Dubya calls for "patience"

Fcuk off you shaved chimp! You weren't patient when the inspectors were asking for more time to find the non-existent WMDs...rant rant rant etc.

Why doesn't he sign up his twin daughters for a bit of National Guard action? Leading by example and all that?


US President George W Bush has called on Americans to be patient with the situation in Iraq and warned that there will be further sacrifice ahead.
"Our efforts in Iraq and the broader Middle East will require more time, more sacrifice and continued resolve," he said in his weekly radio address.

With almost 1,900 US soldiers dead in Iraq, pressure is mounting on Mr Bush to end the war and bring troops home.

Later both anti and pro-war campaigners will stage protest rallies in Texas.

A group calling itself "You don't speak for me Cindy!" will hold a counter demonstration against anti-war protesters led by a mother who lost her son in Iraq.
Although I disagree that troops should be brought back immediatey, pro-war Americans need to realise that thier country's continued pressence in Iraq and other Muslim countries (in Africa, the ME, or Asia) is contributing towards the radicalisation of Muslims and puting us all in danger. These people fail to realise that Islamic Extremism will continue for the foreseable future, and a stable Iraq or not will not make any difference to thier indiviudal security in the US.

I was watching an interesting programe on History, about the SS Warewolves who continued a guerrilla cmapign for years after the fall of Germany. The allies defeated them through de-nazification and the use of hard tactics. Japan was also weakened aftre the war by pacification, meaning that the rebuilding process was possible. In my opinion, the Americans seem to think that the same tactics can work in Muslim countries. What they fail to realise is that the majority of militants in Iraq are foriegn Islamic radicals, while a smaller minoroty actually use terrorist tactics. By branding every muslim with a gun as 'a terrorist' Washingston has created the illusion that its military alone can win the war and stabalise Iraq, and that by killing the guerillas it can bring peace. However, it is not possible to employ the same tactics in Iraq as in Germany or Japan. Muslims can not be re-educated into giving up thier religion, as a Nazi could be re-educated to reject Hitler, and the harsh tactics of the gung-ho American military is only fueling radicalisation throughout the Mulsim world.

The American public and media believe that the war is between the US and 'al Qaeda'. It is actually between the US, Extremists, Baathists, Communists, Royalists, Shias, Sunni's and Kurds, etc. The US should focus its efforts on creating cooperation between these groups and killing the terrorists themselves, such as Musab al Zarqawi. The current situation in Iraq is not a battlefield in the War on Terror, although thier is now a terrorist pressence there, and a stable Iraq will not do anything to prevent Islamic Extemism.

All the US can hope for now is to avert civil war, strengthen the Iraqi government and army, and then withdraw. Only then can it fully concentrate on defeating extremism. Even if extremism still continues in Iraq after the withdrawal of the US and allies, it should be left to the new Iraqi government to deal with it (although we should lend intelligence and security assistance).

It is simpy idiotic to believe that the current Iraqi crisis is down the extremism, and therefore stability will end it. If America withdraws, less people will die in America to terrorism than soldiers in Iraq. If the US does not start telling it like it is, it will get drawn deeper into the conflict and poeple will die all over the world becasue of it.
Georgei boy has dug a hole and all the sh1t is pouring in.
I never saw anything wrong is exterminating Al Qaeda, still don't.
No politico has ever given a genuine reason for the invasion of Iraq, still beyond me.
Iraq is a bottomless pit draining Men and money that the US and UK cannot afford.
I can see no end just more ongoing problems.
I feel sorry for the next President (unless its a twat like Cheney or Rice). It will be a repeat of Vietnam more or less. They will want to get out, but will only be able to do so after pouring more resources in. Like Johnson whose reputation suffered because of Kennedys actions. Then if a terrorist attack did happen in the US after a withdrawal, the next president would get the blame for withdrawing.
MrPVRd said:
Fcuk off you shaved chimp! You weren't patient when the inspectors were asking for more time to find the non-existent WMDs...rant rant rant etc.

