Register to reply

Rice refuses to predict US out of Iraq within ten years

by Ivan Seeking
Tags: iraq, predict, refuses, rice
Share this thread:
Tide
#19
Oct21-05, 06:03 AM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 3,144
faust,
You think by setting a 5 year timetable we will somehow alter the insurgency?
Oh, for crying out loud! I didn't TELL you what I think. I told you what I thought Condi's position is. Are you people so full of venom that you have to put words in people's mouths?

Just for the record I will tell you what I think. At the time and to the present I think it was a mistake to go into Iraq . The evidence was flimsy (wrong gauge aluminum tubes for centrifuges was hysterical) and I didn't think the consequences were fully thought out.

Regarding WMD, Saddam did, in fact, have them. He used them on the Kurds and in the Iran-Iraq war. The world's intelligence agencies and leaders from Arab nations all said he had them. There is no record or documentation of them having been destroyed. It wasn't that much of a stretch to believe he still had them. Nevertheless, the evidence was not airtight. It is a stretch, however, to call it a lie. Adequate justification for going to war? I doubt it but I don't think it's all black and white.
Does Bush have other geopolitical aims for the region? Almost certainly. Do any of us have facts to back that up? No we don't! Unless you have SCI you don't have access to that kind of information (and I don't think anyone here does).

In any case, the US in there and I think it would be a grave error to withdraw immediatey.

Regarding the exchange between Ms. Rice and the Senators, I thought it was made clear very early on that the Secretary of State did not want to answer the timetable question, for whatever reason. It's pretty tacky for a Senator to persist tenaciously when he's been given clear indications from a member of the Executive Branch (remember separation of powers?) that she's not going to answer the question. We're not talking criminal investigation here and there is no reason why respect and manners shouldn't prevail. Moreover, she is not the person with the authority to decide on withdrawal or a timetable.

Nevertheless, the spinmeisters will have a field day with it. I guess it makes them feel better or something but the shrillness and animosity are neither productive nor informative.

In the meantime, I look forward to your posting pictures of those permanent air bases being built in Iraq. :)
SOS2008
#20
Oct21-05, 11:37 AM
PF Gold
SOS2008's Avatar
P: 1,554
Quote Quote by BobG
When a publication can either pick their most favorable or unfavorable photo of a subject, viewers can see for themselves what kind of person the subject of the photo is. Very effective since the public doesn't see the photos not selected.
I was referring to broadcast news—no particular photo. Heavy eyelids make her look pissed off in general, but I think the extra strain was showing. As you said, “It's beside the point, in any event.”

People may note that liberals are just as concerned about leaving Iraq in chaos as Bush supporters may be. The difference is whether one falls for the nation-building spin. This is a policy worthy of serious debate that seems to be ignored. In the meantime, the Bush administration does not want to admit to failure, or to lose their last hold on their base. They want people to accept a long-term vision—with no mile stone measurement--so they don’t have to answer to anything while they try to recover popularity.

An exist strategy is needed, preferably with international efforts, which would be helpful to everyone including Iraqis. I have yet to see anyone substantiate how a plan would be truly detrimental, and find it illogical that people think having no plan is a good thing.
Skyhunter
#21
Oct22-05, 01:21 PM
P: 1,409
Quote Quote by Tide
In the meantime, I look forward to your posting pictures of those permanent air bases being built in Iraq. :)
And be arrested for espionage.

[edit] I never said air bases, I said permanent bases. This has not been confirmed, however there is base construction going on with a permanent nature along with temporary base construction as well. [/edit]
loseyourname
#22
Oct22-05, 04:46 PM
Emeritus
PF Gold
loseyourname's Avatar
P: 3,634
Doesn't the US have bases in a lot of countries?
Townsend
#23
Oct22-05, 04:50 PM
P: 935
Quote Quote by loseyourname
Doesn't the US have bases in a lot of countries?
Yeah...all over the world pretty much.
SOS2008
#24
Oct22-05, 05:34 PM
PF Gold
SOS2008's Avatar
P: 1,554
Quote Quote by loseyourname
Doesn't the US have bases in a lot of countries?
Yes (I think about 65 major U.S. military installations worldwide) presumably with permission from the governments of those countries to attain mutually beneficial goals.

We lost our presence in Iran, countries like Egypt only pretend to be pro-West, and all the countries including the Saudi's are facing immense pressure from their populace about U.S. presence there... What should we do, what should we do?
Skyhunter
#25
Oct25-05, 02:06 AM
P: 1,409
Quote Quote by Townsend
Yeah...all over the world pretty much.
And there are those that still say America is not an empire?

