Extra Twoops In Iraq: Will It Work?
- Yes
- No
0 voters
In about 30 minutes, George Bush will begin writing the preface to his failed legacy. Reactions here, if you wish.
BroonAnnouncement
[quote]• Bush is sending 20,000 troops to Baghdad
• Troops will work alongside Iraqis
• Iraqi government to spend $10 billion on infrastructure projects, Bush said
• Democrats oppose adding more troops, Sen. Harry Reid said[/quote]
Source
Sounds like a great plan. Simple but ingenious.
[quote]Asian Allies Offer Support for Bush
By JOSEPH COLEMAN Wednesday, January 10, 2007
TOKYO - The top U.S. allies in Asia, Japan and South Korea, offered early support Thursday for President Bush’s announcement of a boost in American troops in Iraq.
Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, whose government is providing humanitarian air assistance in Iraq, offered his support in a telephone conversation with Bush from Berlin.
“Japan regards highly President Bush’s strong resolve toward Iraq’s stability,” Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuhisa Shiozaki told reporters in Tokyo.
Japan withdrew its 600 non-combat ground troops from southern Iraq last year, but has continued air support and Abe has made firm support for Bush a cornerstone of his foreign policy since taking office in September.
South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun also conferred with the American president by telephone ahead of the announcement and expressed support for the new policy, Roh’s office said.
Bush called the two leaders to explain his new policy on Iraq before his speech to the American people, in which he announced a deployment of 21,500 additional U.S. forces to Iraq and acknowledging failures in past policy.
The South Korean president “said he understood the background of the comprehensive U.S. policies and expressed support for President Bush’s endeavor to bring about stability and reconstruction in Iraq,” Roh’s office said.
South Korea has 2,300 troops in the northern Iraqi city of Irbil to support the U.S.-led reconstruction of Iraq. Seoul’s current contribution of forces makes it Washington’s biggest coalition partner after Britain.
Seoul plans to withdraw 1,100 troops by April, and parliament has instructed the administration to devise a full pullout plan during 2007.
Casper Tribune[/quote]
I think a battalion or so from the Viet Namese Forces would be a nice touch…eh?
Hmm…no mention of Taiwan in this story. A company of bin lang blue truckers doing convoy duty might be nice also!
Do you honestly believe that this will work? Maybe if they ate more fresh vegetables, eh?
You are going to lose…again.
BroonAsparagus
They get Condi!
They get Condi![/quote]
Playing the piano while the USArmy hotdog stand gets wheeled into place is going to make all the difference, eh?
BroonAmbassador
We have already won in Iraq. We achieved all of our initial goals. What we have not been able to do is democratize or stabilize the county in a few short years. That will take time, but our strategic presence means that we cannot lose but others can deny us the new goals that we have set for ourself almost indefinitely until some kind of equilibrium is reached. I believe that destabilizing Iran and Syria would help use up resources that are currently being used to fight us. Why not bring everyone to the party? IF they want to play in Iraq, why cannot Iraqis play in Syria and Iran? or maybe even Saudi Arabia? eh?
Based on that logic, you’d be perfectly happy for Iraqi’s to play in the US. Let’s put a couple of battalions of heavily-armed Iraqi soldiers on the streets of Kansas and see how well they’re received.
Indeed. I don’t see why we can’t make a global thing out of this. Why, with enough violence and conflict in the middle east it won’t be long before there is a serious disruption in the flow of oil. The major powers can fight over what is still available. Of course these conflicts will have a serious impact on trade leading to massive unemployment and other social problems. That is as far ahead as I am able to extrapolate but I am sure that whatever comes next will be delightful as well. We should all listen to the goot schmidt fred, he has after all, studied philosophy.
Well, clearly, “logic” is not your strong suit.
The US is a democracy. Our democratically elected government chose to invade Iraq to remove Saddam. Our democratically elected government has chosen to stay there at the request of the Iraqi government. That Iraqi government is ALSO democratically elected and this democracy has so far asked us to stay. Anything else that is “confusing” to you?
When has the American government requested Iraqi troops? When has Iraq offered to send them. And why would they be sent to Kansas. Wouldn’t New Orleans be a better choice? Hah!
It already is global. If you are either too stupid or too unwilling to see that, don’t blame me. Take al Qaeda at its word. Take Iran’s leaders at their word. Take George Bush at his word. What is it with you people and your refusal to listen to what people are saying and believe that they mean what they say?
I do not see that this is a given.
Why would they?
Like how you extrapolated that oil prices would be $100 or more a barrel and stay there forever and ever… Back down to the $50 mark last time I checked though I have no doubt that they will go higher.
