Even Barney Gets It

playboyadonis
December 6 2006, 1:20PM

After looking at today's roundtable and panel discussions, I sense President Bush will somehow use the findings of the Iraq Study Group as a catalyst and climb out of his hole. He stated that the findings are important and were compiled in the best interest of the people. The last time we heard him say best interest of the people he declared war.

When did we become the United States of Bush? While I understand that we should slowly pull out of Iraq and let the Iraq people shape their own future, I have to agree with the President that we can't up and leave until they are completely ready. Or our time and blood will be in vain. It is sad that we will continue to have casualties of this war but let this be our lesson to employ "study groups" earlier so that we don't waste lives, resources, time.

castiron
December 6 2006, 4:03PM

@playboyadonis: Could it be that the time and blood spent and lost has already been in vain? This war has yielded no successes. I seriously cannot think of any. Some might say that the capture of Sadam Hussein a success, but that I disagree. He was a dictator, but at least he had the country on lockdown. Under Hussein, the country was organized chaos.

The country is now in civil war and has become a breeding ground and safe haven for terrorists. America and its allies are more at risk today than they were at the start of the war. I'm afraid that all of our resources, human lives included, have been used in vein.

I agree that a little more humility and less arrogance would have prevented this. Listening to study groups early on would have led us in a different direction. So many people warned us including but not limited to Kofe Anan, Colin Powell, Jimmy Carter, etc. We should have listened.

playboyadonis
December 6 2006, 7:11PM

In considering the lives of the soldiers who died, whose intentions were to enable the people of Iraq to vote and gain more control of their own lives, their blood is not in vain. Now that the President is considering benchmarks, for the US to continue on the same path in Iraq would make any further loss of life in vain.

We are living in the terrorist era so war games are certain and people will die as a result of our testing the waters. The President should have developed a stronger strategy. He drove us into Iraq and it seems as if it is up to us to drive ourselves back.

Hussein's capture is a result of Bush's strategy. Bush needed to show the world that the US will not be intimidated and the capture of such a leader, Hussein, would prove the US' strength post World Trade Center collapse. We might not agree with this strategy, but we use diversions to prevent or delay any further attacks on the US. Now we need to open our eyes to potential threats from other nations and wrap up efforts in Iraq.

Mitch
December 6 2006, 7:39PM

The Bushes and Reagan were never trusted by most Black people to begin with. The Florida vote scheme was an indication of what was to follow: Iraq!

cmoney
December 6 2006, 7:50PM

I hate to say it, but I think the blood of our men and women is being spilled for naught. Iraq was not a threat to us and never attacked us. Saddam Hussein was our ALLY in the 80s. He had nothing to do with Spetember 11th or Al Quaeda. I suspect that the 100,000 plus dead Iraqis would gladly have preferred to live under Saddam than be slaughtered in a "democracy" (as if we know anything about democracy). Besides, we never went to war for democacy's sake to begin with. Remember weapons of mass destruction and Osama Bin Laden (who has never set foot in Iraq)? All this democracy crap was brought up after the WMD's that never existed were never found. Let's not fall for the Fox News spin on why we went to war.

playboyadonis
December 6 2006, 8:08PM

There is no concrete evidence for why we went into war. However, when you consider the fact that Bush is a war nut, we only had one reason to go into a land that was dark, misunderstood, and mysterious, and that reason, much more than Fox News could ever grasp, lies in the mass of non-intelligence that will go to the grave with Bush.

