The penny finally begins to drop with Bush.

#1
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4631339.stm

And

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4631251.stm

I think he may have finally realised that he may have bitten off more than he could chew. I'll bet those who pushed him into theis start to get their 'It wasn't me' excuses ready.
I thonk getting rid of Saddam was the right thing to do, but not the way our respective govts lied to achieve it. I also don't like the way the US govt ignored the generals who told Bush that to secure the country they needed far more troops than they actually used. I'm almost finishing the book Generation Kill by Evan Wright, and some of the policies the US military had out there were outrageous.
 
#2
I am convinced that the advisers to King George are now starting the process for pulling out the bulk of the US forces.
Train up Iraqi forces for the 'Cannon fodder' jobs, much cheaper to pay and US citizens will not care about their losses.
Then slowly remove the bulk of the US forces to 'Safe' fotress areas and extract all the non regular US troops.
Specialist forces will have to remain to provied back up, but slowly the aviation element will move offshore to the US Navy and the heavy aircraft can be stationed out side Iraq in Bahrain or Kuwait.
A more sophisticated version of what Britian did in the 1920-30s, we used cannon fodder from the Indian Army.
john
 
#3
jonwilly, that plan has been well advertised for some time now.

Jaafari was right - the insurgency CAN be defeated in two years. However, is the US REALLY willing to let the Iraqi (i.e. Shia/Kurd) forces sort out the insurgency their way?
 
#4
#5
AndyPipkin said:
Jaafari was right - the insurgency CAN be defeated in two years.
what, do something in the next two years that we havent managed in the last 2? bearing in mind that they are more established and organised now than they were then?
wonder who Bush is going to blame for this? :roll:
 
#6
Syria and Iran of course, because all, those nice Iraqis don't want us gone, and would never actually shoot at us .
 
#7
Get ready for Iraqization. When the yanks withdrew from Viet Nam they had Vietnamization. i.e leave the uniforms and the weapons behind, but put poor local unemployed saps in them instead. They only need to find 150,000 people to join the New Iraqi Army. Then they can be shot at and blown up with IEDs instead of the Americans. There will sadly be many volunteers due to the unemployment, poverty and chaos caused by Dubya's little adventure. Then wait for the sight of Bush and Bliar wringing their hands as the country is torn apart in a civil war.
 
#8
AndyPipkin said:
jonwilly, that plan has been well advertised for some time now.

Jaafari was right - the insurgency CAN be defeated in two years. However, is the US REALLY willing to let the Iraqi (i.e. Shia/Kurd) forces sort out the insurgency their way?
The problem with that idea - attractive though it is - is that it will result in a general mobilisation of everyone with a gun, rather than the minority we see at the moment. I'm afraid I can't see how a full scale US backed civil war will give the Iraqi's a better life. Plus it won't be too long before the Shia and Kurds start shooting at each other. I'm also not convinced that the Shia would back the Kurds rather than the Sunni, or just stay out of the whole mess and look to take over once the other two parties are played out.

TV footage of Kurds massacring Shia with US approval will also do more for Al Qaeda than anything they could dream of doing themeselves.
 
#9
He's still encouraging the misapprehension that Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi Ba'athist Party were complicit in 9/11. I'm acquainted with plenty of Fox News-watching fellow Americans who just take that proposition for granted.

That he, even now, keeps reiterating this fairy tale speaks volumes.

This talk about the Iraqi constabulary and army taking over the brunt of the fighting seems eerily reminiscent of Viet Nam.
 
#10
And if you like that , you'll just love this....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4635849.stm

Troops must stay in Iraq - Blair

UK premier Tony Blair has endorsed US President George Bush's assertion that coalition troops must stay in Iraq as long as necessary to defeat terrorism.
Mr Blair told the Associated Press it was "vital" the US-led coalition remained until the country stabilised.

Defeating "insurgents and terrorists" there would lead to the destruction of terrorism across the globe, he said.
How? How will it Prime Minister? Are you in the same mushroom shed as Bush44 ? We are not fighting some nerfarious organised globalised terrorist organisation in Iraq PM, or do you not read your briefings? We have one 'Quasi-Organised global group' which of course is Al-Catchall , and myriad others. How will defeating local Iraqi insurgents, lead to the defeat of the CIRA , ETA , Shining path , the Corsican Brotherhood etc etc etc?

