Last Throes

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
but if we do have a plan is it wise to make it public?

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely, if the intent is to leave Iraq at some point. If the intent is to never leave Iraq then no end state plan is needed. It is wise politically as well as procedurally. There are a couple of thoughts:

1. The democratic process requires and good sense confirms that transparent decisions are best.
2. The ownership of the plan is then owned by the executive and legislature that should have oversight over it rather than just the executive.
3. The opponents know what are thinking is. Just as in poker it is often advisable to define your hand with bets so that the opponent can make rational decisions. In this case if the insurgents understood what our critiria was they can help meet the objectives so that one of their objectives (the departure of the US troops is met).

The insurgents, the AQ, the opponents of the President all want to know whether this is an open ended occupation for the next 30 years (or a new president) or if Bush et al WANT to stay forever regardless.

Without a plan, my assumption is that Bush et al, dont ever want to leave regardless of democracy or the absence there of in Iraq.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Your reply to my original post on Iraq being part of the war on terror indicated that you think I was talking about Iraq supporting terrorists (Which they did to some degree)

[/ QUOTE ] The administration, to sell their war, continually said the Saddam was in bed with Al Queda. Now, Cheney denies he even said that... because there was no credible evidence to support it. It was BS.

[ QUOTE ]
But that's not what I was talking about, that's why I said BIG PICTURE Winning the war on terror will require more then just going after people that have already done stuff to us it will require preventing people from doing things to us in the future.

[/ QUOTE ] there is nothing to indicate Iraq was any threat in any way. Their is ample evidence that the people in the bush admin wanted to go to war with Iraq PRIOR TO BUSH EVER BEING IN OFFICE, and terrorism was no where mentioned in any of their reasons. But, why bother mentioning it. Clearly the THE OWN WORDS of the very people who advocated the war mean nothing to you.

[ QUOTE ]
And the way to do that is not through appeasement as most liberals suggest.

[/ QUOTE ] LOL Baaaa. Baaaaa. Another limbaugh lite writing meaningless platitudes.

[kurto]

Honestly... you're like a rambling 12 year old repeating endlessly whatever junk you hear within the slightest bit of inspection.

Just stop it. You actually HURT the case of the right. Let people like MMMMMMM try to make the case. He sounds like a rocket scientist next to you.

Last note: The world didn't want to go to war as Saddam allowed the inspectors in who had unfettered access to the entire country. They went everywhere the US said to go and came to the conclusion that Saddam had nothing.

Of course we really knew this beforehand. Since both Rice and Powell had given speeches prior to 9/11 and both said that Saddam was disarmed and harmless after the first war and subsequent actions. But I know it doesn't bother you when they say one thing and then contradict themselves when its convenient.

Which is why you should let MMMMMM speak. You actually hurt the argument of the right with your weak and uninformed responses.

[shots]

[ QUOTE ]

Absolutely, if the intent is to leave Iraq at some point. If the intent is to never leave Iraq then no end state plan is needed. It is wise politically as well as procedurally. There are a couple of thoughts:

1. The democratic process requires and good sense confirms that transparent decisions are best.

[/ QUOTE ]

In most policy matters you're right but when it comes to military planning you're dead wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
2. The ownership of the plan is then owned by the executive and legislature that should have oversight over it rather than just the executive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oversight of these kinds of matters are the presidents job that's why he's called the commander and chief. He should seek good advice from his cabinet and generals but ultimatly the decisions should be his that's why we have a president.

[ QUOTE ]
3. The opponents know what are thinking is. Just as in poker it is often advisable to define your hand with bets so that the opponent can make rational decisions. In this case if the insurgents understood what our critiria was they can help meet the objectives so that one of their objectives (the departure of the US troops is met).

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what worries me we'll be playing right into their hands so they can launch an all out assault after we leave better to draw them out now so that by the time the time we leave they're too weekend to take on the Iraqis.

[ QUOTE ]
The insurgents, the AQ, the opponents of the President all want to know whether this is an open ended occupation for the next 30 years (or a new president) or if Bush et al WANT to stay forever regardless.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just ridiculous the line of reasoning that Bush wants to stay forever is just crazy. Why would he?

[ QUOTE ]
Without a plan, my assumption is that Bush et al, dont ever want to leave regardless of democracy or the absence there of in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again I ask why? what do we have to gain by staying any longer then we have to.

[US Conservative]

[ QUOTE ]
After Libya, most of the third world was afraid of Reagan’s US. He would have flattened them after the first WTC bombing.

[/ QUOTE ]
Darn right! But the libs won't let Bush put a Reagan-style ass-whipping on Iraq like he wants to do. The liberal media just makes it worse.

[ACPlayer]

1. THis is not military planning.

2. Not quite. Oversight is the job of the senate committees.

3. Sorry, we are not drawing them out. We are creating them. Look if our goal is to disengage and hand over, and one of the objectives of the insurgents is that we do just that, then lets put some of that on the table, rather than dodging the question with evasions.

