posted on September 18, 2004 10:16:43 PM new
Now that most people realize the whole Iraqi thing was a major mistake, if you were in charge of this mess, what would you do at this point?
No matter what news comes out of this war, no matter what lies are uncovered, twelve will never think it was wrong. War mongers never do. I always felt proud that American doesn't start wars, it ends them. Apparently, that's no longer the case. We took out a meaningless, little twerp while Korea has been quietly developing itself into a superpower.
Oh, KD, don't forget to watch for the miraculous discovery of Iraq's weapons just prior to the election. It will be funny because at this point, it's a stunt that most people are expecting the Bush team to pull. You can't expect anything less from a team of lying, conniving, condescending, self righteous, evil jackasses.
Cheryl
. . .if you still try to defend the infamies and horrors perpetrated by that Antichrist- I really believe he is Antichrist- I will have nothing more to do with you and you are no longer my friend.. . - War and Peace, Tolstoy
posted on September 19, 2004 07:04:59 AM new
replay
LOL, ya right! I'm referring to "planted" weapons.
Most of us believe they either already have bin Laden or know exactly where he is. Or, he's dead and they'll find his body. Either way, doesn't make the man an honest one. Makes him even more coniving.
Cheryl
. . .if you still try to defend the infamies and horrors perpetrated by that Antichrist- I really believe he is Antichrist- I will have nothing more to do with you and you are no longer my friend.. . - War and Peace, Tolstoy
posted on September 19, 2004 07:40:14 AM new
Ya, twelve, I know. And there are no honest politicians. I know that, as well. One can dream, can't they?
Cheryl
. . .if you still try to defend the infamies and horrors perpetrated by that Antichrist- I really believe he is Antichrist- I will have nothing more to do with you and you are no longer my friend.. . - War and Peace, Tolstoy
posted on September 19, 2004 08:42:06 AM new
As for the question at hand.....
I would....
Pull all toops out of the Palaces - you can't tell someone you are not there to rule when you are living in the rulers house.
Reduce the combat forces and increases the special forces for targeted attaacks on problem areas.
Put Iraqi troops on the security check road blocks.
Bring together an international coalition of civil engineers, builders, etc. Start reducing the visable military force and increasing the rebuilding effort. The current insurgents are not going to suddenly be won over but you can at least put a huge dent in the recruitment efforts if people see that their country is coming back together.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on September 19, 2004 08:58:18 AM new
Well fenix - Maybe you should email the kerry campaign and offer your suggestions....as he sure as hel! hasn't said what HIS plans would be.
At least you have thought about how you'd handle it....even though you're not there nor a military commander.
-----------------
The problem as I see it is we're being too nice. Seeking international approval of our actions...otherwise we'd be clearing the place out....problem over.
--------------------
"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don´t have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president." - john kerry
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"These dizzying contradictions -- so glaring, so public, so frequent -- have gone beyond undermining anything Kerry can now say on Iraq. They have been transmuted into a character issue."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"What kind of man, aspiring to the presidency, does not know his own mind about the most serious issue of our time?" - Charles Krauthammer
------------
posted on September 19, 2004 09:04:53 AM new
fenix - I'd really be interested in hearing what your's and bunni's view is of kerry taking so many different position on this war.
Maybe it's not THE most important issue for you two in this election??...or maybe it is. But I am just having major problems understanding how two people I have respect for can discount/accept/justify in their own minds all the changes of positions kerry's made on this war.
My intent is not to argue or discount what you say about this issue...but rather to just be able to understand why in the world this wouldn't be of great concern to you when it's such an important issue we face.