I don't condone our actions. A part of me wants to protest and say get rid of the President because we are burying our children because of this war. Then the more non-emotional side of me says: there is a strategy here that I cannot quite connect with. As our Cheif Commanding Officer, Bush has an agenda and I am interested in learning more about it from him. And not from the media. Only unbiased people who are versed in the topics of war will be able to put it all into perspecive. There is much more to this war than the death of our loved ones. There is much more indeed. I would like to hear responses from people who live to study war.

cmoney
December 6 2006, 9:38PM

Wow! You give Bush a lot of credit for having an ounce of integrity and a "strategy".It really isn't that deep--the guy is crazy and ignorant. He allowed himself to be manipulated by the Neo-Cons (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, et al) to carry out an outrageous plan to dominate the Middle East that was dreamt up years ago in the Project for a New American Century. They've been pushing this agenda for years. They pushed the first Bush to invade Iraq (under suspect circumstances in which Saddam was encouraged to invade Kuwait) and even tried to get Clinton to do similar things. Bush II is the only President stupid enough to have actually tried it all out. Anyone with any sense could have predicted the fallout that we are seeing now and we will be paying for this folly for decades to come. Since there is no sense in reasoning with Bush, let's just kidnap the dog and hold him hostage until all the troops are brought home.

JSUphinest601
December 7 2006, 12:01AM

Speachless !!!!

playboyadonis
December 7 2006, 1:22AM

You misinterpret. I am not giving him credit, I am simply speaking to the fact that Bush is a lover of war.

There are equal arguments for both sides. And I am intrigued to hear and understand both sides.

I simply want to hear the views of an un-biased individual who analyzes wars perhaps non US and non Middle Eastern nor African.

Is there a limit to the amount of information civilians get to know and see? Also, is there a limit to the President's power and if so, has he reached it?

I am not excited about war nor do I smile at the acts of the ignorant. I am the type of person who can respect people's angle regardless to my own belief and understanding.

playboyadonis
December 7 2006, 3:25AM

The internet is marvelous for keeping people connected, however, it only makes things worse when there is miscommunication. There are certain levels of a topic that shouldn't be discussed outside of face-to-face and one-on-one conversation.

There are people who are pro Bush and until one of those type of people enter this discussion, me and you will continue to debate over viewpoints that I agree with you on. I am glad I sparked something in you, but, I was trying to spark something from one of those pro Bush, pro war individuals.

On another note, I also wanted to hear from someone who has an interesting view on the state of the nation and our direction into the future. I love to hear well rounded conversations that are centered on the overall strategies and implications of war. And not just "we need to pull out..." or "how many more lives..."

cmoney
December 7 2006, 9:17AM

I'm not attacking you. But we are beyond trying to see both sides of this issue. That is how we got into this in the first place. The media trying to be fair when confronted with an utterly ridiculous concept proposed by Bush--invading a nation that never attacked us. There is no other point of view. It's just wrong, like slavery. Just like we felt when Japan attacked us in Pearl Harbor 65 years ago today, the Iraqis have every reason to repel our invasion. It was dead wrong. And we do need to just pull out. I don't think anyone's life is worth sacrificing for stupid idea.

playboyadonis
December 7 2006, 1:24PM

Why did Japan attack us?
Do you agree with the ISG that we should consult Iran and Syria?
Do you agree with the ISG that we are in Iraq to fight Al-Queda?

cmoney
December 7 2006, 2:27PM

Japan was on an imperialist war footing and had to clear out it's biggest potential rival in the Pacific, the US. Note "potential" we had not attacked Japan and had not declared war on Japan. Imperialism is the problem and we can't seem to learn from history. Yes, we should consult Iran and Syria--whether we do or not, they will affect the outcome in Iraq. No, we are not in Iraq to fight Al-Quaeda. Al-Quaeda had little if any presence in Iraq when Saddam was in power. We allowed them to establish a foothold by disrupting the government of Iraq. Our main enemy in Iraq are native born Iraqis who are opposed to our presence. We are in Iraq because Bush wanted us to go into Iraq and he fed us a bunch of lies doing so. Al-Quaeda was and is in Afghanistan.

Mr. X
December 8 2006, 2:06PM

And yet his ass is STILL IN OFFICE WITH NO HINT OF IMPEACHMENT!
His daddy didn't get Hussein out of Iraq, so he had 2 finish the job.