It is the presence of American bases and soldiers (infidels) in Saudi Arabia that prompted Al Qaeda to attack the US.
The Smoking Man
#26
Oct25-05, 03:54 AM
P: 1,143
Quote Quote by loseyourname
Doesn't the US have bases in a lot of countries?

Yeah ... and if it is a secret base, you can spot them by the people standing outside with the Yankee Go home signs.
The Smoking Man
#27
Oct25-05, 03:57 AM
P: 1,143
Quote Quote by SOS2008
Yes (I think about 65 major U.S. military installations worldwide) presumably with permission from the governments of those countries to attain mutually beneficial goals.
Yeah, Like Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines...

"You keep me in power as a despot and I let you harrass the Chinese"

Mutually beneficial ... Yup.
Astronuc
#28
Oct25-05, 02:18 PM
Admin
Astronuc's Avatar
P: 21,866
How Scary Is This?

By BOB HERBERT, Op-Ed Columnist, NY Times, October 24, 2005
The White House is sweating out the possibility that one or more top officials will soon be indicted on criminal charges. But the Bush administration is immune to prosecution for its greatest offense - its colossal and profoundly tragic incompetence.

Lawrence Wilkerson, a retired Army colonel who served as chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, addressed the administration's arrogance and ineptitude in a talk last week that was astonishingly candid by Washington standards.

"We have courted disaster in Iraq, in North Korea, in Iran," said Mr. Wilkerson. "Generally, with regard to domestic crises like Katrina, Rita ... we haven't done very well on anything like that in a long time. And if something comes along that is truly serious, something like a nuclear weapon going off in a major American city, or something like a major pandemic, you are going to see the ineptitude of this government in a way that will take you back to the Declaration of Independence."


Mr. Wilkerson gave his talk before an audience at the New America Foundation, an independent public policy institute. On the all-important matter of national security, which many voters had seen as the strength of the administration, Mr. Wilkerson said:

"The case that I saw for four-plus years was a case that I have never seen in my studies of aberrations, bastardizations, perturbations, changes to the national security decision-making process. What I saw was a cabal between the vice president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made."

When the time came to implement the decisions, said Mr. Wilkerson, they were "presented in such a disjointed, incredible way that the bureaucracy often didn't know what it was doing as it moved to carry them out."

Where was the president? According to Mr. Wilkerson, "You've got this collegiality there between the secretary of defense and the vice president, and you've got a president who is not versed in international relations and not too much interested in them either."

One of the consequences of this dysfunction, as I have noted many times, is the unending parade of dead or badly wounded men and women returning to the U.S. from the war in Iraq - a war that the administration foolishly launched but now does not know how to win or end.

While not "evaluating the decision to go to war," Mr. Wilkerson told his audience that under the present circumstances "we can't leave Iraq. We simply can't." In his view, if American forces were to pull out too quickly, the U.S. would end up returning to the Middle East with "five million men and women under arms" within a decade.

Nevertheless, he is appalled at the way the war was launched and conducted, and outraged by "the detainee abuse issue." In 10 years, he said, when this matter is "put to the acid test, ironed out, and people have looked at it from every angle, we are going to be ashamed of what we allowed to happen."

Mr. Wilkerson said he has taken some heat for speaking out, but feels that "as a citizen of this great republic," he has an obligation to do so. If nothing is done about the current state of affairs, he said, "it's going to get even more dangerous than it already is."
pattylou
#29
Oct25-05, 02:41 PM
P: 1,036
Thanks Astronuc. Wow.

Nevertheless, he is appalled at the way the war was launched and conducted, and outraged by "the detainee abuse issue." In 10 years, he said, when this matter is "put to the acid test, ironed out, and people have looked at it from every angle, we are going to be ashamed of what we allowed to happen."
It is shameful. Incredibly so. That's one of the main reasons I have wanted to leave this country since last november, and a major factor for why I began participating on political boards with a decent percentage of foreigners ---- As a means of saying to the world that current foreign policy is not representative of my American ideals and values.

(I also submitted a picture to "Sorry everybody" dot com, but I don't know what page it's on.)

And, not trying to derail, just piping up that these actions have indeed been shameful.
Ivan Seeking
#30
Oct25-05, 02:52 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,500
As if this was some big secret...

