Marijuana.com

MickityMike

Agreed. But who’s "whining"? I don't think any of us on here thought it was ever going to be a cakewalk. The point is not that we're crying and gnashing teeth because the terrorists are fighting dirty (big surprise), we're pointing out the disparity in coverage. That's all. Methinks you assume too much about what we (or me, at least) are trying to say.

Just as you and others will continually point out the flaws in US policy (and again, rightfully so in most cases) we’ll continue to point out the flaws in worldwide media and the actions of other nations and international organizations.

Would it be better if we just shut-up about it? I rarely agree with you, but I don't think you should cease your criticisms of Bush's foreign policy. I think it makes for healthy politics, and a stronger nation.

Honestly, pretty much about exactly what we’re seeing regarding world opinion and US actions and the brutality of the enemy. (The more things change, the more they stay the same.) What I did not expect was the lack of coverage given Iraqi civilians targeted by the “insurgents.” That can be a bit perplexing.

__________________
I'd be delighted to live in a country where happily married gay couples had closets full of assault weapons. - Glenn Reynolds

 

MickityMike

Perhaps, perhaps not. Regardless, I tend to think - speaking very generally - that the more we raise our troop levels the more trouble we'll get in and the longer it'll eventually take for the Iraqis to assume responsibility themselves.

I don't know about that one, either. France seems kinda busy right now too, all around the world. But if they wanted to, I tend to think that you're right. They could very probably each contribute significant troops.

But they won't. Even if Kerry was elected, they publicly stated that they wouldn't. In light of this, it's kind of a dead point in my mind.

I'd worry that the more visible and common the American presence becomes, the more resentment among Iraqis may build.

Is that a fact, or Monday Morning Quarterbacking? The world has changed since the Cold War: I think that we just don't have all the same allies anymore (because we don't have all the same primary goals anymore), and that there was actually very little we could've done differently.

Unfortunately, I think you may be right. But what we most definitely cannot do is leave prematurely. The Iraqis must be given time to build their military. In the meantime, we must crush the Sunni “insurgency.”

This rebellion will be stopped and rendered militarily ineffective just as the Sadr-led revolt was in the spring. The US military appears to be embarking on that effort – provoking a last-ditch Sunni counteroffensive throughout the Triangle – but it must be the Iraqi military that maintains it.

goldberry

There's no "perhaps" about it, an additional 10,000 men on the ground would improve security - period.

Nothing will change Bush's mistake of rushing the war when the very allies who could have contributed asked for more time exploring other avenues. Why should they change their mind if Kerry gets elected? We as a country are still responsible for our past actions even if we change leaders. They didn't 'break' Iraq, we did, and nothing is going to change that.

The real question is would they have been more willing to help if Bush gave weapons inspectors more time and made war the last resort?

edit: heh answered the wrong question! =D

__________________
"Is our children learning?" George W. Bush

HappyMan

Or provide 10,000 more targets.

__________________
Bla.

and

Marijuana.Com Community Posting Guidelines

Brainstorm

Even this is not the question we should be asking now as it is over and done with now, the US and their 'coalition of the willing' are now occupying Iraq, the only time this question will become relevent again is if something similar should come up again.

We now have to look forward and hope that the decisions made from this point forward are the decisions that are in the best interests of the Iraqi people and not look back doing the old 'could've, should've would've'

 

goldberry

It's cliche but true, we have to learn from our past mistakes in order to make good decisions.

If we won't admit that Bush screwed up others will not want to help. It's like anything else with trust. One example: Your friend trusts you with a secret, you go blabbing it to everyone. Now, do you think your friend is more likely to trust you again if you admit you made a mistake or if you insist you were right. Well, if you admit you made a mistake it won't guarantee you that your friend will trust you again, but it sure as hell gives you better chance than if you refuse to admit you were wrong.

So what's in the best interest of the Iraqi people? That as many nations as possible help out in any way they can, and I think these nations would be more willing to do so if we finally owned up to our mistakes.

