(POL): Drudge reporting Bush now looking at dividing Iraq into 3

[Bubba Wheels]

Seems I suggested this very thing in a post over a year ago. Nice to know that I seem to have had the answer Bush was looking for even though it took former Sec. of State Jim Baker to find it for him. I just hope now that Bush and his folks have this new plan it can be accomplished quickly.

After seeing another obit for a young area Marine in Iraq, I wonder just how many GOPer's in power have their own kids serving in the military. I think that would be an interesing survey by some news media. I notice Bush's own daughter's don't seem to have military careers on the horizon. Continually pointing to 43's own WW2 service just doesn't cut it.

Most here know that I am a conservative who usually votes GOP (though will be splitting this year's ticket with them and Libertarians) but like many I do not consider Bush to be a conservative even though he ran as one.

[JPhillips]

Not gonna happen.

The Sunnis will never agree and having an official Kurdish state will cause giant problems with Turkey.

[Flasch186]

and it is Drudge who ran a story on....well lets just say their credibilty hasnt been the stuff you want to bank on.

nevertheless, if splitting the country in 3, in a republic form, gets us out of there and gets them to stop killing eachother at a pace that could run the tigris river red, then so be it.....

then perhaps we can go get UBL.

[Easy Mac]

The Dems should spin it as:

"The Ultimate Cut and Run, lets cut Iraq into the parts and run out of there"

At least Bush wasn't president in the 1860s.

[Swaggs]

Oil and water access will prevent Iraq from ever being peacefully divided.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

The Dems should spin it as:

"The Ultimate Cut and Run, lets cut Iraq into the parts and run out of there"

At least Bush wasn't president in the 1860s.

Yeah, well, I would say to that Iraq today is far from the U.S. in the 1860s, including the part where the U.S. on both north and south had a history of democracy stemming from England begining with the Magna Carta in 1215.

[Easy Mac]

I thought the point was to instill democracy in Iraq, or was that just all talk, like the terrorists and the wmds?

[Logan]

I normally stay out of political threads, because I hate all the bickering back and forth, and I honestly don't care. But this bothered me enough to post:

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

After seeing another obit for a young area Marine in Iraq, I wonder just how many GOPer's in power have their own kids serving in the military. I think that would be an interesing survey by some news media. I notice Bush's own daughter's don't seem to have military careers on the horizon. Continually pointing to 43's own WW2 service just doesn't cut it.

So because a young person's mother or father is one who supports the war, they should automatically be obligated to fight in the war? Or the parents should force their children to enlist? I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's the complete opposite of what this country is about. We should fault Bush's daughters because they don't want to put themselves in harm's way just because of the decisions their father made. Do you really want people fighting for this country who don't want to be there? How effective will they be?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Seems I suggested this very thing in a post over a year ago. Nice to know that I seem to have had the answer Bush was looking for even though it took former Sec. of State Jim Baker to find it for him. I just hope now that Bush and his folks have this new plan it can be accomplished quickly.

To be fair, the idea's been around as the endgame to this particular Iraq war since it was first talked about. It's not as if you were the first person to come up with the idea.

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

I wonder just how many GOPer's in power have their own kids serving in the military. I think that would be an interesing survey by some news media. I notice Bush's own daughter's don't seem to have military careers on the horizon. Continually pointing to 43's own WW2 service just doesn't cut it.

I agree with you there and that goes for both sides of the political spectrum. To address the post above, being in tacit support of the war and openly voting to send troops are two quite different things. Tho, I suppose, in a representative government, voting to support those in favor is making the decision by proxy.

Either way- if you're in favor of going to war, someone has to fight it. It's not as if there's a literary "we" out there who wants to do the fighting.

SI

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

I thought the point was to instill democracy in Iraq, or was that just all talk, like the terrorists and the wmds?

That, my friend, is called 'nation-building.' And I distinctly remember Bush making two statements during his debate with Gore before the 2000 election...1. There would be NO nation-building. 2. He would never commit troops unless there was an 'exit strategy.'

Call what' going on in Iraq anything you want, but it looks like the above two to me.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Logan

I normally stay out of political threads, because I hate all the bickering back and forth, and I honestly don't care. But this bothered me enough to post:



So because a young person's mother or father is one who supports the war, they should automatically be obligated to fight in the war? Or the parents should force their children to enlist? I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's the complete opposite of what this country is about. We should fault Bush's daughters because they don't want to put themselves in harm's way just because of the decisions their father made. Do you really want people fighting for this country who don't want to be there? How effective will they be?

Fair enough, and I'm not sure I can really put this as best as I'd like, but its just the whole idea that those running the war don't seem to be making any kind of sacrifice. Them or their families. The whole attitude seems to be like 'well, they (the military folks) volunteered for it and should have known what they were getting in for. And that whole attitude really sickens me.

This thing keeps getting compared to WW2, but WW2 was all about 'sacrifice' both at home and on the front. Teddy Roosevelt's grandson was on Omaha beach during D-Day. Ambassador Kennedy's one kid was fighting Japanese destroyers in a PT Boat and the other was flying B-25s (both having their vehicles destroyed and one kid losing his life.) Kennedy was originally oppposed to the war and accused of being a Nazi sympathizer.

Sean Hannity (whom I agree with on most things) bothers the heck out of me when he endorses the war in one sentence and then is shilling for awnings and dog-food in the other to fatten his wallet. And he is not alone in doing that. And Hannity does help out the families of those service men, but still....how much is enough help for a dead or wounded service man?

