Is Bush losing the war in Iraq?

What war in Iraq? We declared victory, remember? Now we’re just helping the Iraqi transitional government with a few (maybe foreign-inspired) insurgents while they get on with the business of democracy.

Let’s look at this logically. What are the U.S. goals in all this? To dominate the region and control the oil supply. Are we doing it? Not very convincingly on either count, I think. So no, we’re not winning.

My sense is that if the Bushies continue to screw the troops, we’re not going to have much left with which we can fight. We’re already pulling out the retirees. The generals are starting to notice, overall, what effects the Bush policies are having on numbers and morale.

Why didn’t they listen to the Powell Doctrine? They should have known from a cursory look at it that the Iraq situation was going to be a mess, but not only did they not pay attention they hounded the poor man out of office.

Well Afghanistan is much better than predicted and the elections were held. Iraq will be manageable. Things will take a clearer turn for better or worse AFTER the elections. Regardless, we can start down sizing. It is up to them now.

Finally, do not forget that while all the negatives are stacked up, no one seems to recall that there would be perhaps even more had we NOT removed Saddam. Remember we would still be facing a crisis if he was in power. Things are uncertain now but they were damned certain to be more trouble with him left in power.

Be optimistic. Jan. 30 is just around the corner. Let’s see what happens. Not as good as we Bushies and Neocons thought or predicted but neither have the vociferous critics been correct as well. Remember the supposed looting of the museum. Never since Genghis Khan, blah blah blah, humanitarian crisis blah blah blah 100 stalingrads blah blah blah.

Well Afghanistan looks better now but only because everyone is focusing on Iraq…I guess once Bush invades Iran, then Iraq will start to look better.

Really Fred, I don’t seem to recall anyone being concerned about this except for Bush and his Daddy…and we still haven’t seen any damn WMDs…so much for the hillbillies in the white house.

Optimistic…I am very obtimistic…it’s going to be a cluster f#ck and the U.S. is going to be sore for the next 20 years…at least no one will forget Bush’s name…the president who started the fall of the United States with a petty war because he couldn’t keep it up in the bedroom.

WE always expected to be in Iraq for 60 years. That was the plan. Maybe now we will not be able to stay and develop the kind of relationship with them that was so effective with the Japanese, Koreans and Germans. Did anyone expect anything else? As to no one else being concerned about Saddam, do we really need to go back to the first thread and pull out all the remarks from all the Clinton era officials, French president, UN officials, Democrats to show that this was not the case or would you like to retract that rather stupid statement.

[quote=“Vannyel”]
Well Afghanistan looks better now but only because everyone is focusing on Iraq…I guess once Bush invades Iran, then Iraq will start to look better.[/quote]

when you say “everyone”, do you mean the leftover taliban or world attention(i.e. unrelentingly pessimistic news coverage from western media)?

one explanation might be that perhaps afghanistan was never so bad as the negative pictures painted by many opponents of the war.

and perhaps once the media stop their one-sided negative coverage of the situation in iraq things there will start to look better there, as well.

I mention Poindexter, but Negroponte was also involved in the counterinsurgency policies of Reagan and he is the ambassador to Iraq, isn’t he?

Wow Fox:

Wow. That is like so conspiratorial. Imagine former Republican officials being involved in a Republican administration. I see now what Spook is talking about. By the way, is Negroponte a Jew?

I think the issue is more that current Republican administration scrapes the barrel to find the creepiest guys ever to head up important posts. Going back a ways, Negroponte was thought incompetent for the UN ambassadorship … now we see that death squads are back on the planning board for Iraq. In 10 years, Negroponte will deny that he’s ever heard of the “Salvadorian Option” plan for Iraq…

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/09/07/column.billpress/

[quote]Bush’s Latin American team reads like a roster of “America’s Most Disgraced Diplomats.” They include John Negroponte, Bush’s pick as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations; Elliott Abrams, new senior director of the National Security Council; and Otto Reich, nominated as assistant secretary of State. Based on their previous records in Latin American policy, none of them deserve the job.

