First off, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about as there is a continued CIVIL WAR in Iraq between Shia and Sunni Muslims. But leave it to you to immediately "spin" the violence earlier this week in Baghdad as coming from al-Qaeda so that you can pin it on President Obama. How could we not be WINNING in Iraq??? Bush said that we were WINNING, no? Could it be that the worst President in modern American history has been incredibly naive - - - thinking that Sunnis and Shia can live together in peace and harmony? Didn't Bush allow for Iraqi Security Forces to be training in keeping the peace over THREE YEARS AGO??? How could these Iraqi security forces not be able to protect and secure the primary Shia Mosque in Baghdad??? Did the Iraqi police do something stupid like lift a curfew imposed to prevent further sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni Muslims? I believe so. http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/whitehouse/20051130.htm
Trade gone bad. The premise (or objective): To gain a western foothold in highly volatile mid-east region by establishing a military presence via a liberated Iraq proxy. After all, having an ear on the ground in a friendly is most certainly more conducive to counter-terrorist activities, no matter how many spy satellites or drones you have in the air. The execution of the premise: FUBARED Can it still be done? With a different mindset, sure. Will it be costly and perhaps add even more instability to the area? You betcha. I've been saying this for 6.5 years.
Trade gone waaaaay bad is a very good wayto put it. Someone I talk to with great frequency laughs at notion of being out of Iraq anytime within the next 5-6 years. He says it would take them that long under current tempo to exfil all the equipment that they have in the country. Sad but true. This is Bush's Vietnam.
<p> <img alt="http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2006/11/09/elect1_wideweb__470x304,0.jpg" src="http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2006/11/09/elect1_wideweb__470x304,0.jpg" /> </p> <p> </p> <p>Please come back, Sir! We need you to keep us safe. </p
Gee, thanks for that. Clearly what you have posted is 100% correct, and the fact that Obama has announced that we will pull out of Iraq combined with him decrying the tactics our country's intelligence agency used to gather information have had no impact on the confidence level of the insurgents and therefore no impact on the level of violence. I really appreciate your explaining all this...what's that? Khomeini was Jewish? Wow, something else I didn't know...
If the so called "insurgents" really want the US to leave, they don't engage in violence now, they allow the US to leave quietly... Then when the US is gone, they make their grab for power and control... In any case, the US has been in Iraq since 2003, and they still cannot take care of themselves? Ridiculous... After 6 years, if the majority of people in Iraq want a democracy, they will fight and die for it... I would hope that Americans learn that you can't give democracy or force democracy on a conquered nation...they have to come to want it badly enough to make it happen on their own... I say get the hell out now, cut the losses on a bad trade and move on. Let Israel take care of them...
That would be reasonable thinking if Bush were in charge. However, Obama is in charge. The terrorist have waited a bit to see what their best option is and it is obvious they want to go the Somali route. In Somalia, the world saw that if the US has a weak President then you dont have to defeat its military. You only have to make the conflict politically damaging for the President. Once you do that, the weak President will call the military off. There are countless reports that say that Bin Laden saw Clinton's weakness in Somalia which allowed Bin Laden to become more aggressive. Bin Laden's problem is that he assumed Bush was the same as Clinton. Bin Laden learned quickly, that Bush has a backbone and some loser terrorist in a cave ain't going to make Bush back down. Now to Iraq They know, Obama doesnt have the backbone that Bush had. They know, the more blood they shed, the faster Obama will want to clean his hands of it. Their objective from here on out is to escalate the violence and maybe try to spread it to the greater region.
Don't agree at all. Obama was not weak with the pirates... That wasn't backbone in Bush, that was stupidity... If Bush had backbone, he would have volunteered to go to NAM... Put down the right wing talking points for a moment and think about the situation... It does not benefit the so called insurgents to fight now just because Obama in in the house...
He wasn't weak with pirates but he wasn't particularly strong. What happened with the pirates was nothing special. Its pretty standard hostage protocal. We can stop the chest pounding about the pirates. If you want weakness, look at his response to North Korea. "North Korea broke the rules, once again, by testing a rocket that could be used for long range missiles," Obama said in his speech. ""Words must mean something . . . The world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons." Words must mean something? Hey Obama, your words are hollow.