News Well, I didn‘t cut and run, Mr. President

1. Oct 6, 2006

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
"Well, I didn‘t cut and run, Mr. President"

This is about as effective as any advertising slogan that I've seen in ages. The image of this woman who lost both of her legs after Bush declared victory in Iraq, sitting in a wheel chair and saying "I didn't cut and run", is dynamite!!!

I haven't seen this as a commercial but caught a news interview.

Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
2. Oct 6, 2006

Astronuc

Staff Emeritus
Duckworth did the Democratic response to Bush's weekend speech. Bush's comments were feeble, and at best pathetic. Duckworth is right on.

For those who are so pleased with Bush and his war :grumpy:
U.S. Military Deaths in Iraq -- 2006
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=1465238&page=4

You can find the lists for 2005, 2204 and 2003.

And then there are the thousands who have been wounded and who will be ill-served and short changed by those who made this war possible.

3. Oct 7, 2006

Anttech

Lets not trivilise the proportions of Iraqi's that are also being killed. I know this is an American-centric forum, but Iraqi life is just as precious as American life. Over 100 Iraqi's are killed per day now, thats 3000 per month or 36,000 per year.

4. Oct 7, 2006

Astronuc

Staff Emeritus
I don't think the death of tens of thousands of Iraqis has been trivialized, which is perhaps the worst part of this whole mess.

The US military concedes that Iraq seems to be deteriorating into a civil war, or at least a prolonged sectarian conflict.

About 700 Iraqi police officers were taken out of action because they apparently allowed insurgents to conduct kidnappings and killings.

The Iraq war is so much like Vietnam where the number of civilians killed was 2-4 times than the military personnel killed.

5. Oct 7, 2006

Tzemach

Iraq was created by the British after WW1, they defeated the Turks who had controlled the place for centuries and the Brits couldn't control the Kurds so they created Iraq and put some Arabs in charge - of course it will degenerate into civil war. The only solution I can see is to give the whole lot back to Turkey.

6. Oct 7, 2006

Astronuc

Staff Emeritus
I think Kurds and Arabs would object. Of course, Iraq could be partitioned into Kurdistan, with the Shi'a parts going to Iran and Suni parts to Saudi Arabia, but then Iraqis would probably object to that.