Negroponte served as Reagan’s Ambassador to Honduras from 1981 to 1985. He was personally responsible for carrying out the Reagan administration’s illegal policy of training and arming Contra rebels inside Honduras for the purpose of overthrowing Nicaragua’s Sandinista government. He also oversaw the build-up of the Honduran military, while turning a blind eye to their campaigns of death and torture.

This was a period when the Honduran military’s notorious Battalion 316, trained by the CIA, killed or disappeared at least 184 political opponents. Hundreds of articles in Honduran newspapers reported on the brutality of the government’s death squads.

International human rights organizations condemned Honduras. Negroponte’s predecessor had warned him about the alarming increase in extrajudicial military executions and torture of political opponents. Yet Negroponte insists, still today, there were no death squads in Honduras and, if there were, he knew nothing about them.

Either Negroponte’s lying or he’s totally incompetent. Either way, the notion that he could now stand in the United Nations and condemn other nations for their human rights abuses is absurd. [/quote]

His name is a Spanish one. Who knows? Why on earth would this matter?

It does for someone people on this forum. You know Jew=Neocon=not really an American.

So Negroponte won the fight against communism in Central America. Aren’t you forgetting to mention this one crucial point. Things were messy but today Honduras, Nicaragua and El Salvador or not communist. That was not a given in the 1980s. So much for a “roster of shame.” Give us a few more like him.

Yes, we truly won the fight to install brutal puppet dictators with terrible human rights track records! Yay!!! :bravo:

Yes, we need to support brutal puppet dictators with terrible human rights track records in order to have democracy! Of course! Those torture victims? A bunch of whiners, that’s what I say! Yay!!! :bravo:

This isn’t a surprising comment when spoken by a Republican. Shady diplomats willing to subvert democracy in order to ‘promote democracy’? I don’t see any contradiction, do you? :bravo: :loco: :bravo: :loco:

sbmoor:

Now, that you have relented and admitted that the medical and literacy “advancements” of the Sandinistas and Castro were not well so advanced and now that you recognize that Cuba killed more than anyone else in Latin America and the Sandinistas killed more than the Somoza regime (including during the insurgency against Somoza and in the fight against the Contras. Hey, if you are going to add them all up, you have to add them ALL up), perhaps with a bit more persuasion you might be able to realize that it is not fair to ask the US to play with perfection while everyone else gets to deal with whomever they want.

For example, you claimed that Duvalier was OUR MAN but I showed that when we tried to cut off aid to force him to behave, the Europeans and Canadians kept on funding him. So is he still OUR MAN and are his atrocities on our heads? Or are they on those that provided that financial support?

Second, prove that we had any control over Pinochet. BUT he only killed 3,000. The Sandinistas executed 20,000 minimum and forced 20,000 to 50,000 Mosquito Coast Indians to starve and then if you add in their insurgency against Somoza (another 50,000) plus their fight against the Contras you get another say 25,000 to 30,000 then is it not better than under those conditions we supported the Honduran government (which was not the worst) and the anti-communists in their fight (50,000 dead)? I mean who gets blamed for the 50,000 dead in El Salvador? The government for fighting the communist insurgency? the insurgents? Or both equally? Where does the US come into play here except by funding the govt and selling them weapons? And if that is such a huge crime, might I give you some revealing statistics about what Germany, France, Russia, Cuba, and others have sold?

Next, since you admit that communism is, was and always will be a failure, then by that very admission, must we not then assume that it was right to fight it in Central America?

Finally, we are not saying that support of dictators is good, but do we always have a choice when worse ones are on the horizon? Better to deal with Stalin to fight Hitler or better to keep our lily white credentials? Better to work with Chiang KaiShek to defeat the Japanese or fight alone? Better to prevent communism by working with Level c dictators to prevent Level B or A dictators from emerging or not?

AND remember that it is Bush who said we will no longer work with dictators. We are going to promote democracy at all costs. Therefore, are you now signing up as a Bush supporter? Just curious.

