is just a fucking Dem.
There isn't much difference between what he's done in the past 7 years and what a Dem would have done.

If theres one person in the world who isn't a Democrat its George Bush. I don't even like Democrats and I can see that.

What's your point?

That you're wrong, Bush is a completely different creature to Democrats

Bilbo Baggins wrote:That you're wrong, Bush is a completely different creature to Democrats

No he isn't. He's an egg sucking dog lib.

Bilbo Baggins wrote:The majority of Americans want US troops to be withdrawn so doesn't Bush have a responsibility to the people he represents? Shouldn't he be doing what they want?

Actually no. If you like how our forces ended up on the Iraqi Front of the GWOT or not is moot. The fact remains that they are there. Once forces have been committed, the only acceptable argument is how to win the war. Arguing over how to lose the war is nothing short of providing aid and comfort to the enemy during a time of war.

Surrendering the Iraqi Front will cause a genocide of the Sunni and Kurds by the Shiites. This means that if you are advocating an American Surrender on the Iraqi Front, you Bilbo are advocating for a genocide.

It amazes me how liberals will claim to be in favor of human rights and then in the same breath call for a genocide.

The sectarian tensions that exist today are a result of the US invasion & occupation. Terrible economic policies imposed by the Transitional Authority which saw foreign contractors take the best jobs and profits from Iraqi's left a huge amount of fit, young men who had a grudge against the US. The US then cancelled elections that had been held by Iraqi's themselves, and then held elections later than marginalised many groups. No wonder extremists started to look quite appealing, the US took away the normal democratic rights of most Iraqi's and let Paul Bremer run wild with policies that private sector companies themselves wrote.

Iraq was a hugely secular country before the US started mucking up the country. 3 months after the invasion, less than 20% of Iraqi's wanted an Islamic State based on their religious beliefs. They only started moving to the fringe when they saw their rights were being trampled on. If the US wants to win this war, its got to reverse its bogus economic policies and give power back to the Iraqi's themselves.

Heres a reminder: its not your country!!! Stop pretending you're trying to help Iraqis and admit this war is about oil and the profits that US can gain from rebuilding a country. Profits that Iraqis never see.

Bilbo Baggins wrote:The sectarian tensions that exist today are a result of the US invasion & occupation. Terrible economic policies imposed by the Transitional Authority which saw foreign contractors take the best jobs and profits from Iraqi's left a huge amount of fit, young men who had a grudge against the US. The US then cancelled elections that had been held by Iraqi's themselves, and then held elections later than marginalised many groups. No wonder extremists started to look quite appealing, the US took away the normal democratic rights of most Iraqi's and let Paul Bremer run wild with policies that private sector companies themselves wrote.

Iraq was a hugely secular country before the US started mucking up the country. 3 months after the invasion, less than 20% of Iraqi's wanted an Islamic State based on their religious beliefs. They only started moving to the fringe when they saw their rights were being trampled on. If the US wants to win this war, its got to reverse its bogus economic policies and give power back to the Iraqi's themselves.

Heres a reminder: its not your country!!! Stop pretending you're trying to help Iraqis and admit this war is about oil and the profits that US can gain from rebuilding a country. Profits that Iraqis never see.

Even though most of your statement is dubious at best, none of it changes the fact that if the US surrenders on the Iraqi front, a genocide will follow.

None of what you wrote changes the fact that advocating for a US defeat in a war is providing aid and comfort to the enemy during a time of war, which is treason.

None of what you wrote changes the fact that advocating for a US defeat in a war is providing aid and comfort to the enemy during a time of war, which is treason.

I don't want the US to lose, I outlined how they could win didn't I? And its not treason for me, cos I'm not American.

Bilbo Baggins wrote:I don't want the US to lose,

Then you must understand that bellyaching about how the US got into Iraq at this point in time does nothing to help secure a victory. There are only two times to argue the merits of a war, before it is fought and after it is over. To do so while a war is in progress only aids the enemy. There will be n eternity for incriminations and recriminations after this war is over.

Bilbo Baggins wrote:I outlined how they could win didn't I?

The only thing that you said in this thread was about wishing that the UN was involved. Seeing as how the UN is not only useless, but counterproductive, I see no way how UN involvement can do anything but harm.

Bilbo Baggins wrote:And its not treason for me, cos I'm not American.

You got me there. You can't commit treason against a nation from which you are not a citizen.

Who is the real enemy in this war? Many of the 'terrorists' will actually view themselves as freedom fighters trying to free their country from occupation. Lets not just think 'us vs them', lets think about whats the other side's motivation, and try and work towards reducing that through peaceful means. I think its fine to be critical of the current war effort if you think it is being done poorly. Non-military factors need to be looked at more.

UN involvement would have been good, but its too late for that now. How about the US lets Iraqi's run their own country? For too long the US has been dictating how things should be done, and then saying that the Iraqi's aren't stepping up when it doesn't happen. But why should they? They have leaders they didn't want who are hamstrung by the policies of Bremer that has led to an economic disaster. My solution: let the Iraqi's decide their own economic policies, not force them to adopt the failed theories of Milton Friedman, and the corporatist system of the US. When people have a stable job with a good wage, they're going to look differently at people blowing themselves up.

Quite the back and forth we have going here, too bad no one else ever posts (I'm not counting iluvfreebeer, his posts are rubbish).

Bilbo Baggins wrote:Who is the real enemy in this war?

Islamo-Fascism.

Bilbo Baggins wrote:Many of the 'terrorists' will actually view themselves as freedom fighters trying to free their country from occupation.