Why doesn't he sign up his twin daughters for a bit of National Guard action? Leading by example and all that?
Some folks are born made to wave the flag,
Ooh, they're red, white and blue.
And when the band plays "Hail to the chief",
Ooh, they point the cannon at you, Lord,
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no senator's son, son.
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, no...

"Fortunate Son" by John C. Fogarty.
As soon as people realise that the decision was strategic & nothing to do with WMDs/Saddam's personal hygiene problem the sooner they will understand that the US is here to stay.

The permanant bases here that the US are building here are not to give over to the Iraqi army to wreck/loot in a years time but to act as a secure aircraft carrier in order to try and control the Middle East.

The trouble is they thought it was a good plan initially, but now it has all gone a bit floppy what with with all the lunatics here wanting to get a slice of the action whether it be power, a face in the(very big) money trough or just to enable them to loose off the shed load of RPG's that have been gathering dust behind the sofa, it is looking very much like we are on the cusp of a civil war.

other than that, it keeps me in a job
Greetings littlelegs, intresting first post.
I luv ta hear all these suggestions on just why King George II went on the rampage.
Oil, Regime change, Spreading Democracy and last for the Honor of thoes that have died. Now we have for a secure base in Middle East.
Best I heard was US conncerns on stability of Saudi, to avoid a second Iran situation where the US M.E. Policeman was overthrown in a few days so now we take third largest oil reseves.
PS If you do find out please lets us all know.
I heard from one of our US colleagues at the time that one of the motivating factors was an intention to find a replacement for the Saudi bases for when the Sauds were toppled or died off.
jonwilly said:
Greetings littlelegs, intresting first post.
I luv ta hear all these suggestions on just why King George II went on the rampage.
Oil, Regime change, Spreading Democracy and last for the Honor of thoes that have died. Now we have for a secure base in Middle East.
Best I heard was US conncerns on stability of Saudi, to avoid a second Iran situation where the US M.E. Policeman was overthrown in a few days so now we take third largest oil reseves.
PS If you do find out please lets us all know.
Cheers JW,

I have been lurking for a while now and all of a sudden I saw something I have an opinion about!

Seriously, I don't think they ever had a plan had b. As we all know no plan survives first contact with the enemy, they just didn't think there would be a enemy. I think it is a combination of all of the above but they have got themselves into a huge hole and have reverted to the tried n tested solution of chucking money at the problem - the dosh swilling around here is truly astonishing - however , I go back to my original theory and all the shoutng of Ms sheehan and her supporters won't make a gnat's knackers worth of difference -they're staying.
I can't see a prolonged US prescence in Iraq.

US foreign and military policy often demonstrates a clear pattern. An initial overwhelming engagement, lots of flagwaving and statements about staying until the job is done. A few years down the line, when the c0ck-ups manifest themselves, disengagement follows with a period of isolation and a desire not to get involved again.

I think the midterm elections will be the start of the disengagement process, as pro-war Republicans get trounced (there was a recent near-upset in Ohio) and the parties realise that a pro-war President will not gain office in 2008.

"Iraqisation" will follow - if the situation hasn't deteriorated into civil war by then.
I reckon the US will withdraw from Iraq, but will continue to give support to any Iraqi government. In my opinion, the war happened because the US was concerned that Baathists would rebuild thier armed forces after the UN embargos were lifted, thus threatening Oil prices. I reckon th goal of the US now is to withdraw, and to support the Iraqi government to defend itself (by supplying a few apaches and training, etc), but at the same time limiting the armed forces so that they cant build up to the point where they threaten thier neighbours. The last thing the US wants is a war between any of the ME countries.

In the War on Terror, the US now realises that the struggle between US foreign forces and extremists will continue for a long time to come, therefore they believe that they need to build more bases throughout that region in order to put down any threats - not only against the US and its interests, but threats against the Saudis, Iraqis and any other ally. That is why bases are being constructed in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and why relations are being cemeted with Pakistan, Iraq and Palestine, to name a few. The US also realises that democracy will help to combat radicalisation of extremists, therefore is pressurising the Saudis, Syrians and Yemenis into reform. The pressence of US combat forces in the ME and other Muslim countries fuels extremism, therefore the US will eventually move out of Iraq and Suadi and to the stans so that it can keep a presence without causing resentment. It will also keep an amphibious presence in the Gulf, Indian Ocean and the Meditaranean.