I think there are some who would want to stay for ever and maintain a large military presence in that area. There are some benefits that I can think of, but I think the cons are much larger. The more slippery Bush etc are in answering this question, the more we must assume they are planning to stay on forever.

[shots]

I think we've finally gotten to the krux of the matter. You think that the US is responsible creating terrorists and if we were just nicer to everybody all the terrorists would go away. I on the other hand think that appeasement has never and will never work.

[Zeno]

Kurto,

I have, perhaps, been unfair to you in my few responses to your posts. You are a recent poster on this forum and do a fine job of posting about politics, in my opinion. You also, I assume, take this forum as a serious place to discuss all things political. But you obviously do not know my 'history' in the politics forum. My reasons for posting are slightly more askew than the norm. I usually either slip in by the side door with a puzzling comment or knock the front door down and storm in with two shotguns blazing killing or destroying anything in my path. But mostly, I say very little. I assure you that I am not into converting or saving anyone or getting you to 'join my side'. That is the one thing I find truly revolting.

It is a fact that I voted for George Bush. I have my reasons, such as they are. But if you think I am ‘on the Right’ or a neo-con (whatever the Hell that is suppose to mean) or some die hard Republican Party Member slavishly following that simpleton Bush, then I can only state that you are mistaken. I have my own agenda and it isn’t pretty.

To touch somewhat on my post and the follow up of others: In my opinion, there is a larger framework and bigger picture to all this tomfoolery of Iraq and the ‘War on Terror’. My suggestion of tackling some History is a hint at what that could be, nothing more - Aside from the fact that reading History is a pleasurable pastime and good for the soul. Which is a strange thing for me to say, as I do not believe in a soul. But I have consciously shied away from almost all postings about current affairs that have everyone else so relied up and frantic. I only have so much time and I allot that time according to my own personal priorities.

Another thing to consider is that I am scientific by nature. That, possibly, could explain much, if you fully understand science and all that it entails, but possible not – it may only make my postings all the more confusing. Which is good. But this is getting too long and personal and I am reclusive by nature. I will end with what every good scientist tells himself almost everyday: I could be wrong.

An example I hope you will learn to follow.

-Zeno

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
I have, perhaps, been unfair to you in my few responses to your posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not aware you being unfair to me. You haven't stood out in my mind as being one of the more 'over the top' posters. I just thought your last posting about excusing any actions by labeling it 'the war on terror' seemed somewhat criminal. (not saying it, but to actually do what you suggest.)

[ QUOTE ]
neo-con (whatever the Hell that is suppose to mean)

[/ QUOTE ] If I'm remembering correctly, neocon was dubbed by William Krystal (spelling?). I think Neocon is generally used now to indicate the new direction of the current crop of Republicans. (As opposed to Republicans of a generation ago which were less oriented on social issues, more fiscally conservative, among other issues. My Father, for instance, is a lifetime Republican who finds himself completely at odds with the current GOP.)

[ QUOTE ]
or some die hard Republican Party Member slavishly following that simpleton Bush, then I can only state that you are mistaken.

[/ QUOTE ] LOL I apologize if I lumped you in with that group. Unfortunately, your statement is currently in line (in my eyes) with many of the die hard Republicans who are accepting pretty much any justification (no matter how often it changed) to justify Iraq.

[ QUOTE ]
I have my own agenda and it isn’t pretty.


[/ QUOTE ] Not sure what you mean here, but its intriguing. The fact that you warn that it isnt pretty makes me think I might be put off, but I'm sure it would be interesting at any rate.

[ QUOTE ]
In my opinion, there is a larger framework and bigger picture to all this tomfoolery of Iraq and the ‘War on Terror’.

[/ QUOTE ] Actually, I agree with you here. I'm just not certain I necessarily agree with the larger framework or agree with you on what it might really be about. And, If there is an alterior motive then what is said, I don't approve of having a government misprepresenting its actions especially when it involves thrusting our nation into war. Finally, I simply don't trust the people doing it. I don't trust their ability to execute larger plans, I don't trust their motivations, I don't trust their ability to think out the consequences of their actions.

[ QUOTE ]
I will end with what every good scientist tells himself almost everyday: I could be wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I'm wrong about quite a few things on a daily basis. And though I post frequently, I avoid quite a number of threads because I don't believe in getting involved in areas that I don't know much about. The few times I venture in areas well beyond my depth, I've started the thread indicating that I don't really know much and can only offer my ignorant observations.

Last... I'm not really sure how serious I take the forum. I really enjoy the occasional thread where people actually discuss a subject with opposing but well thought out viewpoints. I enjoy seeing people consider both sides and look to find common ground. More often then not though, its people like Broken Glass Can who to this day, I think is just having fun being ridiculously partisan. Its almost inconceivable to me that people can be as faithfully partisan as a lot of people seem to be on this board. In those threads, I enjoy them simply as 'mental masturbation'... bickering for fun.

Anyhoo... no need to take up more of your time. Until next time.

[ACPlayer]

Actually, even the military has admitted that there is a good chance that we are creating more insurgents then we are destroying.