Interview with Spy Chief Reveals Details About FISA > Just once...

Just once...

Well bud, Bush had 6 years of full control to install a Workable solution. On the flip side, I'm not sure the Democrats are going to end the war right now either. First, they don't have the vote to override Bush. Second, it totally pisses me off they keep funding the thing. Third, shouldn't it be the people who CAUSED the war (republican majority who voted for it), finding the solutions?

Well let's get pass this aspect. We're now there and got a problem. What's the solution. Well mine is to admit we've failed to ourselves and start working with other countries to get an end our misery. We need to sit down and talk to Syria and Iran in order to stop the violence taking place in the region. These two countries are funneling the money to the insurgents. Next, I think we need to break the country into three autonomous regions. I don't think Iraq will ever work as an "Iraq" any longer. The people hate one another and won't live together. If they have their own homeland, violence might subside more than it is now. While this might not be a fix, it's a solution and better than nothing. At this point, the answers are very limited. Bush and the Republicans have handled this war MISERABLY the last six years and left few answers to be had.

reply to Mercurybird
As opposed to the first world dictatorship that you have now?
OH wait, the US backs a number, if not all, of those third world dictatorships doesn't it?

Now for a little light that was requested....
Open disclosure of who and what was involved in the initiation of the IRAQ debacle and if culpable then blacklist them for any new or continuing participation in anything to do with the area.
Hire local (Saudis, Egyptian, heck Libyan) companies and organizations to help get things back on track. They would have a heck of a lot more respect and get some positive response in the area than the poor sods that have been sent in there now.
Dang, its that oft used but never followed axion ... co-operation ... I doubt I will see that in anyones lifetime coming from the States though ... but surprise me and prove me wrong why don't-cha ... XD

Shh. Stop infusing logic into my thread Thrudd. You're confusing them. Damn that logic and our backing of the world's most ruthless leaders....Anyhow, just kidding. Good point to add to my post in all seriousness.

jc100, Thrudd, good points, and thanks for the light. I'm sure that more than a few Congress members agree with your line of thinking.

Perspective on this war is as iffy as arguing over whether a Chevy, or a Ford, or a Mopar, is the better vehicle. Just depends on who you ask. So I won't try to change your mind.

But remember there were a lot of people on both sides of the isle that voted to do this in the beginning. Many of those people on both sides of the isle still believe in it. But not a few have since asked themselves if it was the right decision. And many of those think not.

I do not doubt that next time it comes up to do something similar much that was learned from this experience will come into play. Winston Churchill said "The farther back you are able to look, the farther forward you are likely to see." We're learning from our mistakes. That as much as anything has also made us great.

I'm all for getting Maliki off of his lethargic butt and pulling together a coalition and letting the people cast their own vote as to what to do with themselves. Remember, no one thought the Balkan people would ever do it either. Pulling the plug too early is to rob the people who are on the ground working so hard to make it happen. I'm not speaking so much about the soldiers of all the nations that are there. I'm speaking about the diplomats who are putting their hearts and souls into this.

Hindsight is 20/20- foresight is not. But scathing criticism isn't going to do anything to improve our foresight. We voted for the people who made these decisions. Let us look more carefully, and then vote with fear and trembling and stalwart conviction. Then let us stand resolutely behind those convictions.
--
You're an American. You get a free pass, but nobody rides for free.

Mercury,

I agree with you on most points. However, there's also a good saying, "Those who forget the past are bound to repeat it". Sadly, politics is riddled with people making the same mistakes over and over. You'd think by now that leaders would have a little history lesson before entering office. I guess that's not the case. Common sense 101 has failed a majority of those we elect. Take Vietnam, another quagmire war. Iraq is turning into the same type of deal. We went where we didn't belong, and now we have no way out, except pulling out. Not a great option to say the least. There's no solution there that is going to fix the problem any time soon. I think most people are resound to that fact.

