Bush and the 20,000 extra troops

[Epinephrine]

Is it that you are confusing the Greek style democracy with what we have today? I stand by my point that US is a republic, hence the pledge to our flag. 'And to the republic, for which it stands'.

I guess you've never read The Republic. No matter. Plato's republic centered on the notion that his idea of an ideal state would have the smartest people rule over everyone else. Basically the head of the republic would be a king, but would also be a highly intelligent king, willing to see things from all sides and willing to debate things vigorously. This king, being the absolute smartest person would naturally be the best person to rule the state and direct the people's affairs. While the entire thing is more of a thought exercise than a real plan for the real world, that's what I was getting at.

In real life, there isn't anyone who is perfect. There isn't anyone who has just so much more vision than anyone else. Our leaders are human beings, and human beings all have their many flaws. The strength of democracy is that we are able to replace these people if they are bad, and that we are also able to question them or even denounce them if we don't like them.

Whoa, back that truck up. Is it not possible that these forums present one side due to the demographics? Is it not possible that I, being much older and more experienced than many of the folks in here, might not have a valuable perspective that differs from many in these forums?
And no one is forcing anything on anyone. I think we all have the ability to either choose not to read a particular thread or ignore the posts of any given person.

It's true these forums for whatever reason present more of one side than the other of the debate. No one is forcing anyone to read this I agree, and you are free to say whatever you want. I'm just saying that telling people to present both sides of the story is unrealistic when people are presenting their own views, and we are not having an academic debate on the issue.

Understood. But can you say for sure that you had no previous prejudices towards Bush before the war? Or is it that you, and many others in these forums, simply did not like him and the war situation simply added fuel to your fire?
As I have said, I think he sucks as a leader. But who cares about my opinion? If I come out railing against him, building arguments to make him look like a fool, do people consider my comments as factual or as 'Eph just doesn't like Bush'? Or am I better off presenting a position that I understand that there are two sides to every topic, that I understand that as a lay-person, I do not have the whole story.

I have to admit, I never really liked Bush at all (although I did think that his dad was a pretty decent president). I wanted Gore to win, and if I could have voted in the US I would have voted for Gore. At the same time, I didn't like him most for his views and his platform. I didn't like his ideas and the things that he pledged to do. Iraq was just another bad policy after a whole string of bad policies that I never agreed with in the first place.

On the other hand, I am one of the few people on this forum that has consistantly defended Bush to the fact that while everyone was deriding him as plain stupid, I offered counterpoint to the fact that his 'stupidity' is all an act and that he is quite intelligent. He's just plain wrong is all.

The fact is, everyone who pays attention is going to have a pre-concieved opinion of someone. If I started hating Bush, but then he actually did a great job, I think I would have changed my mind because that's the type of person I am.

I am willing to simply go away if I am just pissing you guys off. I guess I fantasize that I actually might be listened to as person who has been through their 20’s, 30’s, and 40’s and understands how aging can modify your perspective. Sometimes I question why I even bother, but I was formally trained as a teacher and I simply hold out hope that at least one or two people might actually rethink some of these topics.

When did I ever tell you to go away? You're free to debate all you want and discuss all you want here, as long as you're willing to take critism for what you write, which I think you do.


P.S. Geno is just wrong, don't listen to him. Lee Kuan Yew is quite the hypocrite considering he's still powerful within the government, and he was 67 when he stopped being the PM of Singapore. The leaders of most East Asian countries are pretty old, including the Koreas, China, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Japan.

[Squeezer]

Yeah I'll do my best to find my source (I would have posted it if I could find it easier). I read it in an interview with the previous PM of Singapore on the topic of how his country was able to develop so much more quickly than other nations.

EDIT: Found it.


It's a Foreign Affairs article from March of 1994 by Fareed Zakaria. The title is "Culture is Destiny: A Conversation with Lee Kuan Yew". He's got some strange undemocratic views but that's the point of the interview. It's a pretty interesting read, but Yew is mainly politicking for his nation's success. I guess he's arguing for a certain age range (that you probably fit in) but I share his wariness of age and its effects on certain views. That could be my youthful bias though.

I love Fareed Zakaria's articles. Occaisionally they fly right over my head, but for the most part I would consider him the most interesting foreign affairs writer here in the good ol' USA.

[genocidal]

P.S. Geno is just wrong, don't listen to him. Lee Kuan Yew is quite the hypocrite considering he's still powerful within the government, and he was 67 when he stopped being the PM of Singapore. The leaders of most East Asian countries are pretty old, including the Koreas, China, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Japan.

Uh I said that he was mainly politicking in that article and he was a de facto dictator so it would make sense that he maintained power and likes it that way. Many of the dictator-type rulers are old because they feel they still know what's best for the country. The bureaucracy is largely young and (many) Western educated. Hell you don't have to take my word for it read the fucking article.

Hell a pillar of Asian development is politicking the West into thinking you're a democracy when you're a dictatorship. Yew says a lot of hypocritical stuff, like I already noted, to prop up his country and his beliefs but what exactly do you think his hidden reason is for saying that he believes people should be out of government when they are over 65? Just because someone is a politician doesn't mean there is no merit to anything they say.

[DoTheFandango]

President lying about a blowjob?

or

President lying about a war?

Seems like the two are totally on the same par. Too bad only one got the guilty to be indicted/impeached/introubled.

