Bush's speech last night. Discuss.

[The Chameleon]

Who watched this?

Thoughts?

I personally thought it was the most ardent display of bullshit fear mongering I have ever seen.

He pulled out he Iran/Syria card. He basically brought up the specter of the domino theory without saying it. He even had the gall to say American freedom was a steak. PLeeease. No Iraqi was ever going to invade the US, until "W" started his war.

It also seemed that the initiatives Bush was talking about would take years to complete. I don't think they ever plan to leave. Maybe stop fighting one day btu they aren't leaving. Iraq is basically a state now.

On the upside not 5 minutes after the president delivered his speech the Democrats rejected it point by piont right down the line. I hope they do all they can to stop this madman.

All I kept thinking was that Bush sounded like Lydon Johnson talking about Vietnam....

"we face more cost..more loss".

The difference is Johnson had the good sense to step down, Bush is far to retarded to do that.

Expect another generation of destroyed American and Iraqi lives Vietnam part 2 indeed.

The Americans need to lose this war, if they do not have the sense to leave before it gets worse. Withdrawals with honor is impossible.

Just go already.

[AD]

The Americans need to lose this war,

Ridiculous

[Hux]

I'd like to hear someone make the case that they haven't already lost it.

[Freak By Night]

He even had the gall to say American freedom was a steak.

Did he really say that?

[bradm]

He even had the gall to say American freedom was a steak.

Did he really say that?

Perhaps he said it was "at stake."

Aloha,

Brad

[Kanada Kev]

Or his minds were on more important things than the war ... like dinner. What TRUE Texan is NOT thinking of steak

[Freak By Night]

Perhaps he said it was "at stake."

Aloha,

Brad

Oh.

I prefer to define American freedom as being able to eat a big juicy steak anytime you choose!

[Kanada Kev]

I think that Bush is a desperate man. He is lost, and so are all of his sherpas. It's so very sad that hundreds more will die, and the world won't be any safer, as his decisions will spiral Iraq and the surrounding area into an even deeper mess

I find amazing energy and patriotism (even though i'm not an American) in the editiorials/speeches by MSNBC's Keith Olbermann. Here's a great presentation he made before Bush's address the other night. Take 10mins and see what I'm talking about:

http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=7f590dd6-0c3a-45c8-a7db-29a7b3bb14b8&f=00&fg=email

later . . .

Kanada Kev =8)

[The Chameleon]

The Americans need to lose this war' date=' [/quote']

Ridiculous

I don't know man. I think the only way they will ever get the message is to suffer large. I mean they got their asses whipped in Vietnam and have barely learned anything when it comes to foreign policy.

seems to me the only thing the American gov't/warlords understand and respect is force. I think they will have to learn the hard way...again

And the way things are going this is probably going to happen.

It's a shame innocent American and Iraqi ahve to die so politicians can learn the "hard way".

[AD]

It's a shame innocent American ahve to die so politicians can learn the "hard way".

It's a shame that you wish it upon them.

[The Chameleon]

It's a shame innocent American ahve to die so politicians can learn the "hard way".

It's a shame that you wish it upon them.

I actually wish the Americans would simply pack it up and go home to focus on the miriad of problems they have in their own nation, and make their lives better. However I am realist and given GWB's speech last night, that ain't happening. So the only way it is gonna happen is for them to lose, like they did in Vietnam. War is brutal and it's a cold cold world, and a loss in Iraqi is now the only "exit" stategy that is on the table.

I wish and end to all this. It could end the easy way or the hard way and as always the American war machine has chosen the hard way.

Not pretty but war never is.

[Birdy]

I wish people would stop drawing similarities to Vietnam. Iraq isn't Vietnam. And the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in it. Sometimes people can't do it on their own. Imagine GB didn't step in to stop Hitler.

[d_rawk]

Well that'd only be fair if you agree to stop drawing similarities to WWII in exchange

Vietnam is far from a perfect parallel, but it's at least less of a stretch than to suggest that unilaterally ousting an isolationist dictator on false pretense after false pretense - in defiance of global opinion - is somehow justifiable in the same way as was a multilateral effort to halt an actively expansive military threat with global pretensions.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Birdy, stop that Godwin right now before I call dibs !

Sure, Iraq isn't Vietnam, but no two wars have ever been the same (though you don't hear many people objecting when Afghanistan is referred to as Russia's Vietnam). Vietnam was for the US, among other things, about hedging Chinese power (like the Korean War before it). The US fighting Germany was about them being dragged into that war against their will because the Japanese had been aggressive and were allies of the Germans (and we can't forget the role the US had in setting up Hitler's Germany, as a bulwark against Russia; and Hitler never wanted war with Britain, as he'd always admired them and hoped that they'd be on board with him). Iraq has been about... what, hedging, um, the expansion of Islamic radicalism? No - that's why the US used to reinforce Saddam's power in the first place. The guy, as Hans Blix used to repeat till he turned blue, was toothless as far as waging any wars of aggression. And I don't think many people in Iraq argue that the place is better since the US came in.