As for people who voted for the war / politicians who wanted it, mistakes happen all the time. It's part of being human. However, to support a futile cause and stand behind it after it goes to the brink of chaos, is not human. That is sheer stupidity. Those who fail to see things for what they are, simply need to remove their blinders. Once again, to error is human, to not learn from it is ignorance. Hence, the people that do support this cause still are not looking the whole picture, only what their elected leaders are telling them. This is a serious serious problem. We all know history and we all know the Holocaust. It's the same tactics the Nazis used on their people. Believe us, don't ask questions, we won't lead you astray.

As for Maliki, I agree, he needs to help the cause. However, he's our appointee and he's practically powerless. At this point, the government in Iraq might as well be like that found in Sudan. It's has control in one city, and everything else is ran by others. The government in Iraq could make murder illegal tomorrow, and no one would listen. Part of having a government, means being able to carry out the rule of law. Unfortunately, the Maliki government and the U.S. have failed at every turn on this clause. If we can't control what's happening now, the government most likely won't be either. Here lies the conundrum of what do we do to fix this dilema?

Last, hindsight is 20/20. It always has been. However, bad choices should serve as a guide to making better ones int he future. Sadly, this isn't happening. Bush and the Republican led Congress made mistake after mistake for the last six years in office. They had full control. Yet, it appears to me the Democrats aren't willing to budge on the status quo either. I am very disappointed. I was hoping they'd cut off funding and end this war. To say the least, a preliminary date of exit would have been nice. However and to my dismay, this doesn't seem to be the case. I do give them credit for trying, but they don't have the votes to override Bush. Still, I sincerely wonder, if they will carry out their "plan" should they win the election. This is an aside anyhow. My point here is that people need to start looking at situations better, and making good choices. This doesn't seem to be happening all around. Scathing criticism and conviction are warranted when leaders fail to lead. To be a leader doesn't always mean being right. It means trying to be right and do what is best for your country and its people. None of which are happening.

Very thoughtful and well presented.

One of the things that makes hope look dim in Iraq to some people is the insurgency and terrorists. The former I would attribute to Iran and Syria. The latter I would attribute to religious extremist ideology.

But those subtle distinctions are for the benefit of those who need them to help them understand the big picture. To the people of Iraq it's all the same, I'm sure, when someone blows up the market in their neighborhood. Consequently the Iraqis are getting sick and tired of it.

That's a reaction the bad guys weren't looking for, and they're getting their butts thrown out of a lot of places. In those areas the citizens not only banished the trouble boys, they came together in peace afterward. I hope that is a little cameo of what is going to happen to radical Islam the world over.
--
You're an American. You get a free pass, but nobody rides for free.

reply to Mercurybird

quote:

---

In the meantime if you hate this country so badly,

---

reply to Mercurybird
Mercury,

Radical Islam is a small part of the religion. Just as Radical Christianity isn't mainstream. You will always have a fundamental sect in every religion, unfortunately. People have a tendency to take things to the extreme. In the case of Iraq, their hatred of us far exceeds their hatred of the radicals. I disagree that they are being kicked out. In contrast, we have created a breeding ground and rallying point for every Anti-West / Anti-American to come and fight the "evil regime". Our poor choice to go there in the first place, our lack of planning, and a culmination of everything else created this mess. Personally, I don't think its as simple as you state. The problem we face is building the trust of a people who'd rather die by their own, than help America. They see us as occupiers, and that assessment is true. We entered their country illegally no matter how you slice it. Hence, without the people trusting us, we'll never win the war. We might win a few battles, but at this point, the war is lost. Without their trust, those who wish to do harm will forever find shelter and forever find an endless supply of recruits. Sadly, this is all our own doing and finding a solution is going to be one hell of a job for the next leaders.

reply to tcp1
Well, according to right-wing ideology voting for the "other guy" is a traitorous act. How could you not support your President by voting for the opposite party?

Of course, they weren't standing by Bill Clinton were they?