MickityMike

I definitely agree that we should study past mistakes in order to learn from them – the disagreement is the same as it’s always been: One side thinks diplomatic mistakes were made, others don’t. This is the same argument we’ve all had since the beginning, and if the past 2 years have taught me anything on here, it’s that I don’t think we’re gonna change our minds on this one.

Even if Al Gore were president pre-Iraq invasion, I don’t think he would’ve been able to convince our “allies” France and Germany to participate given more time, a nicer approach, whatever. I just seem them as having completely different national interests at this point in history. *shrug*

It’s due to this differing national interest that I think even if they had been willing to contribute forces, I don’t think it would’ve been all that much.

Help in what way? Contribution of additional forces? I’m not convinced that that’d have positive effects over the long term. I think we have to be extremely careful about increasing force levels – too much, and I think we’re going to remove the incentive for the Iraqis to take charge of their own security and their own country. This is one of the lessons learned from Vietnam, and I’d really rather not see the military nor the government ignore that.

But I do think that it’d be fantastic if more nations provided more training to the Iraqi police and armed forces, and contributed much more humanitarian aid. Even if our “allies” didn’t agree with the timing of the Iraq war, I’m confused as to why they won’t accept the current situation and help. Especially as the current action in Falluja and elsewhere in Iraq is sanctioned by the UN (SCR 8117) and at the request of the Iraqi government:

As a sign of just how strange things are becoming lately, I’m finding myself agreeing with Juan Cole, certainly one not in love with the invasion of Iraq to begin with:

Some of my readers still want good guys and bad guys, white hats and black hats. That's not the way the world is. It is often grey, and very bleak.

The above pretty much sums up my view on why we had no choice but to go to war in Iraq at the time we did. I maintained then, and I still do now, that war was our best/least worse option.

Hiz Highness

Of course we had a choice. Remember all the people marching through the streets of America saying "Wait a second, let's not do this right now."

Remember all those folks?

I think "we didn't have a choice" is the first step of denial for a strong war advocate who is finally seeing the toll of the plan he was so strongly in favor of.

-HH

MickityMike

You seem to suffer from frequent bouts of reading what you'd like to read, and not what I've actually written.

No, it's really how my argument's been since the day I first began advocating my pro-war position: The world is not black and white, it's gray and effin' bleak at times. Given the information at the time, I believed it to be correct. Given what's come out since about the nonexistence of WMD stockpiles and the existence of WMD programs, I think it correct. Given known and alleged connections to Islamic fundamentalists, I think it correct. Given my larger belief that the only way to truly stem - in the long term - Islamic fundamentalist acts of terror is through liberal reform of Middle Eastern governments, I believe it to be correct.

It’s my view that al-Qaeda is only a mere symptom of a much, much larger Middle Eastern problem.

Stephanie S.

BAGHDAD - Acute malnutrition among young children in Iraq has nearly doubled since the United States led an invasion of the country 20 months ago, according to surveys by the United Nations, aid agencies and the interim Iraqi government.

After the rate of acute malnutrition among children younger than 5 steadily declined to 4 percent two years ago, it shot up to 7.7 percent this year, according to a study conducted by Iraq's Health Ministry in cooperation with Norway's Institute for Applied International Studies and the U.N. Development Program. The new figure translates to roughly 400,000 Iraqi children suffering from "wasting," a condition characterized by chronic diarrhea and dangerous deficiencies of protein.

"These figures clearly indicate the downward trend," said Alexander Malyavin, a child health specialist with the UNICEF mission to Iraq.

Source

Keep on a rockin me baby. Keep on a rockin me, baby baby baby.
Stay the course. Either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists.

I must be with the terrorists. I never endorsed this war, never believed it was or is the right thing to do, yet I feel an immense sense of responsibilty for these kids. G-d help us, this war is so f'ed up and wrong.

peace

__________________
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." —George W. Bush, Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005 (Listen to audio)