No, our buddies in Guatemala killed a lot more (preventable).
Your Sandinista statistics are flawed. :raspberry:
Somoza sucked donkey d***. :fume:’
Take a look at our ‘allies’ in the region. Read the statistics. Weep. Stop being a Republican. 'Nuff said. :rainbow:

sbmoor – don’t worry too much about it. Fred has to let loose with that sort of hyperbole to get himself through the long nights when he has visions of sugarplum fairies and grumpy generals dancing through his head. The sugarplum fairies tend to believe we can invade Iran with no problems … the grumpy generals say they are running out of soldiers and “stop loss” methods are destroying what remains of the army.

Well considering that sbmoor and MFGR have rarely supplied any statistics or factual arguments at all. I am not surprised. Again, TELL ME sbmoor which statistics that I supplied are wrong. Tell me what percentage of the deaths in the Guatemalan Civil War you would attribute to the US directly. What percentage indirectly? What was the total death count? etc. etc.

:sunglasses: Ah, but does the CIA ever act directly? I assume that providing financial aid and training would qualify as support, wouldn’t you?
As for Rios Mont,

[quote]Rios Mont foi apenas um de uma s

Did the US provide funding for Montt? Yes. Did the US help organize the overthrow of Arbenz? yes. Did Arbenz sympathize with the communists? Yes. Given that communism has failed everywhere, was the US right to fight it in Central America? Yes.

Your link to the portuguese site is interesting. It lists dictators like Somoza and Montt but does not mention: Castro, the Sandinistas or Allende. Why not?

Would you also be curious to know who else funded the Guatemalan regime during its tenure? May not just be the US. Would you really like to know?

Your wonderful site by the way is nothing of the kind. It is very politically biased to the left and lacks any kind of relevant information. Please advise why this should be useful to us. I assume that you learned to read Portuguese as well in Nicaragua. You did know that it was in Portuguese didn’t you? Or don’t you speak Spanish after all?

Fred rambles on that

So it was morally acceptable to fund rapists, terrorists, Godzilla, Al Qaeda or whomever no matter what atrocities they kill as long as the people who survive get to vote. :astonished: Interesting logic. The US supported human rights by funding terrorists who also peddled a drug that became a major blight in US cities. Ok… ? How can you argue against that? :loco:

[quote]I assume that you learned to read Portuguese as well in Nicaragua.[/quote] Nao, eu aprendei o portugues no Brasil mais eu achei que seria bom pra voce ler outra coisa interesante so a tema de que estavamos falando. :s

[quote]You did know that it was in Portuguese didn’t you? Or don’t you speak Spanish after all?[/quote] :notworthy:
Claro que si sabia pero no entiendo porque rechazas tan rapidamente otros puntas de vista pues no me sorprende que te iba a molestar tal sitio ya que sabemos bien hasta el fondo que vas a seguir comiendo la mierda esa que andan diciendo esos republicanos hijoeputas lamebotas.

Again, we’re back to the rightwing/leftwing political circle – the only difference between rightwing dictators and those coming from the left wing, is where their power comes from. The left wing usually gets their support from the workers, farmers, etc., while the right wing tends to get their power from the corporate fatcats. Otherwise, they’re all birds of a feather.

For those of us who prefer democracy and liberty, the regimes of both suck.

MFGR:

Finally, something that I can agree with, but let me ask you this MFGR…

  1. Would the rightist dictatorships have remained in power with or without US support? I mean were we the chief reason that they existed?

  2. Do you agree with sbmoor that the US never criticized or put pressure on these regimes to reform?

  3. Given what we know about communism, and the proof that Cuba offers, do you think that given only two choices a rightwing dictator or a communist regime that the rightwing regime may in fact be preferable. There are only two choices now. You must pick one or the other and cannot talk about how bad they are. You HAVE to choose one. Which will it be?

  4. Do you believe that the statistics trotted out by the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and Castro in Cuba are accurate?

  5. What percentage of the deaths in a conflict like the civil wars in Guatemala, El Salvador and Nicaragua would you lay at the US feet?

  6. Who was/is the worst dictator in Latin America? Second? Third? Fourth? Why?