Since their motivations have nothing to do with freedom, there is no way that anyone including themselves can call them freedom fighters.

Bilbo Baggins wrote:Lets not just think 'us vs them',

It is us vs them or more accurately Good vs. Evil.

Bilbo Baggins wrote: lets think about whats the other side's motivation,

Their motivation is irrelevant. I don't care why someone saws the heads off of innocents, I just want the evil bastards dead before they can do it again.

Bilbo Baggins wrote: and try and work towards reducing that through peaceful means.

Exactly how do you negotiate with pure evil?

Bilbo Baggins wrote: I think its fine to be critical of the current war effort if you think it is being done poorly.

Only in terms of how to better secure a victory.

Bilbo Baggins wrote: Non-military factors need to be looked at more.

We are not the warmongering nation that you seem to think that we are. If we believe that there is a realistic way to resolve a dispute without spending the lives of our servicemen, we will do it. However, if the US doesn't see a realistic way to peacefully settle a matter that must be settled, we are still going to settle the matter.

Bilbo Baggins wrote:UN involvement would have been good, but its too late for that now.

The UN is useless and dangerous. The world will be a far safer place after it is abolished.

Bilbo Baggins wrote:How about the US lets Iraqi's run their own country? For too long the US has been dictating how things should be done, and then saying that the Iraqi's aren't stepping up when it doesn't happen. But why should they? They have leaders they didn't want who are hamstrung by the policies of Bremer that has led to an economic disaster. My solution: let the Iraqi's decide their own economic policies, not force them to adopt the failed theories of Milton Friedman, and the corporatist system of the US. When people have a stable job with a good wage, they're going to look differently at people blowing themselves up.

The only part of that which I can agree with is that Bremmer screwed things up royally and Bush screwed up listening to Bremmer or to public opinion to rush things along.

Disbanding the Iraqi Army was a huge mistake and giving Iraq it's sovereignty back so early was a monumental mistake.

Most of Iraq's army consisted of grunts who were getting by the best that they could. It would have been far better to weed out the Ba'ath party officers and keep the grunts and more importantly the NCOs around. Officers can be replaced by college boys with rule books in their pockets, but it takes many, many years to create good cadre of NCOs to keep an army together.

Democracies do not start from the top down and Iraq was not ready for a new national government when we handed sovereignty back over to them. We should have started their government on the local levels.
1) Get elected local town governments (town counsels and mayors) up and running.
2) Let elected local governments create elected regional governments (counties).
3) Let elected regional governments create elected state/provincial governments.
4) Let elected state/provincial governments form an elected federal government.
If we had let it happen this way, Iraq would still be under a US military governor and still not be a sovereign nation, but it would be a hell of a lot closer to assembling a lasting democratic government than it is now. I know that this is a totally moot point now, but it should serve as an example for future engagements (i.e. Iran).

Democracies do not start from the top down and Iraq was not ready for a new national government when we handed sovereignty back over to them. We should have started their government on the local levels.
1) Get elected local town governments (town counsels and mayors) up and running.
2) Let elected local governments create elected regional governments (counties).
3) Let elected regional governments create elected state/provincial governments.
4) Let elected state/provincial governments form an elected federal government.

I agree with this entirely, and this was happening in Iraq but US officials said they were invalid and sent soldiers to prevent them happening.

In regards to Ba'ath Party officials, for many people you had to join it to get ahead. This was the case for doctors and lawyers. However I agree many of the higher ranking officials should have been got rid of.

It is us vs them or more accurately Good vs. Evil.

This is crazy, and this is why the US fails. Its such a primitve way of thinking

Their motivation is irrelevant. I don't care why someone saws the heads off of innocents, I just want the evil bastards dead before they can do it again.

Same as above. The people who do these things are despicable, but don't you want to find out why they do it so you can stop others from going down that path.

We are not the warmongering nation that you seem to think that we are.

Yes, you are. I know some great Americans and am good friends with them, but you guys are not the 'Chosen people', you are not the world's policeman, and the interests of the US should never come ahead of the interests of the world as a whole.

Clubtender wrote:It is us vs them or more accurately Good vs. Evil.

Bilbo Baggins wrote:This is crazy, and this is why the US fails. Its such a primitve way of thinking

Understanding the concepts of Good and Evil is not only not crazy or primitive, it is essential to having good judgment.

Clubtender wrote:Their motivation is irrelevant. I don't care why someone saws the heads off of innocents, I just want the evil bastards dead before they can do it again.

Bilbo Baggins wrote:Same as above. The people who do these things are despicable, but don't you want to find out why they do it so you can stop others from going down that path.

They do it because they are evil people who follow an evil philosophy that tells them that they will be rewarded for evil deeds. What else is there to understand? You can't negotiate with that, you can only kill it before it kills someone close to you.

Clubtender wrote:We are not the warmongering nation that you seem to think that we are.

Bilbo Baggins wrote:Yes, you are. I know some great Americans and am good friends with them, but you guys are not the 'Chosen people', you are not the world's policeman, and the interests of the US should never come ahead of the interests of the world as a whole.

We don't claim to be the "Chosen People" and trust me, we don't like being stuck with being the "World's Policeman". Unfortunately, we live in a world of nations who are happy to let problems fester. It's a world of nations that will hate if we do nothing about a problem like they do and it's a world of nations that will hate America for taking on a problem that they don't have integrity to deal with.

Since we are going to be hated regardless of what we do, we may as well operate in our own self interest the way that any other nations does.

The US seriously needs to reassess who it considers to be it's allies and I live for the day that the US is out of the UN and the UN is out of the US.