While President Bush takes his time deciding how or whether to change course in Iraq — collecting ideas and promising a speech on the issue next month — people are dying in Iraq, impatiently notes a New York Times editorial: “Mr. Bush has no more time to waste on ‘listening tours’ and photo ops. The nation is in a crisis, and Americans need to hear how he plans to unwind the chaos he has unleashed in Iraq.” The president needs to get it right, but urgency is in order, too.
Meanwhile, the Times reports that Iraq wants Iraqi troops to be given most of the responsibility for security in Baghdad in early 2007, which would put U.S. troops in the suburbs. This proposal seems a good test of the administration’s policy of standing down when Iraqis stand up.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- DorisKing on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- george on Health care reform would save state money
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- Politico on So they said
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- JWink on Health care reform would save state money
- Politico on Health care reform would save state money
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
60 Comments
Let them have Baghdad. I say the troops that were responsible for Baghdad should be sent home.
I think Bush is waiting for Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly to tell him what to do.
I say get serious and not hold back. Fight to win, not fight to appease the weak.
Bush complained that Saddam Hussein was stalling about WMD and went ahead and bombed him anyway. It was found out he really didn’t have WMD. Now we have Bush stalling about a war plan. Sure we won’t bomb Bush, but, like Hussein, it will be revealed he isn’t secretly hiding a war plan.
Doug,
Indeed. This whole thing is about optics. After January 1, he’ll announce that we’re “staying the course.” Then it will be necessary for the Democrats to act like responsible adults and send his sorry ass to the woodshed.
SOB,
Ha ha. And watch us get torn to pieces by an enraged Iraqi populace as the civilian death toll–oops, sorry, ‘collateral damage’–rises by the thousands.
Think more. Play fewer video games.
Gallup: 82% of Americans polled want the US out of Iraq within two years.
Yeah, you’re right CF. We can’t possible beat these third-worlders. Oi.
Wondering if the desire by the Iraqis to take over more of the security in Baghdad is being ignored for the reason that removal of U.S. occupying forces from the center of the city would result in a dimunition of the sectarian violence therein; or, if such was to happen, the Shia militia, with either the active cooperation of the government, or the government taking a “hands off” approach thereto, would systematically “remove” Sunni residents therefrom, thereby demonstrating no real desire for a “democracy”? I would like to know what the commanders on the ground really think about this, although there are valid security reasons for me not so knowing.
With the Baker report Republicans in Congress have cover to abandon Bush’s sinking ship. That will have some rather interesting implications for Bush if he continues to spurn the report.
Richard Nixon ignored counsel from within his own Party and ended up resigning in disgrace knowing he would be convicted in the senate uopn bipartisan impeachment. Bush may well follow; however I suspect he will stick it out through conviction.
sob,That’s why reagen invaded Grenada he had to find a country he could beat!
harharharhar
….funny. Sounds like you don’t want or care if we win. I hope I’m wrong.
Actually, it’s becoming woefully apparent that Bush has no viable plan for Iraq and knows it, and is “staying the course” in hopes of holding off the inevitable disaster until after 2008, so some other administration can take the blame for his defeat!
Bush just had the door opened for him. Hope he sees that. If the Iraqis take over security, we can leave. Let the Iraqis have Baghdad. Pull our boys out but keep them close. If the Iraqis figured out how to put their big girl panties on, then let them take over in more hot spots.
If the Iraqis can handle it, this is our best exit.
It is now becoming readily apparent that the “Decider” has managed to decide himself, and unfortunately us (we?) also, into a real dilemma.
I think we are going to see some really exotic reasoning and a re-definement of past words and slogans when the”New Approach” is finally revealed!
Does anyone see that this is our exit? The Iraqis policing themselves????
fair point sob,But what do we “win” and explain to me how my life will be different. Will terrorism be dead? We can get rid of the DOD, disband the army form a big circle and sing kumbya?
Yes, Sol, but isn’t it interesting that such an allegedly politically astute administration hasn’t already stepped up to accede to the Iraqi (for lack of a better term) request? There are other forces at work, methinks, which are causing the delay. Maybe Tony Snow is learning new vocabulary or something; I don’t know.
Well, I think of winning in this case as getting the place secure and killing as many terrorists as it takes. Will the world be safer then? I think so. Will the war on terror be over then? I think not. Iraq is a battle in the war, not the complete war.