[Epinephrine]

Uh I said that he was mainly politicking in that article and he was a de facto dictator so it would make sense that he maintained power and likes it that way. Many of the dictator-type rulers are old because they feel they still know what's best for the country. The bureaucracy is largely young and (many) Western educated. Hell you don't have to take my word for it read the fucking article.

Hell a pillar of Asian development is politicking the West into thinking you're a democracy when you're a dictatorship. Yew says a lot of hypocritical stuff, like I already noted, to prop up his country and his beliefs but what exactly do you think his hidden reason is for saying that he believes people should be out of government when they are over 65? Just because someone is a politician doesn't mean there is no merit to anything they say.

What you said was:

"You're old and you'll probably disagree with me but that's how I feel and contrary to Western thought many successful Asian states build their success on youth and actually force leaders to retire from politics after 60."

Then you posted that article as your source. Well your original statement is completely baseless and your article did nothing to prove it. And then you make a blanket statement like many of these countries have bureaucracies which are mainly young without any proof whatsoever. This is just plain wrong.

Anyone with any knowledge of asian countries would realize that even if many of the workers in the bureaucracies are young, the people who hold all the power are old, because old people know better in asian society. This is especially true in seniority oriented Japan, and in China where the government is having a lot of trouble recruiting young people these days due to it's successes in the economy and where the ruling leaders are in their 70s.

[Exalt]

now dont get me wrong, i dont like being in iraq and I dont agree with it, nor did I agree with it way back in 03 or w/e when we invaded, like most of america did at the time

but heres my point: the reason why its a good idea to send more is because to pull out now would make America look weak, and make the terrorists think that they have won, and in the end would just give them another reason to attack us again and call us weak

also we are primarily getting attacked in iraq by Iran backed terrorists. Now normally this would be an act of war, and we would have gone to war with them. But he problem is this, our country is BROKE! I mean we are so far into debt at this point that this country is economically bankrupt, and so we cant afford a war with Iran, thats the only reason we arn't attacking them right now and ending all this bullshit in Iraq. Bush really really really fucked up our national deficit and our budget, but honestly theres nothing we can do now, our best bet is to stay in Iraq and gradually pull out, but we need Iraq to stabalize first.

you cant keep looking into the past, yeah Bush fucked our country as far as Iraq goes, but you have to take what the present is giving you and make the best decisions based on that.

[404 Not Found]

The questions I have in regards to sending additional troops are what will and how will they be used? The time that has transpired since the taking of Iraq makes me question how we are policing the streets and securing the country. In this amount of time, it also appears that the Iarq army we have been training has not taken on more responsibility. Then we have the Police in Iraq. When we do hear about the Iarq police, we hear thay are commiting sectarian violence, so who polices the police?

One mistake I think that has transpired due to U.S. policy upon the occupation, is that we immediately disbanded the Iraq army...big mistake.

Ambassador L. Paul Bremer, administrator for the U.S.-led occupation government until the handover of political power on June 28, said he still supports the decision to intervene in Iraq but said a lack of adequate forces hampered the occupation and efforts to end the looting early on.

We did not even have the troop levels to stop looting and we want to secure a nation? They didn't even plan on there being looting? The looting in the U.S. during blackouts and times of racial tension...we have seen this here on our own soil and yet they did not prepair or have enough troops?

Bremmer has been somewhat squelched from the media and this administration since he was replaced by now outgoing U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad (outgoing because of a nomination for Khalilzad to become the U.S. envoy to the United Nations...that whole Bolton issue).

Bremmer did speak out on Iraq and the troop leve policy:

"We paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness," he said yesterday in a speech at an insurance conference in White Sulphur Springs, W.Va. "We never had enough troops on the ground."

This was from a speach he gave back in 2004 mind you!

There was also noted in that same article:

Prior to the war, the Army chief of staff, Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, said publicly that he thought the invasion plan lacked sufficient manpower, and he was slapped down by the Pentagon's civilian leadership for saying so. During the war, concerns about troop strength expressed by retired generals also provoked angry denunciations by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard B. Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

I think the reasons many are upset about this troop increase, is that it was requested on many occassions and fell to deaf ears. On top of this, the increased troop levels we will be sending, still do not exceed the levels we have had in prior years. So the question I have, as well as many have, is what or how will they be used that differs from what we have been attempting since day one of the occupation? Will they be used to protect possible oil lines? What's the game plan?

Hearing a news story the other day made me look to see if I could find any information on the following:

Iraq's massive oil reserves, the third-largest in the world, are about to be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies under a controversial law which is expected to come before the Iraqi parliament within days

The US government has been involved in drawing up the law, a draft of which has been seen by The Independent on Sunday. It would give big oil companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon 30-year contracts to extract Iraqi crude and allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil interests in the country since the industry was nationalised in 1972.

The huge potential prizes for Western firms will give ammunition to critics who say the Iraq war was fought for oil. They point to statements such as one from Vice-President Dick Cheney, who said in 1999, while he was still chief executive of the oil services company Halliburton, that the world would need an additional 50 million barrels of oil a day by 2010. "So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies," he said.

So on top of all that they also note that:

Supporters say the provision allowing oil companies to take up to 75 per cent of the profits will last until they have recouped initial drilling costs.

Who decides this and how many years can this be stretched out? So what will these troops be used for?

After all this, it just shows that the management and leadership have been somewhat lacking or ignored for too long or there perhaps may be a different agenda?

This is nothing new in sending these troops and the amount does not exceed the amount we have already had in previous years. I just hope that this is not stricktly motivated for political reasons and profit at the costs of those that are actually making scarafices for the country.