One question after George W. Bush's speech last night, what is the ultimate goal in Iraq now, and how are these 20,000 new troops going to help achieve that goal?
I know once upon a time, we were looking for Weapons of Mass Destruction, then eradicate any local links to Al-Queda, then remove Saddam, then to make sure elections took place and a new government installed, then bring the ethnic groups together, then prevent civil war, now what?
I just want someone to define what our goal is by being there. In almost every war, there has been a central goal, which unites citizens and countries. Defeat communism, defeat the axis powers in 1941, defeat the axis powers in 1918, avenge the Lusitania, free the slaves, defeat Napolean, etc.
What is the goal now? What is the purpose of sending 20,000 American Soldiers to Iraq? To what end? What do we hope to achieve? Too many questions, not enough answers.
Why is Congress acting like they can do nothing about this? Where is the courage necessary to stand up and put an end to this tragic farce.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
What was the reason in the first place??? Money is the answer.
Thanks for visiting my blog... Wars should be eradicated, and warmongers nothing else.
Why sent 20 000 young people to their death, for whose ambition???
In theory, it was all about WMD, now I have completely lost track of why we are there, and what we hope to achieve by staying and "Surging"
Whatever the real reason for the Iraq was was, we lost it a long time ago. As for the "surge", I'm reminded of a nursery rhyme-
"all the king's horses and all the king's men /
couldn't put Humpty Dumpty together again"
You know I too question why we are there in the first place. However, I can't see why having Iraq collapse will be better. Pulling out and letting Iran, Syria, etc have their way will be a disaster let alone $100 price for oil. I have yet to hear a better plan other than increasing troops.
Eric
It is about OIL and MONEY .. Nothing more - nothing less. the rich get rich and the poor stay poor. Oh, and evidently so that we can become a Dictatorchip instead of a Democracy cause Bush sure aint listening to us!
Seems to me that a while back he had a few generals making sounds about how it was all going wrong and how it all needed a rethink.
I read or heard a report that some big wig over their compiled a report that made a few unpalatable suggestions, phased withdrawal being one of them.
Now we have this. Maybe he decided to listen to a few more hawks.
A cynic would say that he doesn't want to be rememebered as the president who pulled out of Iraq before the job was done, but yes indeed, what is 'the job'? What are these guys supposed to be doing there even.
I think in the circles of his political advisors and analysts, there is probably a fear that Iraqs neighbours could in theory take advantage in some way, especially in the absence of a big western contingent.
Who knows, it all sucks though - be you an Iraqi citizen or foreign soldier on the ground.
It has the appearance that President Bush thinks of soldiers as a bad business man thinks of money. I looks like he's trying to fix a flawed plan by just throwing more troops out there much like a bad businessman (which Bush is purportedly supposed to be) throws money at a problem--like the old saying "Good money chasing bad money?"
Martine and Carol,
No doubt, Money and Oil are indeed the real underlying reasons, but what is the justification that the current leadership is providing? What are we hoping to achieve by being there now?
Eric,
I am not sure that Iraq will completely collapse upon itself as has been suggested. This region was self governed for centuries under the Ottoman Turks, until the British parsed it up as it is now in the 1920's. I don't know about the Syrians, but I know the Irianians are ethnic persians, so there are probably enough differences there to keep Iran at bay for the short time.
Rob,
Bushy may not want to be the president who pulls out of Iraq before the job is done, but that just begs the question of what is the job? Is it to keep Iraq unitied, just like the goal in Vietnam was to keep the countries seperate?
I definately believe he is a victim of group think, in that he has too many advisors who either are not wiling to speak up with an alternate opinion, or they are just following the Pres and VP down this path.
Doc,
Yes, he is a bad business man, and it shows. He seems to be making the same mistakes over again, not learning from those mistakes, disregarding the advise of those that disagree and just seems to be willing to throw more people at a problem, rather than redefining the problem and goals in order to develop a new strategy. This is the direction I would want a leader to take, but no such dice.
This strategy (or lack thereof) reminds me of the old technology adage, you cannot put 9 woman in a room for a month and have a baby, it just is not going to work.
PNAC --- that's my answer. We have a retardedmonkeyass - horse-shit-on-a-stick - drunk-silver-spoon-in-the-mouth-spoiled-motherfucker asshole for a POTUS -- he doesn't give a rats ass about the over 3,000 dead soldiers, the 800,000 dead Iraqi's who we are liberating right out of their bodies or the working poor here in this country.
But then again, I sugar coated this post....
I have a blog that I rant on about the real axis of evil - Bush-Cheney-Rove -- you can visit and yell back if you click on my moniker.
Peace....
The justification for being there is/was the supposed Nuclear weapons that Hussein was stockpiling (you know, the ones we gave him?)Oops! We got bad information..so why the hell didn't we leave then? well,, hey now that we are here, lets build a new pipeline for the oil- "Make No Mistake About It" to quote an idiot! LOL!
Post a Comment