I doubt we’ll ever leave completely. I expect it to end up like Japan and Germany and the like after WWII. It won’t be anytime soon though unfortanately.
The hand wringers at the NY Times (the bastion of conservatism) like to stick it in Bush’s eye. Things take time. What the Times and the Libs don’t want is a plan to win this thing. It could still happen.Libs = the party of Kusinich (hot wife, though)
Thanks to Bush Al-quada now has an independent state in Pakistan where the Pakistan government won’t do anything. So they are free to recruit more terrorists and plan more attacks and nobody can touch them. Bush made the world a dangerous place and made the terrorists more powerful than ever. They can finance their operations with Iraqi oil they sell on the black market making billions.
Bush does one blunder after another. Does anyone seriously think the world is a safer place since Bush illegally invaded Iraq?
For all our sakes sob I hope your right!
Does anyone think Iraq is “worth saving”? Why? Let them “save” themselves. Or, let Phillkline and Brownbeck go save them! They have all the answers …. and if you don’t believe me, just ask them !
Sure, they’re worth saving. They are people and I don’t think they ALL want to kill us. …just a lot of them.
Besides, if we can establish a permanent (like Japan and Germany) base, I think that would aid the general stability of the crazy middle east.
Doug, CF–
Thanks for reminding us. Hans Blix told BushCo he needed more time to search for WMD’s and Bush told him to get out of the country or have a rocket fired at him.
And post-invasion when BushCo’s people–Duelfer and Kay–couldn’t find any WMD’s, then it was, “we need more time.”
Ah, okay then.
Bush needs “more time” to plan his post-war strategy. After all, he’s only had since May of 03.
Remember how things were going to get better after Saddam was captured, and they got worse?
Then things were going to get better when the Iraqis had an election and suddenly the liberal media was showing all these women in hijabs with purple fingers?
Oh happy day! Condi Rice talked about “birth pangs.”
Then things were going to get better after the constitution was drawn up.
It was about at this time when Cheney said that the “Saddam dead enders were in their last throes, if you will.”
Then it was the old Prime Minister, gotta get a new Prime Minister.
Actually what Bush needs is more time to come with another bogus “milestone” after which everything will be “better.”
I’m sure he won’t notice the milestone of the 3 thousandth dead American soldier, on schedule for this holiday season.
Merry Christmas, Bushistas.
Iraqi Security Forces. MOD and MOI securityforces continue to increase in size andcapability and are increasingly assuming thelead combat responsibility from Coalitionforces.Training, equipping, and fielding securityforces continues. Approximately 277,600Iraqi soldiers and police have completed initialtraining and equipping, an increase ofmore than 14,000 in the three months sincethe last report. As of August 2006, approximately84% of the objective end-strength ofMOD forces have been trained and equipped,while more than 92% of authorized IraqiArmy battalions have been generated.Remaining train-and-equip efforts will focuson building combat support and combatservice support forces.
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/Security-Stabilty-ReportAug29r1.pdf
SOB wrote “….funny. Sounds like you don’t want or care if we win.”
Funny, SOB, you sound as if “wanting” the US to win makes a tinker’s damn in Iraq.
You conservative idiots just don’t seem to get it–it’s POLICY that wins or loses war.
The solidarity of the American people pro or con has very little to do with it.
If it did, Bush would have never invaded in the first place, because a majority of Americans OPPOSED American soldiers invading Iraq without a real international coalition (as in Operation Desert Storm).
The same people that told a majority of the American people to go to hell over the invasion now condemn their fellow Americans for not supporting Bush’s war.
As shown previously, a belief in democracy is not you people’s strong suit, obviously.
Transition. Iraq achieved a historic milestoneon July 13, 2006, with the transfer of securityresponsibility in Muthanna Province fromMNF-I to the Provincial Governor and thecivilian-controlled Iraqi Police Service (IPS).Moreover, since the May report, MNF-I hastransferred an additional 10 Forward OperatingBases (FOBs) to the Government of Iraq.Forty-eight of 110 FOBs are now under Iraqicontrol.
Solly–
I’m so impressed. You can google.
The Iraqi Security forces have 278,000 troops over 45 months. That’s 6200 a month or so.
In the last 3 months, they’ve trained 14,000. That’s 4200 a month.
So your own statistics show that recruiting and training is slowing, not increasing.
Real nice.
BTW, what’s your plan?
What would you do CapnAmerica? ….besides hate Bush that is.