Shows how easily their ideology crumbles.

reply to Mercurybird
Ok, now that we have the preliminaries out of the way.
1. George W. Bush
2. Pol Pot
3. Adolf Hitler
4. Josef Stalin
These is my all time "most evil" list. What say the rest of you. Do I have it in the correct order. Of course #1 has a huge advantage considering what is at his disposal thanks to those that have kept him in office.

reply to jc100
The situation is dire there's no doubt about that. But I see a lot more hope there than you do. I think there's plenty of room for this thing to turn out well. I will give you this much though, trying to work with some people is a lot like herding cats.

How did it turn into the mess that it is? The goes back to Donald Rumsfeld and Afghanistan. Donald D. believes that our military should be a more modern, lean fighting machine. So he dropped a few special ops into Afghanistan and those guys ran across the country in about three weeks. Well it worked didn't it?

But it was a mistake to do the same thing in Iraq. That was probably the root of the problem between Rumsfeld and Powell. Powell is probably old school and would have liked to put a lot more people in there. In contrast to Afghanistan, we're spending a lot of time running around putting out fires.

So it would seem that it's not so much incompetence that's at the root of the problem, but a normal changing of the guard.

Unfortunately it looks a lot like what someone, somewhere, called nation building. Didn't we say we didn't want to do that?
--
You're an American. You get a free pass, but nobody rides for free.

reply to tcp1
Hi TCP1,

I agree with you. I think you are being more than reasonable here. And I wouldn't label anyone, especially the way you mention.

I was responding to those who's comments always seem to spiral downward into vitriol whenever they hear something they don't like. It's okay to radiate more heat than light. That's what passionate people do. But some people radiate so much heat that they scorch a burned path wherever they go.
--
You're an American. You get a free pass, but nobody rides for free.

reply to omar lou

reply to Mercurybird
Mercury,

Not to insult your intelligence here, but Afghanistan is a failure, too. Have you not read about the extreme resurgence of Taliban in the area? Have you not watched the News about the constant threat to foreigners from kidnappings? Have you not heard about the Koreans that were executed by the Taliban? Have you not read about the bombings and chaos taking place there? Obviously, not. You're too focused on Iraq to see Afghanistan is a mess, as well. It's just Iraq is a bigger one, so it gets more press. Plenty happens in Afghanistan though. Hence, neither war was a good one. We've solved nothing, proved nothing, and shot ourselves in the foot. Now our military is stretched so thin, if a real problem arises, they are tied up in these quagmires. Neither Rumsfeld or Powell handled these situations well. The Army's new slogan should be changed from, Be all you can Be... To join the latest Quagmire. Your country needs you.

reply to Cairninator
No offense neighbor,

But you seem to have a lot of trouble making the finer distinctions. You probably only see in sixteen colors, and I'll bet they're all gray.
--
You're an American. You get a free pass, but nobody rides for free.

reply to jc100
Certainly no offense taken. I am very aware of what is going on in Afghanistan. My awareness is supplied by the boots on the ground as they are chronicled on the Military Channel. And yes I only watch Fox News.

I think it comes down to the definition of the words "failure" and "success". It reminds me of "that depends on the meaning of what [is] is." I think this may be a case of is the glass half empty or half full?

It seems to me that you are not ready to give these endeavors much time to work out. What I'm at a loss on is how long it took for our own country of America to coalesce and come together. The war of 1812 was nothing more than an extension of the war of 1776. Then came the ugly mess over unions. Then there was the Civil War. Etc., Etc....

My point is if you go back into our own history and look closely at any given time you are more than likely to see some pretty ugly stuff. Would you have been so willing to pull the plug on us too? What a pity that would have been. Because it would have cancelled the first and only successful revolution in the world.

I sure don't have all the answers. But there are two lessons from the Viet Nam war that I certainly hope we can avoid- that's inept politicians running the war from Washington, and a sudden and full out retreat that leaves a bloodbath in its wake.

