I know this will upset those who constantly cheer against America, freedom, democracy and anything in general deemed "good" but things really are going well in Iraq.
5 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Captain:
You're right. The war in Iraq has been won. All we have to do now is not blow the endgame, and President Bush still has over a year in office, so we're OK there. It's obvious that General Petraeus should have been Time's Person of the Year (but they couldn't admit that, could they?)
Next, we need to start paying serious attention to Afghanistan and Pakistan (it's a single problem, and has been since the British Raj in India called it the "Northwest Frontier"). Iran is a problem too, but a different problem.
I'm not American. Are you folks going to elect a president who can handle this? Whether you do will have as big an impact on world history as getting Bush over Gore did in 2000. The ball's in your court. Who are you going to elect?
I oppose the war in Iraq. I don't think much good will come of it, and even if we're successful I don't like the interventionist trend it represents. But this is good news, and I'm glad to see that things are calming down somewhat.
Success in Iraq should also include the Iranians, which control the level of violence against the Americans and temperment of the streets. The Iranians have been master funders and organizers of the resistance to the Americans in Iraq. What Americans are watching is the troops being rocked to sleep while the Iranians are actively planning and funding an operation that will probably look like Beirut in 1983.
The bottom line: violence is still prevalent in Iraq, although it has dipped, no group has surrendered, and the surge should have been used to start getting troops out. If anyone thinks there is a military solution to what is going on in Iraq they need their head examined.
Military isn't the sole solution to Iraq, but it is a crucial factor. Other ones are things like media, establishing a solid government, etc...
I wouldn't say Iraq represents an "interventionist" policy necessarily, because Saddam did violate the Gulf War ceasefire multiple times, which is grounds for getting attacked.
Obviously that alone I wouldn't say was an excuse to invade the country (and it was only one of the reasons listed for invasion), but I mean, if you violate a ceasefire, ultimately you can't complain then if the opposing country comes in and throws you out of power.
5 comments:
Captain:
You're right. The war in Iraq has been won. All we have to do now is not blow the endgame, and President Bush still has over a year in office, so we're OK there. It's obvious that General Petraeus should have been Time's Person of the Year (but they couldn't admit that, could they?)
Next, we need to start paying serious attention to Afghanistan and Pakistan (it's a single problem, and has been since the British Raj in India called it the "Northwest Frontier"). Iran is a problem too, but a different problem.
I'm not American. Are you folks going to elect a president who can handle this? Whether you do will have as big an impact on world history as getting Bush over Gore did in 2000. The ball's in your court. Who are you going to elect?
I oppose the war in Iraq. I don't think much good will come of it, and even if we're successful I don't like the interventionist trend it represents. But this is good news, and I'm glad to see that things are calming down somewhat.
Yeah, well what about Jamie Lynn Spears?
Success in Iraq should also include the Iranians, which control the level of violence against the Americans and temperment of the streets. The Iranians have been master funders and organizers of the resistance to the Americans in Iraq. What Americans are watching is the troops being rocked to sleep while the Iranians are actively planning and funding an operation that will probably look like Beirut in 1983.
The bottom line: violence is still prevalent in Iraq, although it has dipped, no group has surrendered, and the surge should have been used to start getting troops out. If anyone thinks there is a military solution to what is going on in Iraq they need their head examined.
Danny L. McDaniel
Lafayette, Indiana
Military isn't the sole solution to Iraq, but it is a crucial factor. Other ones are things like media, establishing a solid government, etc...
I wouldn't say Iraq represents an "interventionist" policy necessarily, because Saddam did violate the Gulf War ceasefire multiple times, which is grounds for getting attacked.
Obviously that alone I wouldn't say was an excuse to invade the country (and it was only one of the reasons listed for invasion), but I mean, if you violate a ceasefire, ultimately you can't complain then if the opposing country comes in and throws you out of power.
Post a Comment