They didn’t start at zero, so your math is off.
I am not the preznit, so I don’t have to have a plan. If I did, I would let the Iraqis police Iraqis.
FYI:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/13/bush.iraq.ap/index.html
SOB,
Winning = not having an army in the field whittled down and destroyed.
When it comes to the jeopardy U.S. ground forces are facing, you plainly don’t get it. If we go “all out” as you seem to be suggesting, we confront an enraged population that will be attacking us from all directions. How do we deal with that? How do we know who the “enemy” is?
Assume we want to leave under such circumstances. This requires an overland retreat through hundreds of miles of potentially hostile territory. Or assume that we want to airlift troops out through Baghdad airport. That necessitates drive from the Green Zone to the airport, currently the world’s most dangerous stretch of highway.
Have you thought about any of this? Seriously. We have had our asses kicked before, SOB. Ever heard of the Chosin Reservoir?
Your jingoist / borderline racist faith in American superiority smacks of John Wayne rather than reality. When 7.62 mm bullets from AK-47’s hit our troops, they die. When RPG’s are used against our aircraft, they fall out of the sky. And when you’re talking about a situation in which 2 million people living in Sadr City are potentially can produce a couple of hundred thousand insurgents under arms, there is literally NOTHING an occupying force can do.
If we kill hundreds of thousands of civilians in a direct assault, our own tenability as a viable nation comes into serious question.
As for your “response” to the Cap’n, Bush has left people who love reality no choice but to hate him.
What would I do?
Ah, shucks, sob thanks for asking.
I would do what the Iraq Study Group suggests.
Go to the UN, develop a real coalition force, rebuild Iraq with Iraqis so the poor rascals can have a job.
This will clearly involve cooperation with neighboring Syria and Iran. How could it not?
How could anyone think it could not?
It’s a difficult situation for long term resolution, but it’s not impossible for a leader who isn’t an idiot.
Unfortunately that rules out the current occupant of the White House.
“Go to the UN”HAHAHAHAHAHHA
You just lost the argument.
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
I guess I got more confidence in the US and our military.
“”Go to the UN”HAHAHAHAHAHHA
You just lost the argument.”
Tell that to Kuwait.
Okay, I amend that: that was really the UN (UN flag); but Bush Sr. at least WENT to the U.N.
Bosnia, on the other hand, WAS the UN.
“wasn’t”
The U.S. military performed admirably in that part of this whole ill-advised adventure for which it is trained and well-suited; the invasion, and toppling of Saddam’s government. What is happening now is the perhaps inevitable piece, for which the military, IMHO, is not trained and should not be expected to do, i.e., deal with a political situation which does not lend itself to application of traditional military tactics/force.
The only thing the GOP has ever done with urgency is cover it’s own old decrepit immoral smelly ass.Oh, and have a midnight meeting to keep some poor brain-dead woman alive forever, in the name of God.
That’s it.Not even mission accomplished on those two items.
I really think history is about to repeat itself. George W. Bush has already stated that he will not change course in Iraq (even though his handlers are rephrasing their terminology). And everyone knows that George W. Bush has never said or did anything wrong. If you doubt that, just ask the man, he will tell you.
Richard Nixon did not resign until he got caught red-handed and there was no way out but to resign. I believe the same will happen to George W. But I dread seeing Dick Cheney take over the presidency. If we think GWB is bad, just wait until another ‘tricky dick’ gets in there.
I hope I am wrong and the Democrats can somehow control Bush’s actions for the next two years. Somebody needs to step up and show some leadership and soon.
“As of August 2006, approximately84% of the objective end-strength ofMOD forces have been trained and equipped,while more than 92% of authorized IraqiArmy battalions have been generated”
In that case the vast majority of security should have ALREADY been transferred to them. After all, there are only a few thousand “dead-enders” “in their last throes” left to deal with.
Well first off Cappy, I didn’t say that Jane Fondas visit “lost” the war. I stated that it extended it.But lets try and put it in logic perhaps you’ll understand. Say for instance that you and Mike Tyson are to box. If you make it through 10 rounds, you are declared the heavyweight champ of the world, you get a check for 6.7 billion dollars, all disease in the world will be eradicated and no puppies will ever die, whatever. Every person in the place is pulling for you.