I want to commend everyone who stepped up and posted a response to my original post. I respect your point of view and candor. tcp1 mentioned the middle ground between Rush Limbaugh and Loose Change. I don't know who Loose Change is. But I hope we can get there to.
--
You're an American. You get a free pass, but nobody rides for free.

Hi,

Well Fox News / Faux News gives a very one sided style of reporting. They are hardly critical of anything the president does. Hence, I wouldn't base your facts off solely this source.

As for definition of failure, it's not a glass half empty and a glass half full argument. The difference between the war that founded the U.S. and this war are quite astounding. First, we occupied these lands and were not necessarily the aggressors that sparked the war. England kept imposing "taxation without representation" type laws. Hence, Americans got mad and fought for their independence. That war only lasted a few years. The war you cited, of 1812, was another, separate war. That was the French and Indian one. You make it sound like England and that were back to back. There was around a thirty year gap there. Let's keep things accurate please. Hence, there's one difference in itself. It wasn't an ongoing failure. We made progress each time in a few year timespan. Second, we weren't fighting car bombers and guerrilla tactics. It was your army meets my army, and we stand and shoot. Also known as gentleman's warfare. It's why you have things called the Battle of Valley Forge, etc. Battles were given titles, because they were central points armies fought at. Such is NOT the case in Iraq or Afghanistan. To the total contrast, these wars are fought by hit and run tactics. These tactics are there to inflict the most casualties with little regard for civilians. Not to mention, these are happening regularly, and without injunction. Therefore, you are trying to compare apples to oranges. Your comparison fails to meet even the most basic of criteria. There is no winning here, as there was when we fought for independence. We're in our sixth year in both of these countries, with nothing to show. By the sixth year of the American Revolution, we had all but sealed our victory. However, that's not even important here. What is important is the fact you are trying to merge two unrelated items and somehow make a point. Sorry, it can't be done. The meaning of failure in these current wars is quite clear.

1) We have not made any real gains in either country over the last six years. Most gains are quickly lost.

2) Both have governments that are practically powerless to stop or control the violence.

3) Violence (kidnappings, car bombs, harm to civilians), continues unabated in both areas.

4) The entities we are fighting are only getting stronger over time, not weaker.

5) Both wars were poorly planned and executed. Both should have never happened from the start. However, assuming they did, both have been run extremely poor.

6) Last, unlike the wars for our freedom, the enemy here is not clear. Hence, its a no win situation. No one is wearing a uniform and no one is meeting to duke it out. Simply, the "enemy" if we want to use that term, blends in with ease. He or she can hit and run, without anyone ever knowing. Therefore, winning is pretty hard if not impossible.

To sum this up, and conclude with your reference to Vietnam. We didn't pull out. We got our ass handed to us and RAN OUT. We stayed until Saigon and other major areas were so overrun, that we had no other alternative. Vietnam should have served as a reminder to people like you and current politicians, you cannot win against guerrilla warfare. As long as your declared enemies can blend in, and hide with the locals, you don't know who to fight. Hence, these tactics can continue indefinitely. Vietnam, Afghanistan, and now Iraq have all shown what happens in such situations. Therefore, failure is not up for debate here. The definition of what constitutes a failure is clear. Consequently, if anything meets this criteria, it's the two quagmires we're in now.

You state your case very well jc100. While I won't necessarily disagree with anything you have stated, I still feel it is unnecessary to come to such a completely hopeless conclusion.

Even though we come to rest at opposite sides of this equation, don't you wish all politicians would at least pretend that they've given this much thought to something? So many of them are nothing but soundbite artists.

The biggest problem in Afghanistan is their poppy production. Until they eradicate that nothing else matters. Because if I recall correctly most of that heroin comes to America.

That's why we've absolutely got to lock down the borders here. We would cure the illegal alien trade AND the illegal drug trade. Until we do that, what else matters?