I think that the US policy in the ME is containment of threats, not dominance of countries. They atatcked Iraq because they considered it a future threat. The US wants to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons, not because so that it cant invade neighbouring countries, but so that it can bomb it in future if neccessary. The US has neither the intention nor the justification to attack Iran or Syria. The short term goal is stability. The long term goal is democracy and thus expansion of capitalism. Islamic extremists, who wish to topple middle eastern regimes and create a unified Islamic continent from Algeria to Pakistan, are a threat to the New World Order of a glboal market with he US at the top. If they did gain power Iraq, they would be able to exert huge influence throughout the ME.
That is why bases are being constructed in Uzbekistan,
Well they'd better stop wasting money as they're being kicked out very soon indeed. Rumsfeld says he's "disappointed" Words fail me.

What I am increasingly concerned about, is the SLACK BBC (capitals for the BBC lurkers) reporting on the latest news in Iraq, which appears to be being written by the Heritage foundation. The number of Sunnis in Iraq is not "up to 20%" as the Heritage foundation and that spakky 4 eyed snake oil turncoat keep schmoozing you with. It's 32-37% according to the Iraqi Electoral census and the CIA.

Puts a different damn complexion on it now doesn't it? A third of the Country , the third that wants a UNITED Iraq are being marginalised for the crime of being from the same sect as the nutter in charge. I don't need to spell this out for most of the posters here, but it needs spelling out for the BBC, the station that most of these people watch on Satellite. The Shi'a are trying to have it away on their toes with the Southern Oil , the Kurds while banging on about their "Homeland and autonomy" are eyeing up the Northern Oil , leaving the Sunni with bugger all.

The reason it is taking so long to draft a constitution , is not because they are trying to get a fair shake for everyone, it's because the Shi'a are trying to create an oil-rich mini state. An oil rich state which will benefit a chosen few especially. The Kurds have some Gold , and a lot of oil , that'll keep them in clover, right up to the time the Turks come steaming over the border.

We hear the constant refrain "Oh the insurgency is led by the Sunni , they are doing it , because they have the hump with us being there, and having their power taken away , they're spoliing it for everyone" OK, so how does that explain the Shi'a insurgents then? Or is Al-sadr and his ilk a figment of our collective imagination?

The Sunni have the hump , because they can see they are being driven into a corner, they are watching Iraq slide into an orthodox Islamic state , and they are going to damn well fight their corner.

There is too much "It's all the fault of the Sunni" rhetoric going on at the moment, and it's being used as a smokescreen to cover what certain members of the "Free Iraqi parliament" (ho-ho) are trying to trouser. If you want this constitution to be accepted, then you can't exclude a third of the population.

I thought this constitiution was supposed to be about a new, and united Iraq , not a landgrab.
'Patience' is that subtext for 'given time hopefully all the Iraqis will wipe each other out and voila - insurgency solved?'

We have screwed up big style but we have to stay or other wise the country will plunge into civil war a la Lebanon 1975-1990.
Didnt know about Uzbekistan ordering the US out of the country. Though the K2 airbase there was being dismantled anyway. Though they are keeping a presence in Kyrgystan and Tajikistan. I think they realise that it is no longer desirable to keep troops on Arab soil. Though they do need to stablise Iraq first.
US overseas policy has had me worried for a long time. You have thought they would have learned from Britians mistakes in the Middle East.
So much of their presant troubles stem from The Palastinian situation. Until a 'Fair' settlement is achived the Arabs world will use it as a unifying point, no matter what they think of each other.
Britian/Churchill made modern Iraq to povided oil for Britians once all powerful navy.
The Kurd, Sunni and Shi'a where combined by force, (Hackles artical from the Times, of long ago) and now two want to proff and dam the Sunni who have had their run at the top.
I do beleive the US has tried/is trying to hemm in the old USSR and exert an undue influence on Chiana's new oil policy.
Bush needs to get the Reservists and National Guard out of harms way before next years elections for the Hill. The Regular Army will just have to do its duty as per normal as will Tom and Co.
Why Irqa II happened will have to wait for history when George and Tone are gone. Long Gone.
Although the US' main interest in the ME is oil, I dont think that it wants to control it. As long as its pumping and the prices remain reasonable, its happy. What it doesnt want is a repeat of the OPEC embargo during the Yom Kippur War. So, as long as thier is not war between any of the ME countries, everyone is happy. But, the US deemed Iraq to be a potential threat, so stepped in to put it down before it got back on its feet, and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict could have escalated into full scale warfare.