You don’t have to knock Tyson out all you have to do is survive and still be standing there at the end of the 10th round.You step in. About the 6th round you’re starting to get woozy. End of 7 your teetering. At the end of the 8th, only a stiff breeze is keeping you standing, you’ve got the towel in your hand, seriously thinking of throwing it in. NOW all of a sudden the crowd jumps to its feet, rushes the ring and ties both of tysons arms back. At the start of the 9th round, you know Tyson will eventually get his arms free and finish you, but you just don’t know when. It might be in 3 minutes or it might be 6 minutes, all you need to win the fight.
What do you do?
Do you continue to stand there in the ring and cross your fingers and hope for the next 6 minutes or do you go ahead and throw in the towel, so that Tyson doesn’t have to bruise his knuckles anymore on your head.
This is what happened in Vietnam. Cronkite and Fonda extended the war. Of course the public being against the war was seen by our enemies. What you don’t think they pick up a newspaper? They tied our hands behind our backs. The congress decided how we would fight, not the Generals. We never even got the chance to FORCE Vietnam to the peace table and at least possibly get a truce and maybe split up the country ala Korea. So at least half the country got to live in peace and prosperity. So that maybe the North would have seen the opportunities that were available in the South that maybe they would rise up and say, we want what our brothers have.The U.S. NEVER lost a battle, but the public, spitting on our soldiers, calling them names, dancing on their anti air guns, that lost us the war.
When our weakness is shown, our enemies are EMBOLDENED.
The Dems speak of how we need to get everyone together and find out what the problem is.
Lets look at a little history shall we.
Jimmy (worst president ever) Carter has the Shah thrown out and radical islam is put in power. They take our citizens hostage. Nothing happens.
Beirut, our Marines are killed, nothing happens.
The first WTC bombing occurs. A couple of guys go to jail. Nothing else happens.
A terrorist is stopped coming into the U.S. with plans to bomb LAX. He goes to jail, nothing else happens.
Somali warlords (some muslim) kill U.S. Soldiers, while trying to bring the country food and some type of order. We withdrawl, nothing happens.
The russians invade afghanistan. We provide weapons and training to muslims so that they can fight the Russians and stand a chance.
The U.S.S Cole was attacked and sailors killed. Nothing happens.
OBL issues his fatwa, saying he will kill Americans. We do nothing.
We were attacked on 9-11. Why? What had we done other than nothing and supporting Israel.
Clinton tried to broker a deal between Israel and Palestine. Convinced Israel that if they only did this and this and this and this and concession that and that and that, it will all be okay. Palestine, you don’t have to do anything but recgonize Israel. How’d that work out.
I ask again, WHY were we attacked???
The simple and truthful answer is that we showed weakness. The radical islamists saw this in Vietnam.They saw it in our fail to respond to each and every provacation. They saw it when all the Dems stated that we are not behind our president. We don’t care that he is trying to protect our country, we are against our president.
Our news and nightshows are full of people making fun of our president and saying how stupid he is.They see it when we care more about Dancing with the Stars, then what the young muslims are doing in Europe.
They see it when Emams are allowed to pull all kinds of crap on an airline and we bend over backwards apologizing.
They see it when one bombing in Spain will affect their election.
They see it, when a supposed advisory group to the president says you must sit down and seek advice to your problems from those that cause your problems.
They see it when U.S. news programs will show and declare that the U.S. putting underwear on the heads of their captives and putting leashes on them is tantamont to the worse possible torture, while our enemies behead and mutilate and burn their captives and hang them from a bridge, or drag their naked corpses through the street.
They see it when U.S. new programs will air their own propaganda showing a U.S. Soldier being shot by a sniper.
They see it when certain members of congress compare our soldiers to those of the S.S, Pol Pot or KGB.
They see it when certain members of congress from Massachusetts declares that we are in a quagmire and cannot win.
OH YEAH, Capn America, this does NOTHING for our enemies. This is all just Republican tripe.
I just hope you remember these postings one day soon when you’re on your prayer rug 5 times a day, instead of finding out what Paris Hilton is up to.
bless you Gene
Double bless you, Gene
I am truly sorry Gene.
Based on your last two posts I must conclude that you are not well. I think you may even be dangerously insane. I suggest you seek some professional help.
We should have followed binnie right into pakistan, instead of detouring to Iraq.
perhaps steve, but Saddam showed up Poppy. Also Iraq has all that OIL.
Hey Gene, how’d that peace deal between Israel and Egypt work out?