My main purpose in referring to our past is to say that many people were feeling pretty hopeless over the war effort during those bleak and cruel winters. The opposite of our present day was the situation on the ground then. We are an organized army facing a loosely organized civilian militia. Back then we were a loosely organized civilian militia facing an organized army. Many people lost heart and left. Except for some genuine acts of God we would have lost that war. But we persevered, and against all odds we did it. I expect nothing less than that now.
--
You're an American. You get a free pass, but nobody rides for free.

Hi Mercury,

I have been busy past two days. So if you get this good, if not I did reply.

While you have some hope that the Iraq situation will work, I must say you should also consider this phrase. It goes somewhere along the lines that, "hope is the poor man's despair". More or less, you can think positive thoughts that everything will work in the end, but that is not life in the least bit. What should work, and what does, are often two different elements. Bush's cookie cutter approach has made a very bad situation worse. His stay the course and lets continue what we're doing (after it fails) mantra, have only added fuel to the fire. Now the situation is that equal to or worse than Vietnam. We can't win. The most we can fathom is finding a way out, without coming across as having destroyed stability in the the entire region. Let's face it, the problems in Iraq are bound to spill over elsewhere. Hence, the local issues risk becoming an international blunder if the violence goes to other countries. Consequently, I think the best circumstance is finding a way to contain what is happening to Iraq, without letting the entire middle east implode upon itself. If that happens, we're in for a world of trouble. No country collapsing or losing its stability is ever a good thing, especially in volatile regions. Therefore, I think your assessment is a bit to unrealistic and glass half full. For one to have that feeling, there at least has to be positives happening. Sadly, those are pretty non existent.

Even though we come to rest at opposite sides of this equation, don't you wish all politicians would at least pretend that they've given this much thought to something? So many of them are nothing but soundbite artists.

Yes, but that'll happen when hell freezes over and pigs fly. The minute they get into office, they forget who put them there. The only time most politicians seem to care, is when it comes up for re-election. It serves as the perfect time to make more promises, that will without a doubt be broken.

Third, while Afghanistan is a huge poppy country, that doesn't even factor in to the overall problem the region is facing. Poppy cultivation does provide money to locals and drugs worldwide. Granted. However, I am not so naive to believe the Taliban or any other rogue entity would be the least bit impaired, should this crop be removed. Hence, poppy plants are an issue for another day. In the mean time, the U.S. has enough to focus on in Iraq, let alone Afghanistan. Both countries face kidnappings, murder, lack of governmental powers, etc.

Fourth, I hate to burst your bubble, but locking down the borders is a political ploy for election season. With around 2000 or so miles of border, it would take unsurmountable amounts of money to even half secure them. It always sounds good when people say, we need to make our borders better. Everything sounds good in theory. The ability to actually carry out the plan, is another task in itself. 2000 miles (lets figure this #) equates to 140,000 feet. This just assuming a straight line and not square miles. If you square that, you are talking hundreds of millions, if not billions feet. NO amount of man power or security could cover all that ground, without spending this country into debt we've never seen. In an ideal world, we could make this happen. In reality, it won't. Then again, I'm not one to believe the Mexicans are stealing our jobs and ruining this country. After all, companies seem to hire them and they often wish to do jobs no one else will touch. Aside from that, let's not forget the 9/11 hijackers came from Canada, not Mexico.

Finally, for your comparison to our wars of the past, it still is a very poor analogy. First, while people were in doubt at many times, the cause was never fruitless. Not to mention, we had gains, versus solid losses. In Iraq, neither are true. We aren't showing fruits for our work, and gains are quickly lost. As I said before, by the sixth year of the American Revolution, we practically had our victory sealed. More recently, we conquered Europe in six years from the Germans. The reason both of these happened is because our army fought another Army. This time, like Vietnam, this is not the case. Hence, our despair and failure are heavily justified. This war, similar to Vietnam, is no winnable. Consequently, to lose hope here, would imply we ever stood a chance. Personally, I think that rationale of "standing a chance" has been quite flawed from the beginning. As long as your enemy uses hit and run, blend in tactics, the upper hand can never truly be had. My two cents.