"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don´t have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president." - john kerry
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"These dizzying contradictions -- so glaring, so public, so frequent -- have gone beyond undermining anything Kerry can now say on Iraq. They have been transmuted into a character issue."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"What kind of man, aspiring to the presidency, does not know his own mind about the most serious issue of our time?" - Charles Krauthammer
------------
[ edited by Linda_K on Sep 19, 2004 09:07 AM ]
posted on September 19, 2004 09:33:23 AM new
YOU WANT ANSWERS.. HERE'S YOUR ANSWER...BUT THIS IS A COLOSSAL WASTE OF TIME, BECAUSE YOU NEVER LISTEN, YOU ARE BLOCKED.. YOU HEAR ONLY WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR.. SO HERE IT IS, AND SINCE YOU SAID YOU DIDN'T WANT TO ARGUE OR DISCOUNT THESE ISSUES.. KEEP YOUR WORD, LINDA.. JUST READ AND DIGEST..
KERRY SAID:
I believe that failure is not an option in Iraq. But it is also true that failure is not an excuse for more of the same.
Here is how we must proceed.
First, we must create a stable and secure environment in Iraq. That will require a level of forces equal to the demands of the mission. To do this right, we have to truly internationalize both politically and militarily: we cannot depend on a US-only presence. In the short-term, however, if our commanders believe they need more American troops, they should say so and they should get them.
But more and more American soldiers cannot be the only solution. Other nations have a vital interest in the outcome and they must be brought in.
To accomplish this, we must do the hard work to get the world’s major political powers to join in this mission. To do so, the President must lead. He must build a political coalition of key countries, including the UK, France, Russia and China, the other permanent members of the UN Security Council, to share the political and military responsibilities and burdens of Iraq with the United States.
The coalition should endorse the Brahimi plan for an interim Iraqi government, it should propose an international High Commissioner to work with the Iraqi authorities on the political transition, and it should organize an expanded international security force, preferably with NATO, but clearly under US command.
Once these elements are in place, the coalition would then go to the UN for a resolution to ratify the agreement. The UN would provide the necessary legitimacy. The UN is not the total solution but it is a key that opens the door to participation by others.
In parallel, the President must also go to NATO members and others to contribute the additional military forces and to NATO to take on an organizing role. NATO is now a global security organization and Iraq must be one of its global missions.
To bring NATO members and others in, the President must immediately and personally reach out and convince them that Iraqi security and stability is a global interest that all must contribute to. He must also convince NATO as an organization that Iraq should be a NATO mission—a mission consistent with the principles of collective security that have formed the basis of the alliance’s remarkable history in the pursuit of peace and security.
To bring others in it is imperative we share responsibility and authority. When NATO members have been treated with respect, they have always – always – answered the call of duty. So too with other key contributors. Every one has a huge stake in whether Iraq survives its trial by fire or is consumed by fire and becomes a breeding ground for terror, intolerance and fear.
I know that some will say that this is an impossible task, but I believe it is doable with the right approach. We must lead but we must listen. We must use every tool of diplomacy and persuasion to bring others along.
I also understand that perhaps NATO cannot undertake the entire Iraq mission right away. But it could possibly take control of Iraq’s borders, take responsibility for Northern Iraq and/or the Polish sector, and train Iraq’s army. If NATO did this, it would free up as many as 20,000 American troops, and open the door for other countries outside of NATO to participate.
The immediate goal is to internationalize the transformation of Iraq, to get more foreign forces on the ground to share the risk and reduce the burden on our own forces. That is the only way to succeed in the mission while ending the sense of an American occupation.
We must take these steps because there is greater strength in greater numbers and stronger alliances. And failure to move forward will be seen as a failure of American leadership.
Second:
The second key element is the High Commissioner. Backed by a newly broadened security coalition, he should be charged with overseeing elections, the drafting of a constitution and coordinating reconstruction. The Commissioner should be highly regarded by the international community and have the credibility to talk to all the Iraqi people.
This Commissioner should be directed to work with Iraq’s interim government, the new US Ambassador, and the international community after June 30 to ensure a process that continues to move forward on the path toward sovereignty, while focusing on the immediate needs of the Iraqis themselves.
The Iraqi people desperately need financial and technical assistance that is not swallowed up by bureaucracy and no-bid contracts, but instead goes directly into the hands of grassroots organizations. They need to see the tangible benefits of reconstruction in the form of jobs, infrastructure, and services. And they need to be able to communicate their concerns to international authorities without feeling they are being insulted and disrespected in their own country.
Third:
We need a massive training effort to build Iraqi security forces that can actually provide security for the Iraqi people. We must accept that the effort to date has failed: it must be rethought and reformed. Training cannot be hurried. It must be done in the field and on the job as well as in the classroom. Units cannot be put on the street without backup from international security forces. They cannot be rushed into battle before they are ready.
This is a task to do in partnership with other nations, not just on our own. This is a task which must be successful. If we fail to create viable Iraqi security forces – military and police – there is no successful exit for us and other nations.
But why would others join a cause that they did not support in the first place? For one simple reason: it’s in their self-interest. For the Europeans, Iraq’s failure could endanger the security of their oil supplies, further radicalize their large Muslim populations, threaten destabilizing refugee flows, and seed a huge new source of terrorism.
And for Iraq’s neighbors, a civil war in Iraq could draw them in, put moderates in the region on the defensive and radicals on the rise. And a civil war could threaten the regimes in Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.
These compelling interests have always existed and they must now be the central piece of a diplomatic effort long overdue. Will a new approach in Iraq be difficult to achieve? Yes.
Is there a guarantee of success? No.
In light of all the mistakes that have been made, no one can say that success is certain, but I can say that if we do not try, failure is all too likely.
If the President will take the needed steps to share the burden and make progress in Iraq – if he leads – then I will support him on this issue.
When Winston Churchill came to Westminster and defined the great mission of the Cold War, he called on free nations to stand together against tyranny. America’s leader in that moment of history was a tough and visionary son of Missouri named Harry Truman. President Truman could have used America’s power as an excuse to go it alone in the world. Instead, he joined with the leaders of many nations to create institutions like NATO and other alliances to preserve peace, spur economic progress and address global problems.
Much has changed since Churchill spoke. The institutions created more than half a century ago remain useful and relevant. But yesterday’s designs are not sufficient to meet today’s needs. Our institutions and alliances must adapt to new opportunities and threats. New enemies must be confronted by new strategies. America must lead in new ways.
But even as we contemplate what has changed, we must also remember what has not: Our belief in the rights and dignity of every human being. Our faith in democracy as the best form of government in all of human history. And our confidence in America’s capability to lead allies and friends to stand together and build a world more peaceful, prosperous and just than we have ever known before.
That was our mission in Churchill’s time. And for all the differences of time and circumstance, that is our urgent need in Iraq today and our enduring mission in the years ahead.
There is pride in that and honor – and if we meet the test, we can have a world that is safer because of American leadership.
posted on September 19, 2004 09:38:44 AM new
Maggie - I said "from two I respect"...your name wasn't mentioned.
"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don´t have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president." - john kerry
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"These dizzying contradictions -- so glaring, so public, so frequent -- have gone beyond undermining anything Kerry can now say on Iraq. They have been transmuted into a character issue."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"What kind of man, aspiring to the presidency, does not know his own mind about the most serious issue of our time?" - Charles Krauthammer
------------
posted on September 19, 2004 09:55:15 AM new
are you speaking for them now helen? I have more faith in fenix than that...
I notice that you had nothing to say about magginuthins comments to Linda... but then you agree now don't you...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
Re-Elect President Bush... the only true choice.
[ edited by Twelvepole on Sep 19, 2004 09:56 AM ]
posted on September 19, 2004 10:04:25 AM new
twelve
Linda said this, Helen said that, Maggie said another thing. Why is it, twelve, that you have to put your nose in the middle of everything? I'm sure Linda is capable of making her own comments as are the rest of us. IMO, Linda's remark wasn't very nice. Maggie set the record straight. Does that frighten you? Just because someone else did something to you, do you think it's right to do it back to them? If so, no wonder you always sound like such an unhappy person. Sometimes, you have to let it go. Other times, well, you can't. This is a time you could have let it go.