Prime Minister, you have made some bone statements in your time, but that one just takes the biscuit.
 
#11
mussolini93 said:
........................ There will sadly be many volunteers due to the unemployment, poverty and chaos caused by Dubya's little adventure. .........................
Really? Iraq was a utopia before this?
 
#12
Not_Whistlin_Dixie said:
He's still encouraging the misapprehension that Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi Ba'athist Party were complicit in 9/11. I'm acquainted with plenty of Fox News-watching fellow Americans who just take that proposition for granted.

That he, even now, keeps reiterating this fairy tale speaks volumes.

This talk about the Iraqi constabulary and army taking over the brunt of the fighting seems eerily reminiscent of Viet Nam.
He hasn't said that at all. Where exactly did you hear him specifically say "Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi Ba'athist Party were complicit in 9/11" ?

"I'm acquainted with plenty of Fox News-watching fellow Americans who just take that proposition for granted." Really? and you obviously get your information from the DNC.

Viet Nam indeed - straight rhetoric of the Democrats who are simply politicising it all. They lose focus for operations such as Iraq so quickly, having the attention span and patience of a gnat
 
#13
mussolini93 said:
Get ready for Iraqization. When the yanks withdrew from Viet Nam they had Vietnamization. i.e leave the uniforms and the weapons behind, but put poor local unemployed saps in them instead. They only need to find 150,000 people to join the New Iraqi Army. Then they can be shot at and blown up with IEDs instead of the Americans. There will sadly be many volunteers due to the unemployment, poverty and chaos caused by Dubya's little adventure. Then wait for the sight of Bush and Bliar wringing their hands as the country is torn apart in a civil war.
Actually, there are already something like 178 000 soldiers in the Iraqi Defence Force, with thousands more lining up to join every month. The main problem isn't numbers, it's supplying them with kit and training them.
 
#14
"jonwilly, that plan has been well advertised for some time now. "
Any referances ?
I still say the Yank will cut and run before next election. I understand from CNN, that Bush made 6 referances linking Iraq/Sadam with 9/11, when ya've got a good tale keep on telling it, You can Fool sum people sum of the time and most of the Yanks all of the time.
john
 
#15
Another problem with the Iraqi Defence Forces is that very few of them are likely to put loyalty to the Iraqi state ahead of their existing tribal loyalties. We may very well be training all sides in preparation for a three-sided civil war.

This tendency is aggravated by the lack of a decent banking system in Iraq, This means that the Iraqi "Bill Oddie" (*) needs to visit home regularly to press his pay into the hands of his good lady. Hence he's always visible to his community, can't be sent too far from home for too long and is therefore very vulnerable to his tribe.

(*) What would the Iraqi equivalent be ? Achmed Oddie ?
 
#16
RCSignals said:
Not_Whistlin_Dixie said:
He's still encouraging the misapprehension that Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi Ba'athist Party were complicit in 9/11. I'm acquainted with plenty of Fox News-watching fellow Americans who just take that proposition for granted.

That he, even now, keeps reiterating this fairy tale speaks volumes.

This talk about the Iraqi constabulary and army taking over the brunt of the fighting seems eerily reminiscent of Viet Nam.
He hasn't said that at all. Where exactly did you hear him specifically say "Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi Ba'athist Party were complicit in 9/11" ?

"I'm acquainted with plenty of Fox News-watching fellow Americans who just take that proposition for granted." Really? and you obviously get your information from the DNC.

Viet Nam indeed - straight rhetoric of the Democrats who are simply politicising it all. They lose focus for operations such as Iraq so quickly, having the attention span and patience of a gnat
The troops here and across the world are fighting a global war on terror. The war reached our shores on September the 11th, 2001. The terrorists who attacked us -- and the terrorists we face -- murder in the name of a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance, and despises all dissent. Their aim is to remake the Middle East in their own grim image of tyranny and oppression -- by toppling governments, by driving us out of the region, and by exporting terror.

...

...After September the 11th, I made a commitment to the American people: This nation will not wait to be attacked again. We will defend our freedom.

