Related Information to Post War Iraq

Post War Iraq - Page 114

Breaking News

Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, leader of the militant group Islamic State of Iraq, has been arrested in western Baghdad, the Iraqi Interior Ministry tells CNN.

Iraq War Post

The democrats plan to "slow bleed" the Iraqi situation is well documented. I posted that in the Dems: Next Move thread HERE.

They will "allow" a little here, a little there, but not enough to do any good. Then they can say they "tried to help" but really they are hindering any progress for the future.

Post War Iraq History & Civil Business Politics

Well the figure is going up, should we start placing bets on if it will hit at least 10,000?

Page 114 Iraq War Post

Again, IMO, the Democrats will not allow for what he initially asked for in troop levels. However, they will allow for some to go over. In the end, they will be able to say that they prevented what that Republican president wanted (basically saying that they saved "x" number of lives), but didn't stop all the troop from going over there because then they would have to answer "what do we do next". They don't want that question in their laps really at any time, but definitely before the election!

Iraq War Post

I understand what you are saying / said Vincenzo, but is the US public that naive? I think technology is making everyone more aware.

Post War Iraq

This is very simple politics really.

Bush is being a stubborn lame duck president who is trying to show the electorate that his Iraq escape plan is being held up by the Democrats. He knows the Democrats won't support any major deployment because they have stated this many times before and it is getting close to an election. So desperate is Bush to appear relevant, he will endanger the lives of a few thousand token troops to try and prove his point. Unfortunately for him, and his Republican Party, it is too late. Iraq is already one of the greatest military disasters in modern history and Bush, alongside Cheney and Rumsfeld, are very much responsible. Their reputations can't be destroyed anymore but they can certainly do more damage to their party's chances at the next election.

The Democrats are going to use the Iraq issue to try and win more votes this close to the election. That is also stupid because instead of coming up with a sensible alternative policy to Iraq they would rather allow Bush to keep digging his party's grave. In the end, US foreign policy is exposed for the joke that it has become, nothing gets solved in Iraq and the Republicans will be trounced at the next election.

Post War Iraq - Page 114

It is a bit more complicated than that for the Republicans. True, Bush is a lame duck, but that happens to all presidents that are re-elected. For the Republicans running for president in the next election, I suspect there will not be a single one of them that uses the Democrats holding back all that Bush asked for as a platform for election. That would clearly be a losing strategy, as anyone that looks at the polls (and all of them do) can see.

All Republicans running for office are starting to separate themselves from Bush. This is what has to happen when you have a unpopular lame duck president. The only candidate that is for the increase is McCain. However, he tries to clearly distinguish himself from the administration by actually calling for a concrete timeline for the troops to come back.

Rather off topic, but... In my opinion, this is the big failure of the Bush strategy. If there is no timeline or milestones to reach, how do you know when you have gotten there. I can understand the not wanting to set a specific troop pull out date so that the enemy knows when you are leaving, but there does have to be a timetable of milestones that can be on other things than just troop withdrawl. Satisfy those and troops come home...

Just continue to listen to the running Republicans separate themselves from the current administration. They will split further and further apart as we move toward election and in particular after the nomination from the Republican part is determined (after that moment, candidates typically move towards the center on issues and away from anything unpopular).

As far as the american public being duped, well we really aren't being fooled. While there are a large percentage of actors who will run around telling the public that a Democratic president will stop the war and life will be rosey again, most of us know that even if we pull out of Iraq, we are going to have to hear about how many are killed or the devastation on the population from sectarian wars that will continue after we leave. So if there is a Democrat president, can they hang their hat on that one? If we stay, we get to hear the same thing, but get the satisfaction of knowing we are trying. So while all candidates will be using this as a strategy to get the presidency, no one has the answer. Those that tell you they do, just don't get it but will if they are elected.

Post War Iraq Politics Business Civil & History - Page 114

I agree with most of what you say Vincenzo, however, I"m not so sure there is much satisfaction in knowing that you are trying to solve Iraq when the reality is US troops being there makes little difference or has a negative impact.

I think the US needs to pull out most of its military and this must be replaced by an international peace keeping force that is seen as acceptable to Iraqis.

Occupation forces are rarely popular in this day and age, nobody likes their sovereignty encroached by "big bully" nations. We have the same situation in the Pacific. Whenever one of the island nations in our region needs Australia military support, our troops go over, stop the violence, and generally do a good job. But they are never popular. The presence of occupation forces always causes resentment, and this leads to violence.

The US gave it a shot and failed dismally. Get over it. The whole invasion was doomed from the start by over-zealous, incompetent officials from the Bush Administration.

It's time for a new strategy that has the genuine support of Iraqi people and not just from a few puppet politicians that were virtually imposed on Iraqis by the US and other outside influences.

One thing that still irritates me about this debate is that too much is focussed on how the conflict affects the US, their military and politicians. It's time to stop worrying about how Iraq will shape the next US election because quite frankly it makes no difference to Iraq. The damage is done, let's come up with ideas to help the victims of this conflict, not look for a get out of jail card for Bush and the next administration. If US troops remaining there was in the best interest of Iraq I would support that whole-heartedly. But I think we have seen over time that it clearly isn't.

Rather off topic, but... On another point, I don't believe the American public are being duped anymore by the Democrats or anyone. While I would find it mind-blowing if the Democrats didn't sweep the next election, given the Republicans abysmal performance, I don't think you can go around lying about these issues anymore. The American people and congress were blatantly fooled into allowing this conflict to go ahead but in the end the truth always comes out. I still believe Americans are far too trusting of their presidents, however this trustful nature is also a good trait. I hope this invasion will spawn a new era for the US where it reverts back to becoming a champion of freedom, not violence and conquest under the guise of 'terrorism" or "democracy". There is no doubt in my mind that a good US superpower is the best thing for this planet.