I heartily recommend that you do the same. It has a most salutory effect on helping one arrange one’s thoughts and to phrase one’s ideas and positions in a convincing and logical fashion. Obviously, you have not studied philosophy but there is no reason why you cannot start doing so today. And no, you don’t need marijuana to do so. Enlightenment can be about reality. Funny that.
Well, clearly, “logic” is not your strong suit.
The US is a democracy. Our democratically elected government chose to invade Iraq to remove Saddam. Our democratically elected government has chosen to stay there at the request of the Iraqi government. That Iraqi government is ALSO democratically elected and this democracy has so far asked us to stay. Anything else that is “confusing” to you?
When has the American government requested Iraqi troops? When has Iraq offered to send them. And why would they be sent to Kansas. Wouldn’t New Orleans be a better choice? Hah![/quote]
Iraq is a democracy. The democratically elected government could choose to invade the US to remove Bush (or any future president). And based on your reasoning, that would be ok.
No reason for choosing Kansas - I had been reading a book before I wrote the earlier post and it was set in Kansas, so I went with that.
[quote=“TainanCowboy”] I think a battalion or so from the Viet Namese Forces would be a nice touch…eh?
Hmm…no mention of Taiwan in this story. A company of bin lang blue truckers doing convoy duty might be nice also![/quote]
Yep… rotten viet nom fish and bin land lorry drivers… go down real well.
Take al Qaeda at its word. Take Iran’s leaders at their word. Take George Bush at his word. What is it with you people and your refusal to listen to what people are saying and believe that they mean what they say?[/quote]
Cause nobody belives your little tin pot aspring dictator.
Bush the wimp… thats his image now matter how many marines he can send out there.
Your churlishly infantile post is a far better indication than any I could provide as to why you and others who subscribe to such views are so marginalized on the policy front. Keep up the good work!
Actually al Qaeda hadn’t moved into Iraq till your government gave them an opportunity.
There are people who say that in the end it is “always” necessary to listen to your enemies. Do you listen to people who say that or are you too stupid and unwilling? Hey this is fun. Hang on, you just asked me to take Bush at his word, maybe you are on to something, this would be a lot easier if it was a dictatorship.
Er, because their economies depend on it. Maybe I over estimated you.
I didn’t extrapolate that.
Yeah funny that it hasn’t helped much with your understanding of reality so far ha ha.
reality as in Reality or the reality that I understand you to possess, which is in fact a very tenuous hold on the Reality that the rest of the world understands… oh and hahahaha
I was thinking about this yesterday. The invasion of Iraq is a new kind of war. The Pre-Emptive War. AFAIK, hasn’t been done before.
You are correct of course in suggesting that the Iraqi government COULD choose to invade the USA and remove Bush, but that would be stupid. Because if they want to remove Bush for invading, or now, occupying Iraq, why wouldn’t they just ASK THE US TO REMOVE THEIR TROOPS? WOuldn’t that be loads and loads easier??
All they have to do is ask.
My bet is that they won’t.
Sorry the attack on Serbia over Kosovo by NATO was endorsed though not officially approved by the UN. It predates the Iraq action by four years.
And what the grounds be? There were 17 binding UN resolutions on Iraq. There were resolutions on Serbia (far fewer) but Kofi Annan approved and justified the action as “sometimes it is necessary for nations to enforce UN resolutions.”
You are assuming that those discussing this issue with you
a. are rational actors
b. have any understanding of how global diplomatic affairs are conducted
c. have even the most basic inkling about geostrategy and policies as they are conducted by state actors
d. have the good will to recognize legitimate difference in policy views
e. have any wish to understand that the actions of the Bush administration would probably have been taken by a Democrat administration following 911. After all, we have numerous statements by Democrat officials and leaders demanding (not calling for) but DEMANDING such action against Saddam. Naturally, their forgetfulness at previous statements must be put down to a lack of sufficient ginko biloba in their diets.
[quote]All they have to do is ask.
My bet is that they won’t.[/quote]
And that is why (sing along with me) we are going to be in Iraq for 60 years. Let’s not pretend otherwise.
Sorry the attack on Serbia over Kosovo by NATO was endorsed though not officially approved by the UN. It predates the Iraq action by four years.[/quote]
Well, I was thinking more along the lines of one country attacking…these damn coalitions. WHo the hell is in charge here!
So, what you’re saying is the NATO attacks were essentially the same damn thing?
And was there a big hubub (I was busy from 1996-2000)
And what the grounds be? There were 17 binding UN resolutions on Iraq. There were resolutions on Serbia (far fewer) but Kofi Annan approved and justified the action as “sometimes it is necessary for nations to enforce UN resolutions.”[/quote][/quote]
I didn’t say it would be a wise move,or even smart, but that they COULD.