This doesn't say anything of course about how they're ever going to get out.

[The Chameleon]

Birdy, stop that Godwin right now before I call dibs !

Sure, Iraq isn't Vietnam, but no two wars have ever been the same (though you don't hear many people objecting when Afghanistan is referred to as Russia's Vietnam). Vietnam was for the US, among other things, about hedging Chinese power (like the Korean War before it). The US fighting

Germany was about them being dragged into that war against their will because the Japanese had been aggressive and were allies of the Germans (and we can't forget the role the US had in setting up Hitler's Germany, as a bulwark against Russia; and Hitler never wanted war with Britain, as he'd always admired them and hoped that they'd be on board with him). Iraq has been about... what, hedging, um, the expansion of Islamic radicalism? No - that's why the US used to reinforce Saddam's power in the first place. The guy, as Hans Blix used to repeat till he turned blue, was toothless as far as waging any wars of aggression. And I don't think many people in Iraq argue that the place is better since the US came in.

This doesn't say anything of course about how they're ever going to get out.

And just like Vietnam the Americans have no exit strategy. And just like Vietnam they keep talking about training Iraqi forces to fight and Iraqi's taking responsibility for "their" war/freedom.

This is what was called "Vietnamisation" by the Nixon administration and it didn't work then.

Also just like Vietnam this is very much a guerrilla war with no clear fronts in which the enemy and friendly native folks all look the same to the troops on the ground.

Again, just like Vietnam this is a war in which the enemy never had intentions of invading the US and there was never a clear threat to American liberty. And just as then the American war machine brought up the Domino theory to justify that war and now as then they bring up Iran, Syria and the like to justify this one.

To top it all off like Vietnam the American people were lied to every step of the way and are now turning on their government in the most unpopular war since......

...

.....VIETNAM.

Let's just hope they get out before they spend 15yrs in this quagmire.

A side note: I have talked to my father who is 57 and was working in the US at the time of the Vietnam war in the late sixties. I have asked him if it feels this war feels the same or is this a entirely different situation. He tells me the fear, death, lies, and public disdain for this war feels exactly like the climate of the US circa 1967/68. I have also talked to some friends of his who are Vietnam vets and they tell me it is Deja Vu, for them, only this time worse because the government knows better how to manipulate the media. That is perhaps the one thing the US administration did learn from that conflict.

I wish for peace.

Edited January 12, 2007 by Guest

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

First wave of reactions:

Democrats and Republicans Challenge New Iraq Plan

Last Updated: Thursday, January 11, 2007 | 7:57 PM ET

CBC News

Top White House officials were put on the defensive Thursday as skeptical Democrats and Republicans challenged U.S. President George W. Bush's new plan to send more than 20,000 troops to Iraq.

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice was grilled by members of both parties as she appeared in the morning before the Senate foreign relations committee and in the afternoon before the House of Representatives counterpart.

Senators immediately pounced on the plan unveiled by Bush Wednesday night. The president's plan includes sending 17,500 soldiers to secure Baghdad and 4,000 to the violent province of Anbar.

They are in addition to the roughly 132,000 U.S. troops already in Iraq.

"I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it's carried out," Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a critic of the war, told Rice.

"You're going to have to do a much better job" explaining the rationale for the war, "and so is the president," said Senator George Voinovich, a Republican from Ohio. He said Bush could no longer count on his support for the war.

Senator Joe Biden — a Democrat from Delaware who is the foreign relations committee chairman and a White House hopeful — echoed Voinovich. He called Bush's new strategy a "tragic mistake."

Republicans and Democrats alike questioned the very premise of the Bush plan and its dependence on Iraqi forces and the abilities of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's to quell the violence.

"I think he knows his government is on borrowed time, not just on America's time but Iraqi's time," Rice said.

"Are you confident," Biden asked.

"I'm confident," Rice said.

In an exchange with Democrat Senator John Kerry, Rice said the United States would have an opportunity as this policy unfolds "to see whether or not the Iraqis are living up to the assurances that they gave us."

"And what if they don't," Kerry asked.

"Senator, I don't think you go to Plan B. You work with Plan A," Rice responded.

"But that's not a Plan B. that a very critical issue," Kerry said.

Rice also engaged in a tense exchange with Hagel, disputing his characterization of Bush's buildup as an "escalation."

"Putting in 22,000 more troops is not an escalation?" Hagel asked. "I think, Senator, escalation is not just a matter of how many numbers you put in."

"Would you call it a decrease?" Hagel asked.

"I would call it, Senator, an augmentation that allows the Iraqis to deal with this very serious problem that they have in Baghdad," she said.

Hagel told Rice, "Madame Secretary, Iraqis are killing Iraqis. We are in a civil war. This is sectarian violence out of control."

She disputed that Iraq was in the throes of a civil war. To that, Hagel said, "To sit there and say that, that's just not true."

Meanwhile, Defence Secretary Robert Gates said the Bush administration might abandon the increase if the Iraqi government doesn't do its part, but he provided no timetable.

"I think most of us, in our minds, are thinking of it as a matter of months, not 18 months or two years," he told the House armed services committee.

Gates said one indicator of the timeframe would be how well Iraqi leaders live up to their commitments to allow U.S. soldiers full access to all Baghdad neighbourhoods, to end political interference and crack down on radical militias.

"A source of frustration has been political interference in clearing operations," said Gates.

When asked whether soldiers will target radical Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose Mahdi Army militia is blamed for much of the sectarian violence, Gates said: "All parts of Baghdad are going to be involved in this campaign, including Sadr City."

The Sadr City neighbourhood of Baghdad is considered a stronghold of al-Sadr, who is closely tied to some of the Iraqi prime minister's key allies. Al-Maliki, who last week said he'd like to leave his post early, leads a fragile coalition that could collapse without the powerful cleric's support.

New transition co-ordinator announced

Rice, who will leave this week for the Middle East, said former U.S. ambassador to Haiti Tim Carney will take on the new role of co-ordinator for Iraq transitional assistance. He will be based out of Baghdad, said Rice.

The military strategy goes hand in hand with a regional diplomatic effort recommended by the Iraq Study Group, said Rice, who praised "democratic reformers" in the Palestinian Territories, Lebanon, the Gulf states and Iraq.

Syria and Iran continue to align themselves with "forces of extremism," said Rice.

"Syria and Iran must end their destabilizing behaviour in the region," she said, calling on the leaders of both countries to end their support of violent extremists.

Gates announced he would recommend the U.S. Army and Marine Corps be increased by 92,000 soldiers over the next five years, including 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 marines.

Bush talks to troops about new plan

Bush spent part of Thursday at a military base in Fort Benning, Ga., talking to troops about his plans. Some of the troops he addressed will be among the 21,500 heading to Iraq.

Bush warned them that the troop increase will not yield immediate results.

"It's going to take awhile," he said.

Bush will ask the Democrat-controlled Congress for $5.6 billion US for the extra deployment and another $1.2 billion US for rebuilding and jobs in Iraq.

With files from the Associated Press

[Birdy]

okay i'll drop the wwii reference!

And just like Vietnam the Americans have no exit strategy.

I don't think anyone goes into war with an 'exit strategy'. You don't plan on losing a war when you wage it. You plan on winning. All of this exit strategy talk confuses me.

Also just like Vietnam this is very much a guerrilla war with no clear fronts in which the enemy and friendly native folks all look the same to the troops on the ground.

I think moreso this is the look that modern warfare has taken on. It's not just in Iraq. This is what parts of South America and Africa have looked like for years.

Again, just like Vietnam this is a war in which the enemy never had intentions of invading the US and there was never a clear threat to American liberty.

Okay, one more wwii reference and one more godwin for good measure. Hitler actually wanted to 'partner' up with Great Britain.

And just as then the American war machine brought up the Domino theory to justify that war and now as then they bring up Iran, Syria and the like to justify this one.

You might not want to believe that Iran and Syria are crazy, but i don't. They're crazy.

To top it all off like Vietnam the American people were lied to every step of the way...

shit, you show me a government who hasn't lied to their people during wartime!!

[The Chameleon]

okay i'll drop the wwii reference!

And just like Vietnam the Americans have no exit strategy.

I don't think anyone goes into war with an 'exit strategy'. You don't plan on losing a war when you wage it. You plan on winning. All of this exit strategy talk confuses me.

Also just like Vietnam this is very much a guerrilla war with no clear fronts in which the enemy and friendly native folks all look the same to the troops on the ground.

I think moreso this is the look that modern warfare has taken on. It's not just in Iraq. This is what parts of South America and Africa have looked like for years.

Again, just like Vietnam this is a war in which the enemy never had intentions of invading the US and there was never a clear threat to American liberty.