So, how long will the occupation last, and how many $100 billions will it cost, and how many US troops and Iraqi civilians be killed when US finally pulls out? Will Bush continue down the path of failure? 7. Oct 7, 2006 turbo The occupation will last right through Bush's last day in office and probably through a sizable portion (even all) of his replacement's term in office. Bush, Rummie, Cheney, Rove have made so many huge mistakes and have so alienated most Iraqis that US options to help foster a peaceful transition to Iraqi home-rule are very limited. 8. Oct 7, 2006 BobG It'll never happen, but the only plausible solution would be for Iraq to give up on self rule for awhile. A UN commission would have to govern them with input and support from Iraq's neighbors (not the US, except maybe some monetary support). The goal would be enforced compromises between Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds with the aim that, a decade or two down the road, there would be enough stability that none of the groups would want to risk disrupting it as they split up into their own nations. Of course, there is no UN with that kind of capability, and getting Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran to agree on what the forced compromises should be isn't something that would happen, either. This is going to be a civil war equal in horror to Rwanda just as soon as we leave. Who knows what Iraq's neighbors will do when that happens. 9. Oct 7, 2006 Astronuc Staff Emeritus Maybe everyone will just let Iraq collapse and then pick up the pieces of what's left. I really hope that doesn't happen. And then the question, will all they all turn and blame the US? If so, Bush has done incalculable damage to the US and its security for a long time to come. 10. Oct 7, 2006 devil-fire there is also something to be said about the number of private contractors who have become casualtys. their deaths may be deemed less trajic because they go to iraq volentary and for money, but that discussion is for another thread. i was mentioning that in another thread astronuc, that this war in iraq has become a problem for the usa. the options are to A) pull out, let iraq fall to piece then try to put it back together after (there is a chance that when 1 side has been killed, the region will have less conflict). the problem with this is the usa will unarguable be seen as vary much a vicious imperialist dictator in the world and you can expect to lose a lot of support on a lot of issues, including anti-terrorist support from countrys that feel the usa's actions to be objectionable B)stay in there till everything falls to pieces and be right there to clean things up while they come appart at the seams. the problem with this is being intimatly involved in a genocidal region, lots of american lives lost, looking extreamly bad domesticly (unless they can put some kind of huge public relations campaign together and work some kind of mirical with that), C) change what the action plan in there is, change how things are getting done. currently all signs point to a course of action that isnt getting the usa out of much trouble. if the usa could someone stay in and pull it all together and get it straighten out it would be fantastic, however the chances of this happening are not good. there is a chance and there is always hope but i wouldnt bed on it. 11. Oct 7, 2006 Futobingoro As I have said before, it is extremely unwise to stake one's analysis of the Iraq war solely on the number of people killed. However, when one does cite a number on one side of an issue in pursuit of a conclusion, he must do the same for the other side as well. Otherwise, the conclusion tells us very little. When you quote only the number of US military dead and wounded, it comes at a complete disregard for statistics concerning what the US military has been able to achieve for its losses. It can create the impression that US troops are just sitting in Iraq waiting to be shot or suicide-bombed. How many insurgents must the US military kill? How many elections must the US military defend? How many schools, hospitals and government offices must the US military construct? ...to make the loss of almost 3,000 troops worthwhile? I don't know, and I don't think anyone can truthfully say he or she knows. But what I am saying is that your analysis doesn't even make an effort to produce an educated guess. Your analysis, in fact, assumes that the military's loss is not worthwhile. This a physics forum for Pete's sake! So many people here supposedly grasp the concept that when two forces oppose each other, the net force is the difference between the two. Yet these same people completely disregard the force that the US military constitutes in Iraq, and conclude that the net force for change in Iraq is equivalent to the force of the insurgents. This is how we get these claims that the Iraq war is an event where 2,976 coalition soldiers have died, many more were wounded and thousands of Iraqi citizens have also died or were wounded. 12. Oct 7, 2006 Rach3 This is all hopeless speculation. Obviously many secular Iraqis would strongly object being forced into a Sharia state like Iran or Saudi Arabia, and any attempt to impose internal boundaries along sectarian lines would cause mass casualties - look at what happened to British India. Occupying states (like us) aren't supposed to be drawing new borders! 13. Oct 7, 2006 Rach3 Well, aren't we most to blame? 14. Oct 7, 2006 Astronuc Staff Emeritus Well - I didn't make an analysis now did I. I did make a comment which reflects a judgement, and it is not 'solely' based on any one element. No it doesn't, so stop inferring that. All good questions. There is a big problem with the reconstruction in that much of the work has been shoddy, what little has been accomplished and most of the money ear-marked for reconstruction has been spent on security. I am first to agree that re-building the infrastructure is absolutely necessary to rebuilding the country and re-establishing law and order and hopefully peace. This however is not happening, or at least not fast enough. Most losses so far have been unnecessary, because the troops were not properly equipped and the US military did not plan to face an insurgency, despite Bush's admonitions that he (his administration) was doing all they could for the troops - which then and now is not true. I don't think anyone has made such a conclusion regarding US force and insurgent forces in Iraq. Well, that's what it is - so far. Are people in the US prepared for an indefinite occupation at close to$100 billion/year.

One problem is the attempt to label anyone or everyone who is shooting at the US as insurgents. Certainly there are al Qaida and foreign groups involved in the insurgency. But then there are the home grown groups of Suni and Shi'i, who are opposed to other groups and the US.

People in my community (myself included) have contributed to humanitarian programs in Iraq (e.g. Iraqi schools - http://www.iraqischools.com/ ). The objective is to support US troops who are providing direct support to the Iraqi populations. I have also contributed to similar humanitarian efforts of US troops in Afghanistan.

CPT Joseph Hammond
HHC, 2-6 IN
APO AE 09361-2505

NOTE: You will have to fill out a customs declaration form for each box. It's a pain to fill out all that, but it's part of what we all have to do to get the stuff out there.

or follow suggestions from a note from one of Major Softy's Donors:
See - http://www.iraqischools.com/ship.asp

Last edited by a moderator: Apr 22, 2017
15. Oct 7, 2006

edward

Getting back to Tammy Duckworth, Bush will be in her home district on Thursday to support her opponent. What a guy!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0610070074oct07,1,4870312.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed [Broken]

Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
16. Oct 7, 2006

edward

17. Oct 7, 2006

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
The point here is that the Republicans point their fingers and yell "cut and run democrats" whenever Bush's foreign policy is challenged. They have also made clear that "you are either with us or against us".

Now where have I heard that before? :uhh:

18. Oct 7, 2006

Hats off.