About the best I can do with this, just not seeing or sensing the 'sacrifice' of those in charge like you could during WW2 (and there is more than enough material out about WW2 to see this.)

And one other thing: When I mentioned Bush's daughters in conjunction with military service I did not even mean combat or being in harm's way. Seventy-five percent of the military is support and does not fight.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

That, my friend, is called 'nation-building.' And I distinctly remember Bush making two statements during his debate with Gore before the 2000 election...1. There would be NO nation-building.

That's funny - I bring up that point all the time. Bush practically spit it out during the debate - the notion of using troops to nation build seemed so wrong to him.

I see a democrat being elected, troops getting pulled, and finger pointing from the other side about how the operation would have worked if we had stayed the course.

If we had gone in "heavy" I wonder how the invasion would have been different.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

That, my friend, is called 'nation-building.' And I distinctly remember Bush making two statements during his debate with Gore before the 2000 election...1. There would be NO nation-building. 2. He would never commit troops unless there was an 'exit strategy.'

Call what' going on in Iraq anything you want, but it looks like the above two to me.

No nation building has been quite obvious, SUCCESS!!

Troops committed with an exit strategy that was missing all of the ingredients, like securing the borders, WMD locations, Ammo depots, gov't buildings, police stations, etc. etc., SUCCESS!!

And remember, BW, I am FOR the war in Iraq...after Afghanistan I hoped, but for the war...even today. I just wish someone better was running the show, someone not so stubborn or tunnel visioned.


and sacrifice? Well, we can always cut taxes again. whoops, wrong way. I meant raise taxes to support the war costs.

[Bubba Wheels]

When I use the word 'sacrifice' I don't mean putting on a uniform and grabbing a rifle. Sacrifice to me can be nothing more simple than having your daily routine disrupted or, God forbid, missing out on some leisure activity.

O'Reilly today again called this war WW3 and states he thinks the draft is coming soon. From such voices consensus amongst the elites begins. Wonder if the 'little people' will fill out the draft rosters again like they do the volunteer forces. Not talking about poor and minorities, actually mostly middle class. We are the new peasants of today. Can't bother the ruling class with such disruptions.

Well, enjoy your wars, think I'll buy a farm and become a Quaker. Good Luck.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Troops committed with an exit strategy that was missing all of the ingredients, like securing the borders, WMD locations, Ammo depots, gov't buildings, police stations, etc. etc., SUCCESS!!

I agree 100%. I do not understand why we didn't secure the damn borders of the country. We had generals coming on TV talking about how most of the insurgents were either coming in from Iran, or being supported with arms and other items from Iran, then why didn't we secure the border?

It wouldn't take a ton of troops. Have hardpoints every say 2 miles with a mobile support force (i.e. helos on call with squads) ready to respond to any incursion across the border. If you have any problems at these bases, 2 miles is close enough for support to come in. For these incursions to be small enough to infiltrate the border, they would need to be small, so we would be able to overwhelm them. If they became bigger conflagrations, we should be able to detect the build up via satellite.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

When I use the word 'sacrifice' I don't mean putting on a uniform and grabbing a rifle. Sacrifice to me can be nothing more simple than having your daily routine disrupted or, God forbid, missing out on some leisure activity.

O'Reilly today again called this war WW3 and states he thinks the draft is coming soon. From such voices consensus amongst the elites begins. Wonder if the 'little people' will fill out the draft rosters again like they do the volunteer forces. Not talking about poor and minorities, actually mostly middle class. We are the new peasants of today. Can't bother the ruling class with such disruptions.

Well, enjoy your wars, think I'll buy a farm and become a Quaker. Good Luck.

I'm confused by your first paragraph. If you aren't apart of the military and in war directly, what would disrupt your daily routine?

As for O'Reilly, I don't listen to him (or any other talking head).

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I'm confused by your first paragraph. If you aren't apart of the military and in war directly, what would disrupt your daily routine?

As for O'Reilly, I don't listen to him (or any other talking head).

Again, the famous WW2 analogies being thrown around. In WW2 Ellenor Roosevelt handed out coffee and dougnuts with the Red Cross to troops training over in England before D-Day. Anybody doing that besides Bush's one stint with the Turkey during that Thanksgiving?

As I said originally, probably not putting this as best as could be. But I generally see alot of dead and wounded soldiers from Iraq and Afgahnistan whos lives and those of their families are going to be altered forever. These folks are almost all from the middle class...and I have never been a 'class warrior' type before...

But then I see just a kind of 'general disengagement' from the realities of this war by those in or close to the 'elites' or 'powers that be,' what I called the 'ruling class' earlier. And I'm saying that I doubt even these people's daily routines are being disrupted, certainly their lives are not, their fun is not.

Still kind of sorting it out, don't know if that makes it any clearer.

[Flasch186]

or more clear

[MrBigglesworth]

I think the telling thing is that BW is a year ahead of Bush on ideas. That says a lot, I think.

Anyway, if Iraq is split up, it should be split up by Iraqi's negotiating with Iraqi's.

[Flasch186]

negotiating, LOL.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Anyway, if Iraq is split up, it should be split up by Iraqi's negotiating with Iraqi's.

Good luck wth that.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Good luck wth that.

Exactly. If they will have a tough time doing it amongst themselves, imagine the disaster if Bush would do it.