Watch PBS
edward
#31
Oct25-05, 03:28 PM
PF Gold
edward's Avatar
P: 875
the U.S. would end up returning to the Middle East with "five million men and women under arms" within a decade.
It may be a lot sooner than ten years if the Bush adminstration insists on keeping its current "quarterly" changing of our reason for being in Iraq.

First we had WMD, then Iraqi freedom, then Democracy for Iraq, then defeat the insergents, then defeat global terroism. And not it is to "fight Radical Islam wherever it endangers peoples who love freedom."

When it comes down to making a decision on which side to support , moderate Isalm will support Radical isalm. That will leave us facing an enemy numbering close to one billion.
Astronuc
#32
Oct25-05, 03:52 PM
Admin
Astronuc's Avatar
P: 21,866
I heard this today - http://www.alternativeradio.org/programs/GLAA001.shtml

How America Lost Iraq
Aaron Glantz

In Iraq, most of the corporate journalists, when they venture outside their heavily guarded hotels, travel with US troops and base their stories on what the military tells them. Not so- Aaron Glantz, who went to Iraq totally un-embedded. And what he learned initially was not what he had expected. Most Iraqis welcomed the Americans and patiently accepted the hardship and destruction as a final sacrifice on their way to freedom. But as the occupation dragged on, and as living conditions and the security situation steadily worsened, the Americans were no longer viewed as liberators, but as oppressors. Glantz's eyewitness account gives insight into what is fueling the insurgency in Iraq.

Aaron Glantz

Aaron Glantz, a reporter for Pacifica Radio, has been to Iraq many times. He is the author of "How America Lost Iraq."

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld blew it from the beginning.
The Smoking Man
#33
Oct25-05, 06:03 PM
P: 1,143
Quote Quote by edward
It may be a lot sooner than ten years if the Bush adminstration insists on keeping its current "quarterly" changing of our reason for being in Iraq.
First we had WMD, then Iraqi freedom, then Democracy for Iraq, then defeat the insergents, then defeat global terroism. And not it is to "fight Radical Islam wherever it endangers peoples who love freedom."
When it comes down to making a decision on which side to support , moderate Isalm will support Radical isalm. That will leave us facing an enemy numbering close to one billion.
Yes ... on THAT front.

Then we get the litany of others from Venezuela to China.

Africa's still miffed on the Aid for Aids shortchange for joining the coalition of the willing.

Turkey still holds a grudge over the Airport thingy.

The Phillipines and Spain are miffed because of their treatment when they left Iraq.

France is still pissed the US served Burgers and Freedom Fries at the Nato meeting.

Canada is seeing a revival of the softwood lumber thingy.

Japan is livid the US wouldn't support their UN bid.

Ummmm ... Have I missed anyone?

Oh, yes they told the president of Taiwan to STFU about independence.

Have I mentioned the US MIGHT have a problem with isolationism?
Skyhunter
#34
Oct25-05, 07:46 PM
P: 1,409
Quote Quote by The Smoking Man
Have I mentioned the US MIGHT have a problem with isolationism?
When isolationism is forced, I believe it is called "shunning"

Good to have you back TSM.
SOS2008
#35
Oct26-05, 04:29 PM
PF Gold
SOS2008's Avatar
P: 1,554
Quote Quote by edward
First we had WMD, then Iraqi freedom, then Democracy for Iraq, then defeat the insergents, then defeat global terroism. And now it is to "fight Radical Islam wherever it endangers peoples who love freedom."
Barbara Boxer just made this statement: "Secretary Rice rewrote history yet again, claiming that rebuilding the entire Middle East has been the Bush Administration's stated mission ever since 9/11." Doesn’t Rice know the neocons (who may have always had this goal) are now distancing themselves from Bush because he has botched their great vision?
Astronuc
#36
Mar22-06, 08:17 PM
Admin
Astronuc's Avatar
P: 21,866
Well the thread on permanent US bases could be added to this one.

But in general, I'll make a prediction that Bush's "War on Terrorism" will be as successful as the US "War on Drugs". After 3 or more decades of trying to stem drug trafficking into the US, one can still find the same drugs on the streets of many US cities, towns and suburbs, as one could find 30 or 40 years ago.

In other words, Bush's policy on terrorism is and will be another colossal failure!

In fact, IMO, Bush is a colossal failure!


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Woman dies in ER lobby as 911 refuses to help General Discussion 39
Should I finish my dual degree in 4.5 years or in 5 years Academic Guidance 4
Russian refuses math's highest honor General Discussion 43
Cheney refuses to report classification activity Current Events 19
Do you eat rice? General Discussion 43