SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: BEEF JERKEY who wrote (743495)6/23/2006 4:45:55 PM
From: steve harris  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
the same group that criticized BushI for not going to Baghdad is the same group that is criticizing BushII for going into Baghdad.

"democrats out of power"



To: BEEF JERKEY who wrote (743495)6/23/2006 6:48:19 PM
From: Machaon  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
Your point is well taken - the US could be pretty much stuck in Iraq now. It’s a quagmire however.

Better Iraq be a quagmire than New York, or other U.S. cities becoming quagmires.

Iraq is a mess. That’s what the Insurgents have accomplished. The standard for them succeeding is low too.

Things are getting better in Iraq. For one thing, al-Zarqawi is dead. Muslim terrorists have very few leaders who have planning and implementation skills, so when one of their few "intelligent" leaders gets killed, it usually results in more terrorist deaths and fewer of their terrorist successes.

Five years from now it will look the same. They will never get the lights back on in Bagdad because it’s too easy to disrupt power flow. Without electricity nothing progresses. That’s one thing I think of. They may be able to establish some level of security in Bagdad by putting it under siege – so everyone sits in their house in the dark – some progress.

As Iraq's police force and military gets larger and better, things will continue to improve.

But...... I agree with you that the US is going to be in Iraq for a long time, just as we were/are in Korea, Germany, Japan, etc. for a long time.

Meanwhile Bush speaks of a victory that is impossible to accomplish. It cost $7 billion a month to stay in Iraq - money that could easily be spent on other things - like the deficit for starters. That’s not mentioning the couple or three dozen American lives lost every thirty days.

We have no choice. There is no going back. If we allow the Islamists to take over Iraq, the next battlefield (after Europe is taken over by the Islamists in about a week) will be the US.

My main point is he should never have gone into Iraq in the first place.

I disagree. Saddam was a very dangerous, brutal and powerful leader. It was only a matter of time before he would have posed an existential threat to the U.S.

Bush simply didn't understand what he was getting himself into.

You are probably correct, but Bush still made the correct move. World War III, against Islamist terrorism, has started in Iraq instead of the U.S. or Europe. Good move, right?

The man simply doesn’t have the intellectual power to be a President.

Yeh, sure. The stock market and our economy is strong, inflation is low, business is good, Republicans have control over Congress and the White House, and there is more nudity on TV. Things couldn't be better.

I can't imagine any nation wanting to be like Iraq is.

How about how the US will become, if we lose in Iraq to the Muslim terrorists?