And now they have this tit-for-tat with Venezuela's Chavez. The US will have to turn to green energy before energy supplies are completely secured. In other words - the US will have to keep a presence throughout the globe while it needs oil.

"We need an energy plan that encourages consumption" - George W Bushism
Did anyone else see George Bush on the TV tonight praising the Iraqi constitution?

I think all me neighbours wondered what the screaming was about :(
King George II beats A'r Tone for sheer Hypocrisy.
And thats saying sumthing.
From a mate of mine on another board
"In his Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II"
Bill Blum has a long and interesting list starting in 1949 with Kim Koo, Korean opposition leader, going on to efforts to kill Sukarno, President of Indonesia, Kim Il Sung, Premier of North Korea, Mohammed Mossadegh, Claro M. Recto (the Philippines opposition leadr), Jawaharlal Nehru, Gamal Abdul Nasser, Norodom Sihanouk, José Figueres, Francois "Papa Doc" Duvalier, Gen. Rafael Trujillo, Charles de Gaulle, Salvador Allende, Michael Manley, Ayatollah Khomeini, the nine comandantes of the Sandinista National Directorate, Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, Lebanese Shiite leader (80 people killed in the attempt), Mohamed Farah Aideed, prominent clan leader of Somalia, Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein."

The differences between the Sunnis and the Shias/Kurds appear to be irreconcilable. Cracking down on former Baathists (almost certainly including anyone who has any experience of running the godforsaken place) is just plain crazy and makes the remote chance of a compromise even further off.

Parts of the Iraqi draft constitution submitted on Sunday are a "recipe for chaos", Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa has warned.

He told the BBC the Arab League shared Sunni Muslim concerns over federalism and the fact the charter does not identify Iraq as an Arab country.

The US and UK have played down Sunni leaders' rejection of the text, which will go to a referendum by 15 October.

Plans are being made to distribute copies of the text around the country.

Shia and Kurdish negotiators have endorsed the document, but negotiators from the Sunni minority refused to put their names to it.

They fear the proposals would lead to the break-up of the country into a Kurdish north and Shia south, depriving the Sunnis of access to the country's oil resources.

Mr Moussa, of the Arab League, told the BBC's World Today programme: "I share the concerns of many Iraqis about the lack of consensus on the constitution."

He said he was concerned that the draft text denies Iraq's "Arab identity".

"I do not believe in this division between Shia and Sunni and Muslims and Christians and Arabs and Kurds," he said. "I don't buy this and I find in this a true recipe for chaos and perhaps a catastrophe in Iraq and around it."

"Of course there's disagreement. We're watching a political process unfold, a process that's encouraged debate and compromise," he said.

But it is possible the document may never come into force. To be ratified, the constitution has to be approved by a majority of voters across the country - as well as not being rejected by two-thirds of voters in at least three or more of Iraq's 18 provinces.

The Sunnis are dominant in four provinces and thus in effect have a power of veto, correspondents say.

Iraq's President Jalal Talabani also called on all Iraqis to support the draft document.

"We hope that this constitution will be accepted by all Iraqis and that it will be for everybody," he said.

"For sure there is no book that is perfect and cannot be amended except the holy Koran."

Among the Sunni concerns are provisions in the constitution which exclude former Baath party officials from public office and which pave the way towards federalism.

They are concerned that allowing for federalism may lead to the creation of an autonomous Shia area in southern Iraq - like the Kurdish north but under Iran's influence.

However, the Sunni representatives said they would play an active role in the elections scheduled for December and calling on all Sunnis in Iraq to register to vote.

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads