Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 42
  1.    #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad
    My view of the whole mess: There is no easy way out of this mess. I don't want to "cut" and "run". We have to stay there and pull all resources into avoiding the civil war. This may include a partition of Iraq into 3 parts.

    We'll lose soldiers in the process.. but that is something we as Americans have to be prepared for.

    Now: THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR PUTTING US IN THIS HORRIBLE MESS.

    (Yes, I am shouting).

    All those who voted to "stay the course" in 2004 should be held accountable as well. They were basically rewarding the administration for the blunders. We could have changed administrations and found a way to get out of the situation. The critical thing was the need to change the horses in the mid-stream, if the horses were dragging us into the river.
    It is clear.

    They are being held accountable.

    They will be held accountable.

    P.S. Splitting Iraq back in 3 pieces could address the civil war. Then we will have created only one Islamic Theocracy in central Iraq.

    P.P.S. Just as I said after Bush's re-election. Now he has nothing to loose. Cheney never planned to run. They are burning the bridges on the way out. Look at the country he was handed, look at the country he is passing on.
  2. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
    #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad
    All those who voted to "stay the course" in 2004 should be held accountable as well. They were basically rewarding the administration for the blunders.
    That means most of Congress would have to go. Including Hillary.
  3.    #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    You're very fond of posting about American atrocities. I'm just wondering who you think was at fault for those atrocities commited prior to Bush.
    Your implication is vile. I won't respond to your bait, nor have I accused George Bush of "atrocities".
  4.    #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by TomUps
    That means most of Congress would have to go. Including Hillary.
    lol, the always effective, and last available, "he did it too" justification

    btw, they will go soon
  5. #25  
    2000 bodies... seems like the morgue is a good place for them. Better by far than the supermarket.
  6. #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by TomUps
    That means most of Congress would have to go. Including Hillary.
    No. By 2004, the electorate had enough information to judge as to how badly the Administration was handling the choices it was given by Congress in 2002/3.

    The original vote to allow US to go to war was a permission that Bush should have used to exert a credible threat in negotiations, and when exercised, exercised properly, with enough planning and not with the wide-eyed innocent attitudes of Wolfowitz and Rummy ("stuff happens").

    The original vote was to give the Pres all the options. The vote in 2004 was to endorse his bungled execution of those options.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad
    That is something the Administration should have planned for, thought about and had a way to address. Kicking over a hornets nest and then shrugging our shoulders is not good enough.
    Absolutely. It should have been prevented, but playing "what if" will not make things better.
  8. #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Yes.
    So if you think the slaughter would get worse (potentially much much much worse), how do you reconcile that with the opinion that the U.S. armed forces should leave Iraq?
  9.    #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    So if you think the slaughter would get worse (potentially much much much worse), how do you reconcile that with the opinion that the U.S. armed forces should leave Iraq?
    I don't think the U.S. armed forces should leave Iraq.
  10. #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Your implication is vile. I won't respond to your bait, nor have I accused George Bush of "atrocities".
    Business as usual, eh Blaze?
  11. #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    Absolutely. It should have been prevented, but playing "what if" will not make things better.
    I agree. However:

    1. The admin that bungled it should be held accontable (removed through elections)

    2. No new approach is possible with the Admin that won't admit any mistakes and won't looks for new ideas.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  12.    #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    So if you think the slaughter would get worse (potentially much much much worse), how do you reconcile that with the opinion that the U.S. armed forces should leave Iraq?
    Unfortunately, it is difficult to overstate the terrible situation we are in.
  13.    #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad
    I agree. However:

    1. The admin that bungled it should be held accontable (removed through elections)

    2. No new approach is possible with the Admin that won't admit any mistakes and won't looks for new ideas.
    But again, as I said after the 2004 election. This is a dead end administration, they have nothing to loose. They are burning the bridges on the way out.
  14. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
    #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad
    No. By 2004, the electorate had enough information to judge as to how badly the Administration was handling the choices it was given by Congress in 2002/3.

    The original vote to allow US to go to war was a permission that Bush should have used to exert a credible threat in negotiations, and when exercised, exercised properly, with enough planning and not with the wide-eyed innocent attitudes of Wolfowitz and Rummy ("stuff happens").

    The original vote was to give the Pres all the options. The vote in 2004 was to endorse his bungled execution of those options.
    Good point.. By the way the quote above was from aprasad in repsonse to my comment...the one below is from blaze to the same post.


    lol, the always effective, and last available, "he did it too" justification
    Blaze, can you ever respond with a productive, civilized answer?
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by TomUps
    Blaze, can you ever respond with a productive, civilized answer?
    Um, how long have you been here?
  16.    #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Unfortunately, it is difficult to overstate the terrible situation we are in.
    Again, it's why I had mentioned trying to merge these threads. I just posted this.

    "The administration hasn't made its definition of full-blown civil war explicit. But in March, when Iraq's former prime minister Ayad Allawi said the country was already fighting a civil war, Bush disagreed, noting the existence of Iraq's nonsectarian Army and government. If the country did someday meet the definition of civil war and the U.S. pulled out, military officials warn, the consequences would be disastrous. "All the neighboring powers would be drawn in," said one senior military official who has examined the scenarios and is not authorized to speak on the record. "It would become a regional war."
  17. #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Unfortunately, it is difficult to overstate the terrible situation we are in.
    [edit question answered elsewhere. withdrawn]
  18. #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad
    No new approach is possible with the Admin that won't admit any mistakes and won't looks for new ideas.
    What kind of new ideas should be pursued? Do you think (re)segregating Iraq into multiple countries will help?
  19. #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    What kind of new ideas should be pursued? Do you think (re)segregating Iraq into multiple countries will help?
    It's a thought.

    Obviously, we can't solve this ourselves. But a face-to-face dialog with all interested parties (including Syria and Iran) would be a good starting point.

    I am more pissed-off at the way the decision to attack Iraq and the aftermath were carried out. The Presidential Medal of Honor to Tenet and Bremer doesn't help either. If the Admin is not punished (in a democratic manner) then how will future Executive branch have an incentive to behave?

    A lot of this is about the 3 branches of the Govt all being under control by the same Party .. no checks and balances. But that's another thread.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  20.    #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad
    I am more pissed-off at the way the decision to attack Iraq and the aftermath were carried out. The Presidential Medal of Honor to Tenet and Bremer doesn't help either.
    One hand washes the other, grrrr.

    I would think at least attempting to appear like an honest broker in the middle east peace process would have to be a component. The LAST thing we need is for our grandchildren to be targets like thie Israelis.
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions