<p>It’s now over three years since our President (in his custom designed member’s only military jacket) announced “Mission Accomplished” (in Iraq). What was that mission again?</p>
<p>At his news conference yesterday he stated that U.S. troops would remain in Iraq “beyond his presidency” (which can’t end soon enough).</p>
<p>The President added that the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops will be decided by “future Presidents and future governments of Iraq”.</p>
<p>He further noted: “there will be more tough fighting ahead but, if I didn’t believe we could succeed, I wouldn’t be there. I wouldn’t put those kids there” - how reassuring and what does he mean “I wouldn’t be there” (is he there - can we send him?). </p>
<p>To underscore his position and our need to continue on with Vietnamization (oops) I mean Iraqization- the President stated that if U.S. troops left too soon “Iraq would become… a place from which the enemy can plot, plan and attack” (and the rest of southeast asia will fall like so many dominos- ooops, sorry again, getting all that rhetoric confused). </p>
<p>So first it was WMD’s, followed by other assorted rationalizations. Now we must stay or Iraq will be a terrorist breeding ground. I guess that the President isn’t aware that most of those involved in 9/11 trained in Venice, Florida and other parts of South Florida (Jeb-Sadaam ??? hmmmmm) and that, for example, Zacarias Moussaoui was found in Minneapolis.</p>
<p>And with all apologies to the Beatles, this came to mind:</p>
<p>Day after day alone on the hill,
The man with the foolish grin is keeping perfectly still,
But nobody wants to know him,
They can see that he’s just a fool,
And he never gives an answer,
But the fool on the hill
Sees the sun going down,
And the eyes in his head,
See the world spinning around. </p>
<p>Well on his way his head in a cloud,
The man of a thousand voices talking perfectly loud
But nobody ever hears him,
Or the sound he appears to make,
And he never seems to notice,
But the fool on the hill . . .
Nobody seems to like him
They can tell what he wants to do.
And he never shows his feelings,
But the fool on the hill . . .</p>
<p>So I take it you’ve ignored the statements that describe how the majority of troops will be removed over the next two years? That it was assumed the US would have bases in Iraq for years since the beginning of this? Interesting way to twist what was said into something it isn’t.</p>
<p>I suspose, too, you haven’t noticed that the number of US deaths has dropped dramatically since October (from a daily average that’s lower than the average for US troops dying from accidents in the 90s, btw) as the number of effective Iraqi troops has grown dramatically and they become in controlling more of the country?</p>
<p>Or that the country’s no more in a civil war than Los Angeles is with its gang wars. You didn’t read about how Iraqi leaders on both sides realized that the provocations most closely resembled al Qaeda operations, not the way rival militias work, and have declared out and out war on them instead of each other? Or that it was Sunnis who put up the money to rebuild the Golden Dome?</p>
<p>No, I didn’t think you would. Don’t let the facts confuse you guys, it would spoil all your fun.</p>
<p>Sorry, I just reviewed the full transcript of the press conference (at <a href=“http://www.whitehouse.gov%5B/url%5D”>www.whitehouse.gov</a>), and I could find no specific reference to troop withdrawals.</p>
<p>The gang wars in Los Angeles do not challenge governmental authority in the United States.</p>
<p>The ongoing violence in Iraq is an indicator that who is in charge is still up for grabs.</p>
<p>That’s pretty much how I would define a civil war – ongoing violence as part of a struggle to establish political and governmental authority.</p>
<p>Well, Strick, you had better get with the program here. Bush doesn’t plan to withdraw troops until 2008, and conveniently will leave the major mess that he has made to his successor. And it is a huge mess that the next president will be forced to deal with. </p>
<p>As for the civil war, even the Iraqi leaders say it is. </p>
<p>“It is unfortunate that we are in civil war,” said Mr. Allawi, who served as prime minister after the American invasion and now leads a 25-seat secular alliance of representatives in Iraq’s 275-seat National Assembly. “We are losing each day, as an average, 50 to 60 people through the country, if not more.”</p>
<p>“If this is not civil war,” he said, “then God knows what civil war is.” </p>
<p>Poor deluded Mr. Bush doesn’t believe him. He thinks he knows better. How’s that for puerile? Unfortunately, Iraqi are dying at a rate of 20-40 a day, and Americans continue to be killed every week. See, this conviction of Bush’s is really unpopular…65% of Americans don’t approve of the way he is handling the war. You, Strick, are apparently in the minority.</p>
False - troop levels have already started to come down. No one expects that the levels in 2008 will be nearly as high as they are now.
So, we now do whatever the polls say? What about the polls that existed earlier that were strongly in favor of the war, you know when YOU were in the minority? Were you wrong then but now you are right because of the polls? What about the polls that also say we should NOT have an immediate pullout? Does that make those who want to get out now wrong? It is really not surprising that the polls say what they say - if all you heard was negative stories about the effort and none of the positive, it is quite natural for the opinion to swing.</p>
<p>Strick- did you actually say that Iraq is no more in a civil war than Los Angeles? </p>
<p>As I live in Los Angeles, I feel pretty safe in saying that your comment is insulting, aburd and completely ridiculous. </p>
<p>As to the rest of this insanity, you make some real positive points. We’ll have troop withdrawals over the next two years. Whoooppee. That’ll only be 5 years and counting. WWII was fought in less time than this fiasco.</p>
<p>BTW, what “facts” are you referring to. All you have pointed to is supposition, interpretation and speculation (or apparently you can predict what will happen over the next two years or believe that Bush can guarantee this will happen- if they are removed it’s probably just so they can be sent to Iran next).</p>
<p>You want some facts: Iraqis had NOTHING to do with 9/11. There were no WMDs in Iraq. Terrorists can train ANYWHERE, they don’t need Iraq to do it. The 9/11 attackers trained in FLORIDA.</p>
<p>As far as the comment above about polls, I don’t need a poll to tell me the insanity of our involvement or the complete incompetency of this administration.</p>
<p>And if anyone thinks that a reduction in the number of dead American youth over there is some great victory, tell that to the parent of a service man or woman who has just received the dog tags of their dead child.</p>
<p>George Bush has the unmitigated gall to say that “he” wouldn’t be there if he didn’t think this was right- Easy to say, he isn’t there! And consistent with that, finding solace in reduced U.S. dead is equally appalling.</p>
<p>How odd. Supposition, interpretation and speculation. I can cite where each of the facts I quote come from, other than the opinion that it takes more than the recent increase in violence is no more a civil war than what happens from time to time in Los Angles. (Well, actually, the definition of civil war most commonly used, “A war between factions or regions of the same country.” meets gang war in Los Angles as well as it does what’s happening in Iraq. You might think about the thing on changing governmental authority. There’s no evidence that that’s the motive for any attacks in Iraq, either. A few factions still want the US to leave and the rest are mostly trying to settle old scores. A religious war I might consider, but civil war? No.)</p>
<p>Shall I? It’s no trouble. Of course, I don’t expect anyone on the left to actually consider any facts regardless of the source, but I can.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>True, but the Florida government wasn’t paying their bills and the son of the Florida governor wasn’t in charge of their training.
<p>Saddly that was true (though the picture is more complex than that). But even Saddam’s closest associates believed there were. He was running a bluff and lost.</p>
<p>20-30 people aren’t dying everyday in LA due to gang violence, or your version of “civil war”. The comparison of Iraq to LA is really too absurd for further discussion.</p>
<p>Iraq IS in a civil war, which is really odd, since Bush told the sheeple that the war was “mission accomplished” and Rummy said the “insurgency was in its last throes”, among 100 other bogus quotes I would bet they regret having said.</p>
<p>Strick- would’ve responded sooner but as I made my way through the gang war infested wasteland of Los Angeles I was quite delayed. First had to walk 3 miles to find running water and supplies, passing through 14 military check points. Went on first through Blood territory and then the Crip militia. Once past the Vatos Loco headquarters I made my way through war torn West Los Angeles, through the mean streets of Beverly Hills, past the wasteland of what was once Santa Monica and finally to sanctuary near the internment camp that was once Marina del Rey.</p>
<p>Strick- once again your analogy of LA to Iraq makes this discussion too absurd to pursue, as most aptly pointed out by another poster above.
Best of luck to you in your pursuit of reality.</p>
<p>BTW, if LA is in the condition of civil war, perhaps the administration ought to turn its attention there, rather than its misguided foreign intervention. On second thought, if the Gulf Coast is any example, I’ll take the Bloods and Crips and Dumbya and Cowboy Dick can stay focused on Iraq and Haliburton.</p>
<p>I’d also add that, sadly, just as today, our government ignored/denied that Vietnam was a civil war as we wasted years, lives and resources in that “police action”.</p>
<p>Sorry for my delay in responding, but I was working. My point is neither is involved in what can legitimately be considered a civil war except under the broadest definition. In neither case are the “factions” looking to break away from the existing government or over throw it. They’re fighting, but not for the reasons that one could reasonably consider civil war.</p>
<p>If the Los Angeles analogy offends you, I’ll switch it to gang wars in Fort Worth. Satisfied? </p>
<p>Start a blood feud in my part of the world, as is the case in Iraq, since it appears that many of the Sunni “victims” were believed to have participated in Saddam’s crimes against the Shiites, whether as government officials or his Fedayeen brown shirts that kept the peace through murder, beatings, rape and terror, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see pretty much what’s happening there happen here.</p>
<p>The reference to Los Angeles doesn’t offend me, it simply tells me there is no point to any meaningful discussion with you. But the switch to Fort Worth does make all the difference in the world.</p>
<p>Why, thanks for the compliment, bullwinkle. Given the lack of logic behind your posts and their strident nature, that’s the nicest thing anyone’s said to me lately.</p>
<p>Civil war, a war between different sections or parties of
the same country or nation.</p>
<p>So what do you consider a civil war? How bloody does it have to get? </p>
<p>And those “victims” as you so sweetly put it are often women, children, grandparents, and innocent people</p>
<p>There are ten of thousands of war dead that had nothing to do with 9-11, even Bush has admitted that, so please, don’t assume all those killed, that we have killed that the insurgents have killed, that the rebels have killed, that have been killed in this war are the enemy.</p>
<p>Many are just like your sisters and oyur mom</p>