Okay, one more wwii reference and one more godwin for good measure. Hitler actually wanted to 'partner' up with Great Britain.

And just as then the American war machine brought up the Domino theory to justify that war and now as then they bring up Iran, Syria and the like to justify this one.

You might not want to believe that Iran and Syria are crazy, but i don't. They're crazy.

To top it all off like Vietnam the American people were lied to every step of the way...

shit, you show me a government who hasn't lied to their people during wartime!!

1. An exit strategy does not necessarily imply a loss. It means you have a plan to eventually leave. Even after victory. It speaks to the fact that you have a vision of what success, failure and stalemate looks like. With a cogent exit strategy an army can minimize loss in the event of certain defeat. It can return its troops home safely and leave a sovereign nation to its own future when the job is done. Bush does not even know what victory looks like, in a clear sense. He simply speaks in broad stripes.

They have no idea how to get out and leaving the last crucial step in any military action. If you never bring you troops home, have you ever really accomplished anything.

It took them until 1975 in Vietnam to figure this out...how long in Iraq/Afghanistan?

2. I agree Syria, Iran and the whole bunch, yes they're all crazy and have radical leaders. However I do not believe they were ever a threat to anyone except themselves (which they have been waring with forever in one form or another). These small time dictators (or at least they were "small time" until the US armed them) just want to control their piece of the desert. They were never going to or had the power to take over country after county and one day take Manhattan.

The US is a target because of their foreign policy and the fact they are an occupying force. I fail to see what gives the US the right to play world cop/judge/jury and executioner, where is the jurisdiction. Without the UN involved it's terrorism on both sides and that's why it's nothing like Hitler or WWII.

3. You are correct again gov'ts lie all the time during war. The difference is the Bush administration doesn't even attempt to hide it or even try anymore. It's also one thing to lie about a war but when you lie to start the war, you have lakes of blood on your hands and isn't the US suppose to be the "good guys" in this scenario? Or are they just Saddam Hussain, without the accent in a better suit?.

Edited January 12, 2007 by Guest

[phishtaper]

Who watched this?

i didnt bother, im bored with it. if I want to watch fiction, I'll watch 24. at least that has car chases.

[Hux]

sh!t, you show me a government who hasn't lied to their people during wartime!!

Again, it's not so black and white. Watch this clip with Bill O'Reilly and Bill Maher, at about 4:16 O'Reilly tries to make the case they "they all lie"....Maher's response is great, ie. Clinton lied about a blowjob but Bush bankrupted the country, $600 billion pricetag on Iraq so far, and all the porkbarrel politics etc. Good stuff.

[Birdy]

Chameleon, wars aren't won on 'exit strategies'. Historically the exit strategy has been called 'retreats', when losing armies run and hide and victors plant flags on foreign soils. Perhaps the Americans stepped this up a notch when they figured the only way to get out of Japan was to bomb the shit out of them and literally obliterate two huge cities.. in a 'there, take that' move. There's no such thing as an 'exit strategy'. You either win, or you lose. If you lose, it's called 'pack up the troops and run and hide'. This whole talk of 'exit strategy' is only a way for the American government to save a little face.

It can return its troops home safely and leave a sovereign nation to its own future when the job is done.

That's just it. The job isn't done.

I have a question. What do you think about the situation in Sudan-- the Darfur genocide? Do you think that we shouldn't help because it's not our place? Because, technically, the Sudanese national government are 'small time dictators', who just happen to have now killed more than half a million people and have put more than a few million in fear of their lives? Imperialism, unfortunately, has gotten a really bad wrap over the years, mainly due to exploitation, but i think it's important to realize that along with power, does come some sort of responsibility, in that if you can help someone, you should help someone. And regardless of what motives led the American troops into Iraq, in the long run the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein, lives that were in peril now are not and soon, one day US troops won't occupy that country, and that will, hands down, be a good thing. Rebuilding a country after war time is never perfect and never looks good. This time is no exception to the countless hundreds and thousands of wars that have occured throughout history.

[Hux]

Iraq, the middle east and therefore the world is more unstable and unsafe now than it was prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

[Birdy]

yes, it's called 'war'.

[Hux]

Actually, it was an unprovoked invasion.

BIG difference.

[Birdy]

Not really.

War:

1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.

2. a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.

3. a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns: the War of 1812.

4. active hostility or contention; conflict; contest: a war of words.

5. aggressive business conflict, as through severe price cutting in the same industry or any other means of undermining competitors: a fare war among airlines; a trade war between nations.

6. a struggle: a war for men's minds; a war against poverty.

7. armed fighting, as a science, profession, activity, or art; methods or principles of waging armed conflict: War is the soldier's business.