We will take the fight to the enemy. Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war. Many terrorists who kill innocent men, women, and children on the streets of Baghdad are followers of the same murderous ideology that took the lives of our citizens in New York, in Washington, and Pennsylvania.

...

After September 11, 2001, I told the American people that the road ahead would be difficult - and that we would prevail.


http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-06-29-voa4.cfm

There you have it. Iraq is merely "the latest battlefield" in a "global war on terror" against men who are animated by "the same murderous ideology that took the lives of our citizens in New York..."

True, he carefully refrains from plainly asserting that the former Iraqi government and its supporters among the Iraqi Sunnis were complicit in the destruction of the World Trade Center. Instead, he repeatedly implies it although there is apparently no evidence to support this insinuated charge.
 
#17
How many terrorists were there in Iraq before we invaded? And I don't mean the made up terrorist camp that featured in Colin Powells briefing and was then debunked by Channel 4, because they drove there on the same day.

Or the infamous 'Terrorist training centre containing an airliner and buildings' which turned out to be the RGSF depot.

'Killing them there , so they can't come here' God alone knows who came up with that . It suggests that the other side will just continue to fight us lemming like inside a contained area , and not once would they attempt to go right-flanking and blow up an embassy somewhere, or God forbid make a strike on the US mainland. How long would the Bush presidency last if that ever happened?
 
#18
jonwilly said:
I still say the Yank will cut and run before next election.
I wouldn't be too sure of that.

Rummy was saying US forces will be over there for the next twelve years.

Hillary, who some view as the odds-on favorite for the Democratic Party '08 presidential nomination (the horror!) is talking tough about crushing the Iraqi insurgency.

This really isn't the Viet Nam era in one important sense. Our ruling establishment (and here I include both the Republican and Democratic wings) won't be deflected from its intended course by a lot of disgruntled, unhappy voters.

They plan on sticking around for quite a while.
 
#20
Not_Whistlin_Dixie said:
RCSignals said:
Not_Whistlin_Dixie said:
He's still encouraging the misapprehension that Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi Ba'athist Party were complicit in 9/11. I'm acquainted with plenty of Fox News-watching fellow Americans who just take that proposition for granted.

That he, even now, keeps reiterating this fairy tale speaks volumes.

This talk about the Iraqi constabulary and army taking over the brunt of the fighting seems eerily reminiscent of Viet Nam.
He hasn't said that at all. Where exactly did you hear him specifically say "Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi Ba'athist Party were complicit in 9/11" ?

"I'm acquainted with plenty of Fox News-watching fellow Americans who just take that proposition for granted." Really? and you obviously get your information from the DNC.

Viet Nam indeed - straight rhetoric of the Democrats who are simply politicising it all. They lose focus for operations such as Iraq so quickly, having the attention span and patience of a gnat
The troops here and across the world are fighting a global war on terror. The war reached our shores on September the 11th, 2001. The terrorists who attacked us -- and the terrorists we face -- murder in the name of a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance, and despises all dissent. Their aim is to remake the Middle East in their own grim image of tyranny and oppression -- by toppling governments, by driving us out of the region, and by exporting terror.

...

...After September the 11th, I made a commitment to the American people: This nation will not wait to be attacked again. We will defend our freedom.

We will take the fight to the enemy. Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war. Many terrorists who kill innocent men, women, and children on the streets of Baghdad are followers of the same murderous ideology that took the lives of our citizens in New York, in Washington, and Pennsylvania.

...

After September 11, 2001, I told the American people that the road ahead would be difficult - and that we would prevail.


http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-06-29-voa4.cfm

There you have it. Iraq is merely "the latest battlefield" in a "global war on terror" against men who are animated by "the same murderous ideology that took the lives of our citizens in New York..."

True, he carefully refrains from plainly asserting that the former Iraqi government and its supporters among the Iraqi Sunnis were complicit in the destruction of the World Trade Center. Instead, he repeatedly implies it although there is apparently no evidence to support this insinuated charge.
Exactly, it does not say "Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi Ba'athist Party were complicit in 9/11", as you indicated it did.

It doesn't even read/imply as that being the intended point.
 

Similar threads

Top