Are you happy with Bush ? - lets fight to make America the great country it once was - gube's Blog - Tehachapi News

Aug 26, 2007 at 05:08 PM : COMPLETE IDIOT

COMPLETE IDIOT

Aug 26, 2007 at 05:08 PM : &a...

One good thing I can say about him is that I think he is honest. Whether he is right in his actions or not, I'm not always certain, but he doesn't lie about what he is going to do. I think he mishandled Iraq and I think his stance on immigration is BS. I really like that his ranch in Crawford is one of the "greenest" ranches there is (granted this is a small plus, but noteworthy in my opinion). I definitely think he had the right idea on his tax cuts.
I voted for him because I totally disagreed with any of the opposing candidates. However, I am glad that he isn't running again, because I think the Democrats might put out a decent candidate in '08. I'm not liking anything I see from the Republicans as of yet, and they have really disappointed me for many years now.

Aug 26, 2007 at 10:08 PM : January 20th,...

January 20th, 2009 will be a day to celebrate.

awsmom8, do you happen to have a picture of that sign?

Aug 27, 2007 at 09:08 AM : Bush, Chaney, Rove,...

Bush, Chaney, Rove, Gonzales, Rumsfeld, Armitage ..... they are happy to wait until "history" judges them. I feel confident that history will judge them the same as the majority of the American people do today. This White House of horrors will go down as one of the worst. What Bush and his good ole boys have done to our military and the treasury will be legendary. The Bush administration loosened the restrictions on our mine safety rule ..... The Bush administration continues to ignore the devastating results of Katrina (remember Bush's good friend Brown in charge of FEMA?) ..... The Bush administration has undermined our civil liberties ..... the Bush administration thinks torture is OK ..... the Bush administration has provided tax cuts to the very, very, very rich (I will never consider the $300.00 I got as any kind of treat!). Bush has replaced all the military leaders who disagreed with him ... and we patiently wait for General Patrais to tell us what we already know.

The list goes on. I ask others on this site to made their additions. I can't think of them all in one sitting. And please forgive any misspelling of names.

I am delighted that Gonzales resigned today. What a joke he's made of our judicial system. He can't remember, he can't recall, he doesn't think he remembers, he's not sure he attended that meeting, his recollection is unclear. And the best - the cherry on the top - of the substantial list of things he told us that are so dumb you can't believe they have been said out loud, Gonzales tells us: he was 1) responsible and 2) he made the best decisions. What the ???????

Aug 27, 2007 at 09:08 AM : google 'bush...

google 'bush funny' and laugh at the idiot

Aug 27, 2007 at 01:08 PM : It's very...

It's very premature to say that this administration will be judged as one of the worst. It certainly will not be considered the best, but you cannot base this administration's legacy on today's popular opinion. Remember JFK, who is for some reason lauded as one of the best presidents? Even though some historians now consider him to have been a mediocre president? Or that Hoover, who suffers one of the worst reputations, didn't actually cause the Great Depression? It was caused by policies that were instituted before he was president. I hate being put in the position of defending Bush, but I don't think it's fair to merely jump on the bandwagon and call him completely incompetent when we don't yet have the advantage of retrospect.

As for the specifics:

"The bush administration continues to ignore the devastating results of Katrina"
    Louisiana, in my opinion, carries much of the blame for this. Bush did tell Gov. Blanco to order an evacuation, which she failed to do until the last minute. Living in New Orleans carries a risk, and everyone that lived there was well aware of that risk. I don't want to play "blame the victim" but when you are in a hurricane-prone area you need to know what to do when one is barreling toward your city. They certainly can't blame the media for not warning them... The residents of the coastal states have the responsibility to take care of themselves, without relying on the federal government to step in and "kiss it and make it all better." If an earthquake were to happen in California, we are prepared to deal with some hard times, and we have the proper insurance!

"The bush administration thinks torture is ok"
    If we were to always abide by the Geneva conventions, we would be a sitting duck with out hands tied behind our back. The Geneva Conventions are obsolete when our enemies don't abide by them either. This is not a genteel war. In WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and Persian Gulf we were fighting a country (or countries). Soldiers fighting for their country do not have the same level of loyalty as soldiers fighting for a radical religion. And in a war it is imperative to gather intelligence. What do you suggest we do to get that intelligence? Let them live in relative luxury like we allowed the Nazi POWs to do for the duration of WWII ? Their camps followed the Geneva Conventions to the letter. Do you think they were effective for gathering intelligence?

"The Bush administration has provided tax cuts to the very, very, very rich"
    This one is simple. Who do you think, of all people in this country, invests their money more in the economy? Is it Middle class Joe Schmo with his lousy $300 tax refund? Or is it Richie Rich with his multi-million dollar refund? It is based on the theory of supply-side economics, which is the theory that when people are given incentives to produce goods and services, the people themselves will cause economic growth. It is a theory; macroeconomics is not always definite and it takes a very long time for economic theories to play out and reveal whether they are viable or faulty.

"Bush has replaced all the military leaders who disagreed with him"
    If they're not doing their job of winning the war, then they should be replaced. Would you expect to keep your job when you are incapable of succeeding?

Aug 27, 2007 at 04:08 PM : I can't remember...

I can't remember an administration I more wanted to see go away, but I have to admit that I'm really a little uneasy over what will fill the White House next.

Aug 27, 2007 at 05:08 PM : Hey madkow ...... The...

Hey madkow ......

The Bush White House cut funding to the aqueducts in Louisiana. Just like they cut money for other infrastructure line items like roads, hospitals, bridges ...... but - even with these cuts the deficit climbs. Don't blame the governor unless you decide to blame all governors for a failure to get money for anything except war machinery or aid ($8 billion a month) to Pakistan, for instance.

You can't win the hearts and minds of other countries by not being above really bad ideas - like torture. Two wrongs have never equaled a right. It just makes two wrongs. By the way - you don't get reliable intelligence thru torture. Millions of people said they were witches/warlocks or Christians under torture - when they weren't. History gives us lots of information if we decide to listen.

The last check I did on the US economy and taxes collected - nearly 80% of taxes come from the middle class and small businesses. The poor are exempt and the rich make use of the loop holes. The very rich and big business take their profit and put it in their pockets. They reinvest as little as possible and only a few "give back" via charity unless they need the write off. The gap between the very rich and the very poor has never before been so huge as we see today.

The last I heard from all our politicians and military personnel - including your president when he lobbied for the "surge"- we need a "political" solution in Iraq. How does replacing a general make that happen?

Sorry - have to disagree with you madkow.

Aug 27, 2007 at 06:08 PM : I for one think this...

I for one think this President is doing an amazing job. I love how so many people think they know everything when it comes to the war, but have you been there? Have you seen first hand what is going on there? I have a family member that has been there 4 times and would go again. Of course you guys don't see the soldiers handing out food and taking care of civilians. My family member is very proud to have served under this Commander in Chief. He won't be saying the same thing if another Clinton gets elected again. Serving 8 years under the 1st Clinton was bad enough.

Aug 27, 2007 at 06:08 PM : It's perfectly...

It's perfectly acceptable to disagree with me :) I'm just trying to inject some deeper thought into the conversation, rather than the typical "I hate Bush" knee-jerk reaction. And I always appreciate a well-thought-out debate, even if it means playing a little devil's advocate!

With regards to the cut funding to Louisiana: I do not believe in a large federal government. I believe that the states should have much more say in how their state is governed and how their money is spent. In my humble opinion, I think the federal government should keep to things that involve us all, like the interstate freeway system, and, yes, even military and the conducting of war. But Louisiana should deal with it's own levees. California should deal with it's own aqueducts and levees. All the states should tax their own citizens to pay for public services within it's own state, not beg the grossly enlarged federal government for funding. The government should be a balance between state and federal rights, and the federal has ballooned way out of proportion. That would cut our federal taxes and put the accountability for our tax dollars closer to home.

You're very right on torture. It doesn't always give us reliable information and it is barbaric. But the question still stands: how do you get intelligence? And I'm not sure if the witchhunt/Inquisition example is an entirely accurate simile. There is a big difference between "Tell us you are a witch or we will kill you" and "Tell us where the next terrorist attack will be or we will dunk your head underwater a lot." That isn't to make light of torture, I hope you understand. But as shows my ignorance, I really am not certain of all the torture methods that were employed by agents of the United States, so I feel I cannot make a fair judgement on whether they were "cruel" or not. I always remember that the media is wont to exaggerate things...

I still think tax cuts were a wonderful step in the right direction. It was meant to jump-start the growth of big business, which would create jobs, increase spending power of the average consumer, and in general spur on economic growth. Ideally, I think the tax system should be completely overhauled. This is an idea I could really get behind: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/forbes_flat_tax.html
But like I said earlier, the tax cuts were part of a theory that has the best intentions. I'm actually amazed it was even passed, seeing as how Congress, in all it's infinite glory, can't stop spending our money either. Thank God for accountability to the constituents, although this ability of the voters to hold our politicians accountable is sorely underused.

Iraq issues I won't even bother to argue, because I think it's pointless by now. It's a cluster****. I say, just put in some generals, go in Patton-style, and send the terrorist hold-outs running. Iraq will probably never be stable because it seems that the several groups there (Shiite, Sunni, and Kurd, if I remember right) are so diametrically opposed that they will never agree. And in that part of the world, a disagreement leads to guns and IEDs and the slaughter of men, women and children. The only reason it was "stable" under Saddam was because he ruled like a mini-Stalin. And I think we can all agree that Stalin was bad, very bad.

Aug 28, 2007 at 12:08 AM : Thanks for the...

Thanks for the comments on this site. I enjoy reading what others say. Its very interesting and informative.

Aug 28, 2007 at 01:08 AM : madkow2747: "If...

madkow2747: "If they're not doing their job of winning the war, then they should be replaced. Would you expect to keep your job when you are incapable of succeeding?" How do you win an un-winnable war? There is no real organized resistance, the time for a "Patton-style" invasion has long since past. As for torture, I'm not going to say that I support it, but when the insurgents are kidnapping and beheading innocents on video, I think it's time we start playing by their rules.

As for jump-starting the growth of big business, do we really want to put our faith in such corrupt institutions? I certainly don't because the lust for money inevitably gets in the way of the best interest of the consumer. In the ideal economy, putting more money in the hands of big business would always lead to better products and service, but do we see this? I don't think so, I think we either see corporations milking consumers of every last penny for life's necessities (drug companies for example) or we see them taking advantage of the less fortunate to offer the lowest prices, thereby forcing competiton out of the market and increasing revenue (Wal-Mart for example).

Do you really think that the government (state or federal) will spend money on projects that make improvements that only might be needed? No way, the government only acts ex post facto, when it is too late...and I thought an ounce of prevention was worth a pound of cure...

Aug 28, 2007 at 06:08 AM : My opinion: History...

My opinion: History will judge the Bush administration the most enept and corrupt America has ever experienced. A man that has claimed he needs no advisor but God has to be suspect at least. And then to use this as a pretext for making wars to further an agenda of corruption further enriching the wealthy rather than putting the interests of America ahead of other nations should speak for itself. But the corruption in Congress is no less. For example, why should Bush together with Congress be talking about "national security" all the while evidencing more concern with securing the borders of other nations like Iraq and Afghanistan than our own borders if not for slave labor? The hypocrisy of things like this means following the money every time.

Aug 28, 2007 at 09:08 AM : There seems to be...

There seems to be another "knee-jerk" reaction occuring here, and it's the Federal Government is Always Bad mantra voiced by so many conservatives.

It's seems so simple to place the failure of the levees on Louisiana, and to assert that the levees only affect the locals. But here's the reality: a huge amount of our country's oil goes through that part of the country. That makes federal involvement crucial to our economy.

I'd like everyone who thinks they could get along quite nicely without our federal systems of support to really think about how they benefit, everyday, from clean water & interstate commerce & food inspections & dozens of other areas that shouldn't vary from state to state, in a country as great as ours.

Maybe our federal government has been failing us because those in power (the Republicans) don't want it to work. If you appoint incompetent & uncaring leaders to various government agencies (like Brownie & Gonzo), of course those departments will fail. Then if you're someone like Dubya, all you have to do is point to these government agencies and say, "See? I told you your tax dollars are being wasted! Big government is baaad!"

Another example of governing through fear. Meh.

Aug 28, 2007 at 09:08 AM : Oohchild - most...

Oohchild - most excellent points. In agreement over here.

Aug 28, 2007 at 10:08 AM : I'm having a lot...

I'm having a lot of fun on this debate! There are so many things to talk about!

    First of all, disliking a strong federal government is not a knee-jerk Republican reaction (I'm not even Republican anyway). It is a civic philosophy that States have rights that should not be usurped by one central power (Washington D.C.). Consider the quote by Gerald Ford: "The government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have." When it comes to government corruption, it is easier to isolate a sickness if it is in your hometown than if it is spread throughout the entire country. The federal government has it's place, like you said, in the control of interstate goods (and I used to be an interstate truck driver so I'm very familiar with this aspect) and sundry other things that affect us all. I believe the federal government has severely overstepped it's bounds though.

    And another specific example you gave of the government failing to help Louisiana when it came to the oil-- am I misinformed? Aren't the oil rigs/wells controlled by private corporations? What business is it of the government to be supplying them with tax payer funds? I'd rather pay the oil companies for that directly, rather than go through the government middle-man. Like all those cheesy direct-buy ads- you save when you cut out the middle-man. But I think rm6 is totally right. Prevention is the key, but governments as they are now are reactive, not proactive, which is a fundamental change we the people need to bring about through holding our government accountable.

    And rm6, this is a matter of believing big business is either inherently good or inherently evil. There is obviously corruption in big business, just like there is corruption in small business, but business is what keeps our nation great. I, for one, believe greatly in capitalism as the surest way to bring income into the country and thereby provide stability and an increase in the quality of life. Would you prefer socialism? And handing the "corrupt" businesses over to the government, which we have already established as corrupt and inept? And as my husband says, capitalism taps into that questionable, but pervasive, human quality greed to advance our economy and society. Socialism discourages growth by suppressing that greed and it leads to failure of the country as a whole (USSR). The U.S. government does come into play in regulating business, and it is a concept like "checks and balances"; they oversee but do not overrule unless it is necessary. We the consumers have the greatest power in determining what corporations do.

"How do you win an un-winnable war?"
The time for Patton-style invasion may have passed, but that doesn't mean it's time for a tail-between-the-legs retreat. To leave now would mean chaos, not just for Iraq but for the entire Middle East. The Middle East is a very important area, mainly due to our reliance on their oil, but also for other reasons. Imagine a major attack on Israel... and imagine the similarities to WWI, with countries jumping into the fray based on alliances instead of direct involvement. It is a scenario I consider nightmare-ish. World peace is directly linked to peace in the Middle East.

    Remember what we did after WWII in Germany and Japan? We didn't invade (or bomb to smithereens, in the case of Japan) and then leave. We stayed in those countries for years afterward in order to establish (or force, however you like it) a democratic government and capitalist economy that would work peacefully with the US. Was it wrong to do that? Do you like being allied with Germany and Japan, which are now among the most powerful countries in the world?

Aug 28, 2007 at 11:08 AM : madkow-here's a...

madkow-here's a link to help explain how important the New Orleans levees are to our entire country, not just the locals who live there:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1169133,00.html

"New Orleans is the busiest port in the U.S.; 20% of all U.S. exports, and 60% of our grain exports, pass through it. Offshore Louisiana oil and gas wells supply 20% of domestic oil production."

IOW, if you leave it up to the local residents to repair & maintain the levees, you risk the economy (exports & energy production) of the whole country. Does this sound rational to you?

Secondly, you can't possibly be serious when you compare our occupation of Japan & Germany after WWII to our occupation of Iraq. Those countries have a national identity & culture which was invaluable in helping to rebuild their countries after defeat. They embraced democracy, while being allowed to retain important features of their ruling culture (such as Japan's royal family remaining in residence.)

Iraq has no national identity, nor unifying culture. They haven't even been a country for a full century. They have used their elections to put people in power who have no allegiance to the United States, and as a result our administration is frustrated & likely to eliminate the Iraqis in power right now. De-Baathification left a huge void in Iraq which Dubya had no idea, nor any plan, to fill.

There's just no comparison between the two situations, I'm afraid.

Aug 28, 2007 at 11:08 AM : I don't disagree...

I don't disagree with you that capitalism has made the US successful or that a healthy business atmosphere keeps the country stable, but letting that greed run rampant is dangerous, like I said before, look at how prescription medication prices are through the roof here. How about how Enron and other out-of-state electricity companies intentionally screwed California during the energy crisis, which all happened because the energy market here was deregulated. Any good economy has socialist tendencies and while we as consumers might wield the most power, we are also the least organized. We suffer from diffusion of responsiblity and apathy, which is why we need the government, which is supposed to act by the will of the people and in their best interest, to see to it that big business acts in the appropriate manner, not just in the way that maximizes profit.

I never advocated a "tail-between-the-legs" retreat, but what do we see now? Chaos in Iraq and the Middle East. Invading Iraq when we weren't yet done stabilizing Afghanistan, and then without the full might of the US was a pretty stupid move. Iraq didn't pose an immediate threat to the safety of the US. I can imagine a major attack on Israel, but then I think of the Six Day War and it reminds me that Israel can take care of itself. If they were attacked they would take care of business, unlike what the US has done. I think that the US did a little too much hoping and not enough forcing in Iraq and now it's pretty much too late to find a decent way out.

"World peace is directly linked to peace in the Middle East." World peace will never be achieved, period. All we have achieved by staying in Iraq is drawing the increased ire of the Muslim world, as well as many other people, including our allies. Do you see a stable government and thriving economy in Iraq within the next 10 or even 20 years? How many more trillions of dollars will it take? Oohchild is right, Iraqis don't have one unifying culture and they definitely haven't embraced democracy. Its been over five years and we have yet to see any real progress, so people at home start to wonder, why doesn't my government care about me enough to spend billions of dollars a month on my problems...

Aug 28, 2007 at 01:08 PM : To start with drug...

To start with drug companies: They have such a high cost to produce medicine I don't blame them for charging an arm and a leg. Research and Development, Testing and FDA approval, selling enough to cover those costs before they lose the property rights and their medicine is turned into generic medicine... We also give a lot of free drugs to poor nations. And the cost of getting FDA approval and going through the government processes and laws is a cost that gets passed along to the consumers of the drugs. I'm not willing to pay 80% of my income in taxes so everyone else can have free OxyContin.

    And yes I do believe the government has it's place in business. I'm not Ayn Rand. And you forget- we the consumers are the government. But it isn't wrong to give corporations a wide berth. Maximizing profits is beneficial to us all. It creates jobs, lowers the price of goods, makes our standard of living increase. If that means that my computer is built in Malaysia by a person working for a dollar a day, so be it, as long as my products are safe (re: China). If you want to talk about slavery, lets talk about true slavery in Thailand and Mauritania, not real workers earning real money.

   In regards to Louisiana: New Orleans is doomed. The Mississippi is vital, and I won't dispute that. So move the port up river, to where it isn't going to fall into the ocean every time a hurricane hits. I don't have a good understanding of rivers- so realize I am showing my ignorance here. But wouldn't it be better in the long run to permanently move the port to a place that is safer and not subject to frequent disasters? Or move the imports/exports to other ports? Yes it might cost more in shipping freight, but it will save us from having to rebuild... and rebuild... and rebuild... "because we NEED it". The article was interesting, but I remain skeptical. Newt Gingrich is not a civil engineer nor is he involved in national shipping logistics. He is a politician. New Orleans was nice, but do we really need to rebuild the Lower Ninth Ward when it has nothing to do with the port? Do I care if Bourbon Street becomes a source of enjoyment for underwater explorers rather than Mardi Gras partiers? Not really.

    Again, I show my ignorance as I am not well versed on the history of Iraq. I have been told that Iraq was "pasted together" after WWII mainly by the Brits. So then the logical solution for a country with no national identity and no unifying culture is to split it up? I'm fine with that. Whatever it takes to keep the peace. But, please, give me a viable solution for Iraq- I eagerly await it! I have heard that the factions would like to stay together, as well as a majority of the Iraqi people. Strength in numbers. The United States is filled with different people who share a common vision and a common reliance upon each other. Same goes for the UK. Would you prefer we put the Baaths back in power because they "unified" Iraq? I'm sure the Kurds would disagree, especially those we keep finding in mass graves.
    If there is a threat to us from the Muslim world, and we eliminate that threat, and it draws the ire of Muslims, so be it. To not eliminate a threat would be foolish. Was Iraq a threat to us? Probably not. But we're there and we need to see it through to a result that is beneficial to us. And is it selfish to want things that benefit us? Yes, Iraq is costly, and I would much rather that money be spent here. I fully agree on that.

Aug 28, 2007 at 02:08 PM : Hey madkow, I really...

Hey madkow, I really like the way you admit to not knowing everything, & I hope this discussion will help you research a bit to understand more about the world we live in. Kudos to you!

As far as New Orleans' port & the importance to our economy, just think back to the weeks & months after Katrina. What happened to gasoline prices? Also, rebuilding communities like the Ninth Ward is important because where else will the dock workers live?

Like it or not, our country is unified under a federal government that makes the whole much stronger than the separate parts. Think about moving to another state and worrying if the water will be as clean as where you're from. Or traveling across California on a nicely maintain road, only to hit potholes & rocks chipping your windshield once a border is crossed to another state.

There are no good solutions for Iraq, madkow. Sometimes situations are just that bad. I don't know what happened to traditional conservative thinking, which once realized that invading Iraq (to liberate it) would result in a quagmire. Cheney knew this after Bush the First declined to take out Saddam. Somewhere along the line, wires got crossed & Iraq became the target. Whatever the US does, there will be death & there will be ethnic murder & millions of people will be forced from their homes.

I'm to the point where now, every young man & woman who dies over there will have paid their country the ultimate price in order to change nothing. Americans, Brits, Iraqis; the nationality doesn't matter. All of those young people have every right to live long lives. Our presence isn't helping at all, it's just recruiting more Islamic terrorists. It's nothing but young men (& some women) bent on killing more young people, who then go on to want revenge & kill more young people. Lets stop the cycle soon.

Aug 28, 2007 at 05:08 PM : I DO now think that...

I DO now think that Bush has taken leave of his senses. He is closely
getting into the Jimmy Carter category! He ignores the wishes of the
majority of the American People, the Congress, the Supreme Court and is
stuck in a time warp of Iraq for the past 5 years. I say this as a
registered Republican! He only has 18 more months to go and he will be
history. The NEW President (whoever it is) will end the war just as Nixon
did with Vietnam when he took over from Lyndon Johnson. Iraq will continue
to have its tribal factions war with each other as they have for centuries
and all the killing and maiming will continue as it did before we ever got
there...and our military presence shall not have made ONE DAMN bit of
difference.

This is my opinion, for what it's worth.

Jim Richards

Aug 28, 2007 at 10:08 PM : &a...

    Don't get me wrong- I never said that it is bad to have a federal government. Without it, we'd be right back at the failure of the Articles of the Confederation, total government ineptness, and such historic occurrences as Shay's Rebellion. And as for hitting potholes and rocks when you cross a state border... have you ever driven in Louisiana (even pre-Katrina), Missouri, Mississippi, Arkansas, or Michigan? The roads are atrocious- and they are federally funded (perhaps with some state funding too). And with clean water, that's what the EPA is for, which is federal and I have no objection to it. But what business is it of the federal government to tell us how to control every aspect of our lives? Too much centralized power is too vulnerable to corruption and abuse of that power. Not to seem too paranoid here, but if we go much further it will seem downright Orwellian.

    Yes, dock workers need somewhere to live, but perhaps I am wrong in thinking that the 469,032 residents of New Orleans pre-Katrina were not all dock workers? From the information I can find, it appears that the Long Beach/Los Angeles port complex employs 4,000 dock workers. So if we take that number, from a larger port, and multiply it by 2.59 (which is the average household size according to the 2000 US Census) we get a population of 10,360. Obviously add in the people needed to supply that population with goods and services... and I still don't think we come near 469,032. And I think that those dock workers and their dependents could find more suitable land to build on than in a bowl below sea level.

    And again, in Iraq, you lament the situation, the pointless deaths, and the hit to our reputation. And you say there are no good solutions. But you do not suggest any solution that would solve even some of the problems. What it is going to be? "Stay the course", "Cut and run", "Scheduled withdrawal"? (I apologize profusely for the cliches... I despise them too.) Hanging our heads and saying that a situation is beyond helping (or even attempting to help) is gross negligence on the part of us all. One thing I can say about Bush is that even though HE messed up BIG TIME, at least he is trying to fix it, as are many of those figures who run these sorts of things (wars, I mean). And hopefully they do everything within their power to minimize the death of the innocent.

Aug 28, 2007 at 11:08 PM : Solutions...(1) Break...

Solutions...(1) Break the country up into 3 ethnic states which solves ethnic disputes of power and might lead to stability faster(2) Leave immediately and let them figure it out on their own which eliminates furthur US war casualties and endless money wasting (3) Continue the occupation and attempts to set up a stable govenment while trying to please everyone and not get killed in the process which, while having the least probability of success, is the most rewarding (4) Order a full occcupation of the country, announce Iraq as a territory of the US, declare martial law and get rid of all dissenters using any means necessary, which would give us the oil we are so dependant upon, while offering an island of stability as the country would be governed by the US in the interest of the US (5) allow the Saudis to take control of the country, which would relieve the US of the responsibility of such a huge mess....

Aug 29, 2007 at 10:08 AM : Thank you very much...

Thank you very much for offering solutions! Now that we have moved past the "woe is me" we can get into the real problem solving!

I think the biggest problem here is the simple fact that the Middle East was left in disarray by foreign powers, just like Israel (abandoned by the British) and all of Africa (hopelessly locked in post-Imperialism). It was wrong to force borders where they made no sense and groups together that wanted nothing to do with each other. It's like forcing a woman to wear a corset- it causes her body to be misshapen and makes her unhealthy. But what's done is done, and we need to work with what we have.

I'm most inclined to accept #4- not as a permanent solution though. I believe the Iraqi people do have a sense of identity now and would like a future that is more certain. Yes, oochild, I do think it is valid to compare Iraq to post WWII Germany and Japan. We crippled two countries and through occupation raised them up to be formidable world powers. I would love to see that happen in Iraq. We just need to push aside this fear of irritating the Muslim world and finish what we began.

Aug 29, 2007 at 11:08 AM : It never ceases to...

It never ceases to amaze me when people who have no idea about a certain culture are convinced they know how to handle said culture.

"Irritating the Muslim world" is one of the most uninformed utterings I've heard in a long time. Put the shoe on the other foot for a moment, madkow: imagine a Muslim country invades us in order to rid us of our leading tyrant, George W. Bush. Do you really believe we would just roll over & allow martial law, in order to make us a Muslim territory? C'mon, gimme a break!

As I said before, we need to get out of Iraq & stop these young people from dying, and the sooner the better.

One other point about Germany & Japan, madkow. Not only did they have the national identity & unity necessary for rebuilding after WWII (which Iraq doesn't have), they both declared war on the US (which, again, Iraq did not.) A better analogy for you to use would be France's rule of Algiers, if you really want to know how to handle a Muslim occupation.

Aug 29, 2007 at 05:08 PM : Yes madkow, I'd...

Yes madkow, I'd love to see the successes of Germany and Japan be repeated in Iraq, but I also love to stay in touch with reality. The Iraqis really don't have a national identity because of the ethnic factions that are endlessly fighting for power, the greatest source of unity they have shown was after the Iraqi soccer team's victory. There are more people there interested in killing Americans than building a successful nation. While this atmosphere prevails, there cannot be significant progress.

Aug 29, 2007 at 05:08 PM : The real sin is that...

The real sin is that JimR is correct. The next president will have to clean up little Bush's mess but in the meantime - our kids are dieing. We all know that we are moving toward leaving - so every day Bush keeps up his war games is a crime.

Aug 29, 2007 at 06:08 PM : To clarify for...

To clarify for everyone we haven't lost the war in-fact when you move into a country take over its capital and hang the former president one can say the war is won. Its the occupation that we are loosing, we should have just let cards fall where they may and not be in the middle. Every time someone says we are loosing the war it weakens us and strengthens our enemies. We have won the war its the occupation we are loosing. GET U.S. OUT of the middle of Iraq. If we leave the middle east all together another country will come in and blockade access to oil and then all those soccer moms in SUVs, and big oil companies wouldn't be very happy. Its a big picture thing. Either we occupy and control the flow of mideast oil or China or Russia does. O ya i cant stand Bush and our system is completley broken and unfixable without throwing out the entire current government.

Aug 29, 2007 at 09:08 PM : &a...

    Oohchild, I am researching the French occupation of Algeria. It isn't something I have learned about yet, but I will learn what I can about it as quickly as possible. From what I have read so far, Algeria was occupied by the Berbers and the Arabs (who ruled over the Berbers). The French invaded because of financial dealings gone awry. And then they turned it into a colony and subsidized settlement by European farmers. This is a quote from a French soldier, Lieutenant-Colonel de Montagnac: "This is how, my dear friend, we must do war against Arabs: kill all men over the age of fifteen, take all their women and children, charged the buildings with them [i.e. probable allusion to military brothels], send them to the Marquesas Islands or elsewhere. In one word, annihilate all that will not crawl beneath our feet like dogs." Do you really think that this is what Bush is doing? So far in my research, I fail to see the similarities. Or are you saying that this is what you would like to see happen. You were vague.

    "Imagine a Muslim country invades us in order to rid us of our leading tyrant, George W. Bush"
George Bush a tyrant? Hardly. He was elected by the people... and re-elected by the people. Definition of tyrant: n. any person in a position of authority who exercises power oppressively or despotically. I certainly didn't elect a despot. (Well, I didn't re-elect a despot. I wasn't old enough to vote in his first election.) And after his bungles and fiascoes, Bush doesn't carry much power anymore anyway- at least, not with the American people. He is already a lame duck.

    "Do you really believe we would just roll over & allow martial law, in order to make us a Muslim territory?"
Of course not. But are we trying to make them a Christian (or insert any other religion) territory? Do we give a *hoot* about changing their religion in any way? A conversion to democracy from totalitarianism is what we are aiming for. And I, for one, would not want to be under a dictator and would welcome democracy. That is the challenge to the Iraqi people.
    It is not our goal to rule over Iraq. It is our goal to have a self-ruled, democratic Iraqi government that is sympathetic to United States interests in the region. That was precisely what my comparison to Germany and Japan was all about.

    "There are more people there interested in killing Americans than building a successful nation. While this atmosphere prevails, there cannot be significant progress." I disagree. I think there are a few people interested in killing Americans, as well as their own people, and they terrorize the majority that want peace and prosperity. Thus why we are trying to root out those few and allow the majority of good, decent Iraqi people to progress toward life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, to quote our founding fathers.

    And, to perhaps the most sensitive and emotional issue, the soldiers. Soldiers fight and some soldiers die. This statement is not intended to minimize their contributions and their lives, but rather a statement of fact. A young man or young woman who enlists is grossly naive if they expect to never risk their life. And do they not realize that their purpose is to follow the orders of the Commander in Chief? Those men and women that enlisted and insist on not serving because they deem the war morally offensive are- forgive my bluntness- stupid. Did they think the life of a soldier is picking daisies and frolicking through the green grass? They are people, yes, but they are also the tools of war for the American people, and it is within our right to use them to that purpose. (Ah, but I can hear the emotional outcry already...)

Aug 30, 2007 at 09:08 AM : Well madkow,...

Well madkow, you've got a lot of info there. Some of it is pretty good, but much of what you've written isn't the reality of the situation, I'm afraid.

First, have you seen the increase in young men being detained in Iraq? This is exactly what happened when we first entered the Iraqi countryside four years ago, & it was a fiasco. In fact, you should read the book Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq for a detailed discussion about how to handle an insurgency. In short, the occupying force never wins the strategic goal of security/political stability by detaining thousands of people in grand, sweeping round-ups. Many military commanders pointed to the French/Algerian conflict early on in our occupation, when these sweeps first occurred, but were ignored. Seems they're being ignored again.

Second, the hypothetical I laid out about our invasion over Bush's leadership wasn't meant to be taken literally. I assumed you'd understand I was taking the point of view of the invaders, who would inevitably justify their actions by pointing to Bush's vile tyranny. Just as we did in invading Iraq. Sorry you didn't follow my hyperbole.

Third, the goal of Islamic extremists is to rule the world, including the US, as a Muslim theocracy. And who's to say that American democracy is a good match with Muslim theology? When you look at successful Muslim countries like Indonesia, the one factor they share is, again, a national unity & culture. Here's a question for you: how exactly can democracy overcome the sectarian & fundamental differences of the Iraqi Sunnis, various Shia sects, & the Kurds? While many of our founding fathers were deist in principle, there was still an under-riding current of Christian unity when they developed our republic. There was a general tolerance of religion among that group of men. Where's the corresponding unity, or even tolerance, in Iraq?

Finally, the strawman you created around the soldiers serving in Iraq really insults those serving our country right now. I think the troops realize they are doing their duty by putting their lives on the line every day. Those of us who want them home know they're doing a damn fine job at providing security, as well as just staying alive, day after day. We just want them home soon, so they don't have to risk their lives as part of their daily jobs. I don't think anyone believes the military is a tip-toe through the tulips, as you assert.

Aug 30, 2007 at 10:08 AM : Oh, you're...

Oh, you're tough! But this just makes it all the better :)

So I am unrealistic... for wanting to see Iraq at peace, for wanting the Middle East to move beyond the stagnation and cultural impasse. Yes, I do severely lack an in-depth understanding of Iraq and the Middle East, both culturally and politically. But that is because I am not Iraqi or Middle Eastern or Arab or Muslim or Sunni/Shi'ite/Kurdish. And what I know of the region is through books, the internet, and the beer-goggled media. And I think this is probably true of the vast majority of people. In short, my lack of a direct relation to the situation means that I do not have a true grasp of the situation- so I should buy into the belief that Iraq is a last cause? Utterly hopeless?

I understood your hyperbole very well. I just considered it irrational. To satisfy you, if a tyrant were to come to power in the US, I believe the American people would resist internally and welcome the help of other nations. Yes, I really do believe that. When we were under the rule of Britain (a tyrant), we banded together and fought, and we asked the French for help. So the Iraqi people did not band together. So we assume they wanted Saddam in power and despise us for removing him. So lets withdraw immediately, and leave them with a new dictator. How about a nice man in the way of Pol Pot? Is that more to your liking? Would you have us become isolationists once again? Like Switzerland... they don't do anything, but at least they don't piss anyone off...

Ok, so the Iraqi people are not stepping up to reclaim their country (as you insist) because they don't want democracy (as you imply). They want theocracy (which I don't believe clashes with democracy, but for the sake of argument we'll assume it does) and they are intolerant of any other religion or culture besides their own. This splits Iraq into thirds... so lets split it. What happens? First we'll need to force many people to pick up and leave- to move into the appropriate religion "zone". Second... what? We leave them to form their own theocracies? We leave them open to the influence of Iran? We leave valuable oil lines vulnerable? How about we just stop using oil all together... quit cold turkey (thus crippling ourselves in the process)... and leave the Middle East to fend for itself. How about we break alliances with Israel, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and other US-friendly countries? How about we prepare for war on a scale as never before seen?

Do you think that will bring the soldiers home?

Aug 30, 2007 at 10:08 AM : Oh okay, we're...

Oh okay, we're just being silly now. I get it.

;)

Aug 30, 2007 at 01:08 PM : No, I was being quite...

No, I was being quite serious. At this juncture, I consider the US to be a stabilizing presence rather than an instigating one. And I, accepting that my mind is restricted by insurmountable ignorance on matters of humankind and the future, feel that this is an accurate assessment of a likely outcome.

But if you feel we've reached an impasse, then so be it. It was a lovely debate :)

Aug 30, 2007 at 02:08 PM : No silliness?...

No silliness? Really!?! [/Stan from Southpark voice]

All right then, I'll bite: what's your definition of "stabilizing"?

Based on your answer, please then tell me if you would consider missing 15 of 18 benchmarks set for Iraq either a good sign, or a bad one, as far as our stabilization goes?

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN3038813320070830

Aug 30, 2007 at 04:08 PM : All right, I'll...

All right, I'll bite back: A presence is stabilizing when it prevents all hell from breaking loose. We went in there and messed a lot of things up- why would we just leave it to degrade into something even worse? Though how I got into a position of having to defend Bush's current plan is beyond me. I've said from the beginning that it was faulty and needed to be changed.

I am reading up on the benchmarks, not having known exactly what they are. This is the source I am reading from: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070712.html
It appears that these are the areas we have satisfactorily completed (and I quote them verbatim): (1) Forming a Constitutional Review Committee and then completing the constitutional review, (2) Enacting and implementing legislation on procedures to form semi-autonomous regions, (3) Establishing supporting political, media, economic, and services committes in Support of the Baghdad security plan, (4) providing three Trained and Ready Iraqi brigades to support Baghdad operations, (5) Ensuring that, as Prime Minister Maliki was quoted by President Bush as saying "the Baghdad Security Plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] secratian or political affiliations, (6) Establishing all of the planned joint security stations in neighborhoods across Iraq, (7) Ensuring that the rights of minority political parties in the Iraqi legislature are protected, and (8) Allocating and spending $10 billion in Iraqi revenues for reconstruction projects, including delivery of essential services, on an equitable basis.

Benchmark vii, "Enacting and implementing legislation establishing a strong militia disarmament program to ensure that such security forces are accountable only to the central government and loyal to the constitution of Iraq" is not recommended to proceed yet, even by the UN. Benchmarks 10 and 11 would probably be of the most interest to you.

BTW, this document is an interesting read into the situation: http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/iraq/2007/iraq-strategy011007.pdf
And this is interesting too: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/08/20070822.html
You might see them as propaganda, given the source, but they are an intriguing view into the situation from the viewpoint of the Executive Branch.