Cheryl
. . .if you still try to defend the infamies and horrors perpetrated by that Antichrist- I really believe he is Antichrist- I will have nothing more to do with you and you are no longer my friend.. . - War and Peace, Tolstoy
posted on September 19, 2004 10:31:38 AM new
Yes, twelve...don't come in here supporting that I asked who I was interested in hearing from on this issue, because I have respect for them....how dare you? Don't ever agree with anything I say because the 'scoulders' will call you on it.
But notice how maggie's defenders are in here right away calling me on my statement to someone who insults others all the time and who posts KERRY'S words...that don't address the question I asked AT ALL.
I clearly understand cheryl and helen. If your side does it is A-okay...if the righties do it 'shame, shame, shame',
helen - you and cheryl really should try to work at doing yourselves, what you tell others to do. I'll take your advice under consideration WHEN and IF you EVER decide to apply it equally to both lefties and righties. Until then...it's just you own double standards.
And helen - If fenix and bunni decided they don't want to address my question....that's THEIR choice. You showing jealousy that you didn't make MY list should remind you that you did make colin's list and I didn't. Didn't hear me complaining then.
posted on September 19, 2004 10:45:59 AM new
lindak, I simply said that I "doubt" that fenix or bunnicula would come at your beck and call to post after your offensive and nasty message. They avoid your pissing matches. Haven't you noticed?
BTW...I'm pleased that you did not include my name on your "list". I could tell you why, but I think everyone knows.
posted on September 19, 2004 10:47:49 AM new
YeeHaw! Lookit all those smilies!
Her temperature is a ris'n folks!
Hey, Linduh, You just couldn't open up enough to read Maggie's post. So instead of an intelligent answer you do a 180 and side step the issue with the weak flimsy, "I wasn't addressing you" BS
Can't handle the heat so here comes the smilies!
Yes Maggie, How DARE you respond when Queen Asp didn't summon you!!
[ edited by crowfarm on Sep 19, 2004 10:56 AM ]
[ edited by crowfarm on Sep 19, 2004 11:12 AM ]
posted on September 19, 2004 11:09:49 AM new
Only a hypocritical, hate filled racist would say,
"At least you have thought about how you'd handle it....even though you're not there nor a military commander.
-----------------
The problem as I see it is we're being too nice. Seeking international approval of our actions...otherwise we'd be clearing the place out....problem over."
Linduh, YOU aren't there either. Posters were asked for their opinions. Try to figure these last two sentences out by yourself.
posted on September 19, 2004 11:44:48 AM new
Dang, Linda.. you'll crack your face smiling that much! LOL
Linda wrote: Maggie - I said "from two I respect"...your name wasn't mentioned.
Well excuse me Your Highness, I didn't realize that I needed a personal invitation to reply to one of your posts here on an open forum.
But since I did, and was kind enough to answer your question.. a simple thank you would have been sufficient.
Instead you chose to insult me... which proves my point..
you don't want an answer, you only want to keep droning on and on with your constant mantra "What is Kerry going to do" "What is Kerry going to do?" " Where will he get the money?", Where will he get the money? Kerry does a flip flop.. Kerry flip flops..on and on and over and over again.....baa baa baa...
Here is a new mantra.. try this one for a change.. you may actually be doing YOURSELF some good with this one...now in a soft nasal tone repeat over and over....
OM MA NI PAD ME HUM
Translation:
I am a fuzzy little dot - sometimes cold and sometimes hot - I do not really know a lot - I think I know just what is not
For best results, this mantra should be taken with every meal.
Medical authorities warn that there is a chance that some people might become addicted to this mantra and that it may cause irreversible ego-loss and an inability to indulge in conflict so may I suggest you double the dose? Maggie
posted on September 19, 2004 01:30:34 PM newSuppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were the President. But I repeat myself.
"If you gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, would they eventually post comments under the handle of Logansdad?"
Hey, hey Ho, ho Kerry - sign the 1-8-0
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The person who has nothing for which he is willing
to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