I don’t think you have much of a grasp on the situation. During the Clinton era of record prosperity the terrorists were arrested as should be done with criminals. That approach worked, Bush’s taking of the OJ Simpson approach to crime didn’t and just created a bigger problem.
There’s a long history of conservative Republicans doing nothing to combat terrorism. Clinton had to start from scratch and that hampered the reaction to the terrorist acts. However, with the research the Clinton administration developed some good intelligence about a plan involving Al-Quada hijacking planes to use as weapons and the Bush regime took it and did nothing. At least terrorists were captured and arrested with Clinton on the job, but not one terrorist linked to the attacks have been arrested.
The Bush crime family’s response to terrorism is to invade the wrong country, bully potential allies, refuse to talk to political opponents as well as insult them, focus counter terrorist efforts on American citizens and groups like Greenpeace, and spend billions of dollars on corporations that donate to the Republican party for such important tasks as doing a bag of laundry at $100 a pop. We’d be better off if the Bush regime did nothing rather than do the wrong thing.
FUBAR.
OH Doug,Psst hey Doug.Terrorists are planning on smuggling a dirty bomb into the U.S.
Now what?
Well Doug, I hereby appoint you as president. What’s your next move.Oh, and by the way. This could happen tomorrow or maybe sometime 2010.Keep me safe Doug. If not, I blame you for everything.
Oh and Doug, I’ve been following the terrorist around for SEVEN (7)YEARS, ever since they attack us the first time, but darn I’ve just kept missing him. I mean IF I got him, then I might upset the U.N. or Europe and then I’d lose all might political clout and my wife might not get elected in 8 years. To Bad, so sad.
Good luck
KEEP ME SAFE DOUG.
What’s all the “Saddam showed up Poppy” crap.George H.W. let him off the hook. We certainly wouldn’t be in Iraq right now if he’d finished the job.
Ah Gene, the typical paranoid of a conservative. How did you escape out of your straight jacket?
“…but not one terrorist linked to the attacks have been arrested.”
How about Khalid Shaikh Mohammed? He was the organizer of the 9-11 attacks – he has been captured (by the Pakistanis), duly tortured and is now in Gitmo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Shaikh_Mohammed
“George H.W. let him off the hook. We certainly wouldn’t be in Iraq right now if he’d finished the job.”
Poppy, being something other than a total moron, did not go into Iraq for the simple reason that there was no Iraqi who could replace Sadam, and Bush-I wisely foresaw a civil war after the initial taking of the country.
Poor Bush, his military told him the same thing as that damn ISG cut and run committee! Bet he goes with his “gut”!
Gene–
You’re the perfect example of why the American people aren’t swallowing CONservative bs anymore.
You go back to the Carter Administration to talk about how bad Dems are, but any time a nonCON brings up W’s lies that got us into Iraq, you CONS say, “that’s history, what’s your plan now?”
W’s lying is “history” but Clinton’s so-called lack of action on terrorism is 100 percent relevant.
As for your labored metaphor about going ten rounds with Tyson, you got it almost right–except we were Tyson and the NVA were the people who only had to survive.
“I ask again, WHY were we attacked???
“The simple and truthful answer is that we showed weakness.”
This is what is so scary about you people–you don’t bother to find out the facts and draw conclusions, you start with the conclusions you like and put the facts into your Procrustean bed to make them fit.
For instance you say that terrorist attack us because they see our “weakness.” Hmmm . . . so Hamas attacks Israel because Israel continually shows “weakness.” The Checheyns attack Russia because of Russia’s “weakness.” The Irish used to attack England because England was “weak.”
Why were we really attacked by Al Qaeda?
Very simple answer. We were never attacked by Al Qaeda until 1993. Why weren’t we attacked in 1990 or 1989?
Did we show more “weakness” in 1993–right after the RepubliCONS swept the House–than we did in years previous?
No, Gene-o. We stationed troops in Saudi Arabia in 1991. Osama B L comes home after fighting the Russians in Afghanistan and finds US troops–infidels (gaffhirs)–in the holiest site of Islam, the qiblah (direction) to which all Muslims pray.
He warned both the United States and the Saudis that he would not tolerate the presence of gaffhirs in Arabia after Operation Desert Storm ended.
The US and Saudis assured him the troops would not stay. Dick Cheney, Sec’y of Defense, said the troops would not be there “one day longer” than they were needed.
It ended. The troops stayed. They stayed for months. The stayed for years. It was obvious they were staying forever. The terrorism began directed at both the United States and Saudi Arabia as soon as that simple fact became clear to Al Qaeda.
It has nothing to do with “they hate us for our freedoms.” That was a Bush lie to cover the previous lie of another Bush administration.
When you think about it, it all makes perfect sense. How long would CONservatives like you tolerate Saudi troops stationed in our country for “our own protection”?
But seeing the reasonableness of a terrorist cause does not whip up the frenzy and panic of . . . well, terror . . . so you make them into unthinking monsters.
They’re not. They’re men, with the same motivations and desires that we and all men have.
But it’s too late now. Declaring total war and invading a country like Iraq in the powder keg of the middle east shows desperation and, yes, weakness.
Al Qaeda has seen the worst we (Tyson) can do, and, hey, they’re still standing.
They don’t need to talk to us now. Generations of terrorists are being born as long as we show weakness by continuing to fight and lose in Iraq.
Gene,You’re pretty quick to place blame for extending and loosing the war in Vietnam. I notice you forgot to mention the part the Military/Industrial Complex played in prolonging the war.
Vietnam lasted 5 years longer than it had to. There was way too much money being made to end it sooner.
Well cappy, you missed it again. Your hate of Bush just keeps on keeping on.
For instance you say that terrorist attack us because they see our “weakness.” Hmmm . . . so Hamas attacks Israel because Israel continually shows “weakness.”
Explain to me cappy, how had Israel been on the OFFENSIVE, that Hamas felt they needed to kidnap 2 Israeli soldiers. Go read about the 7 day war. Go take a look about how far Israel got in their offensive. Take a look at how much of the area they had control over and THEN look at what Israel has today. See my posting. Concession, concession, retreat, retreat, appease, appease. How are they doing today. The U.N. chastises them for building a wall. Yet suicide bombings against Israel is down how much? 90%, 95%.
Again, Bush Bashing. Don’t tell me about the U.S. being stationed in Saudi.BILL CLINTON HAD 8 YEARS, to close any bases in the area.BILL CLINTON HAD 8 YEARS to turn his back on Israel.BILL CLINTON HAD 8 YEARS to appease OBL and his fatwa.But again, didn’t want to do anything that might disrupt his political clout.
Am I against Bush, of course. Like the majority of Republicans in this country I am against alot of what he has done. I am against the way he tried to conduct this P.C. war. I am against that a Marine standing on a Humvee can’t wave to another Marine standing on a Humvee on the other side of Baghdad. I am against that the media was allowed to be embedded. I am against the spending that has been done. I am against that contractors are being used for what Americans Soldiers should be doing. I am against that sorty after sorty of B-52’s were not used in this war. I am against the way that Clinton gutted the military, so we did not go into Iraq and Afghanistan the way we should have, with a 600,000 man Military. I am against that 5 years after 9-11 our borders are as pourous as ever.THIS IS WHY THE DEMS WON THE LAST ELECTION. The last election wasn’t about that the REPUBLICANS thought that the Dems were going to do such wonderful things, it was a message to the Republicans to get off their ass and start being conservatives again.
OH by the way, hey Doug you found and stopped them terrorists yet? And don’t forget don’t you dare violate anyones civil rights. DON’T YOU DARE LISTEN IN TO ANYONE CALLING 1-800-DIRTY BOMB.
Terrorism 101 you don’t fight terrorist by creating more of them.
Does anyone remember who put Sadam in power? I believe that was the US. Why does Iran hate us so much? Does the Shah of Iran ring a bell? Does anyone remember that we propped him up and allowed him asylum here? It seems whereever there is a good dictator or oil we are there. Now we are there again. Part of our problem is we are always the”ugly American” but never see our true image. We need to get out because we will never stop them from killing each other and we will just sacrifice ourselves. If we had taken all the money spent in Irag and used it to develop alternatives to oil we’d be alot farther down the road to a secure future.
Hi Brenda. Add to Iran the US “tilt” toward saddam during the Iran-Iraq war. As for democracy – Iran had a democracy when we overthrew it to install the Shah. Today there are at least some democratic institutions in Iran, they had elections with large turnout today. Meanwhile the US has sought to undermine the elected structure in Palestine and has acted in ways that may topple the government in Lebanon.
Years ago I worked in the field of alternative energy. Unfortunately that is capital-intensive and had to compete with subsidized oil. So, we are still addicted to oil – even Bush has acknowledged that.