Comments on: IF BUSH GOES “ALL IN,” I’M WITH HIM http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/12/14/if-bush-goes-all-in-im-with-him/ Politics served up with a smile... And a stilletto. Fri, 01 May 2026 20:18:32 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: chep http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/12/14/if-bush-goes-all-in-im-with-him/comment-page-1/#comment-446863 chep Tue, 19 Dec 2006 08:50:07 +0000 http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/12/14/if-bush-goes-all-in-im-with-him/#comment-446863 The real problem is that Bush didnt use overwhelming force in Iraq to begin with. The real problem is that Bush didnt use overwhelming force in Iraq to begin with.

]]> By: zaq http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/12/14/if-bush-goes-all-in-im-with-him/comment-page-1/#comment-444416 zaq Sun, 17 Dec 2006 05:49:37 +0000 http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/12/14/if-bush-goes-all-in-im-with-him/#comment-444416 I agree with B. Poster. If those there now had been allowed to engage the enemies, the war would be over. Political changes must be made in Iraq, and more political will must be found here in the U.S. Shove the diplomats back to the State Department. Many of the current functions of our troops should be done by the Iraqi police except their training is two years behind that of the Iraqi Army. The training of the Iraqi police and equipping both the police and the Army must be given the same priority as adding more U.S. combat troops. It might be more troops are not needed. I agree with B. Poster. If those there now had been allowed to engage the enemies, the war would be over. Political changes must be made in Iraq, and more political will must be found here in the U.S. Shove the diplomats back to the State Department.

Many of the current functions of our troops should be done by the Iraqi police except their training is two years behind that of the Iraqi Army. The training of the Iraqi police and equipping both the police and the Army must be given the same priority as adding more U.S. combat troops. It might be more troops are not needed.

]]> By: Doug Purdie http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/12/14/if-bush-goes-all-in-im-with-him/comment-page-1/#comment-442494 Doug Purdie Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:30:26 +0000 http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/12/14/if-bush-goes-all-in-im-with-him/#comment-442494 It <i>will</i> work. But, adding troops and "doubling-down" efforts won't be enough. As B. Poster said, we have to allow them to actually fight. And, by fight, I mean fight ruthlessly, without regard for the opinions of the world's media and governing elite, because the only opinions that matter are ours and the Iraqi's. In America, support for the war will return. America loves a war time president, but only if he is winning. In Iraq, those citizens who were with us after deposing their brutal dictator will start to support us again and those who have always been against us will fear and respect us. In a culture with a "King of the Hill" mentality, we have to march up the hill, proclaims ourselves their King, then re-start democracy building. We say, "Your King orders you to choose your own government. It's safe now." Break 'em down, then build 'em back up. It will work. But, adding troops and “doubling-down” efforts won’t be enough. As B. Poster said, we have to allow them to actually fight. And, by fight, I mean fight ruthlessly, without regard for the opinions of the world’s media and governing elite, because the only opinions that matter are ours and the Iraqi’s.

In America, support for the war will return. America loves a war time president, but only if he is winning.

In Iraq, those citizens who were with us after deposing their brutal dictator will start to support us again and those who have always been against us will fear and respect us.

In a culture with a “King of the Hill” mentality, we have to march up the hill, proclaims ourselves their King, then re-start democracy building. We say, “Your King orders you to choose your own government. It’s safe now.”

Break ‘em down, then build ‘em back up.

]]> By: harrison http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/12/14/if-bush-goes-all-in-im-with-him/comment-page-1/#comment-441847 harrison Fri, 15 Dec 2006 07:18:01 +0000 http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/12/14/if-bush-goes-all-in-im-with-him/#comment-441847 The most blatant threat may not always be the most potent one, agreed, <b>b.poster</b>. Yet it is not a coincidence that Ahmadinejad just so happens to be harbouring nuclear ambitions and is in the process of fulfilling them, as well as attempting to reduce our effectiveness to deal with him via Iraq. And now the Sunni bloc is considering a Nuclear Proliferation Treaty in order to counter Iranian hegemony and ensure MAD. All because of what has transpired in Iraq. Now, I'm not implying that Iraq is "key to the Middle East", as most would have said the same for the Israeli-Palestinian issue a few years back. But Iraq is the vantage point from which we should approach regional problems, because all the fault lines of the Middle East run through Iraq. The most blatant threat may not always be the most potent one, agreed, b.poster.

Yet it is not a coincidence that Ahmadinejad just so happens to be harbouring nuclear ambitions and is in the process of fulfilling them, as well as attempting to reduce our effectiveness to deal with him via Iraq. And now the Sunni bloc is considering a Nuclear Proliferation Treaty in order to counter Iranian hegemony and ensure MAD. All because of what has transpired in Iraq.

Now, I’m not implying that Iraq is “key to the Middle East”, as most would have said the same for the Israeli-Palestinian issue a few years back. But Iraq is the vantage point from which we should approach regional problems, because all the fault lines of the Middle East run through Iraq.

]]> By: B.Poster http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/12/14/if-bush-goes-all-in-im-with-him/comment-page-1/#comment-441837 B.Poster Fri, 15 Dec 2006 07:05:30 +0000 http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/12/14/if-bush-goes-all-in-im-with-him/#comment-441837 While I would like to go "all in" for Iraq and achieve a situation where the country is stable and allied with the US, we will need to ask how such a decision impacts broader American national security. We need to get back to basics and properly identify our enemies and then list them in the order of how dangerous they are to American national security. Once this done, then we can devise plans to deal with each of them or all of them together. In the following order, America's most dangerous enemies are Russia, China, Venezuela, Iran, Al Qaeda, North Korea, and Iraqi "insurgents." We need to determine if a greater commitment to Iraq helps or us or hurts us when dealing with these threats. With regards to Iraq our primary goals should be containing and rolling back the influence of Iran and Al Qaeda within Iraq. Patrolling the streets during an Iraqi Civil War should not be the top priority unless it can somehow be demonstrated how this helps us with the above mentioned national security threats. Right now I just don't see it. With all of this said, if we can maintain the ability to deal with other national security threats, I would like to go all in for Iraq, however, I'm concerned that all of the focus on Iraq has caused us to lose sight of other more serious threats to national security. While I would like to go “all in” for Iraq and achieve a situation where the country is stable and allied with the US, we will need to ask how such a decision impacts broader American national security. We need to get back to basics and properly identify our enemies and then list them in the order of how dangerous they are to American national security. Once this done, then we can devise plans to deal with each of them or all of them together.

In the following order, America’s most dangerous enemies are Russia, China, Venezuela, Iran, Al Qaeda, North Korea, and Iraqi “insurgents.” We need to determine if a greater commitment to Iraq helps or us or hurts us when dealing with these threats.

With regards to Iraq our primary goals should be containing and rolling back the influence of Iran and Al Qaeda within Iraq. Patrolling the streets during an Iraqi Civil War should not be the top priority unless it can somehow be demonstrated how this helps us with the above mentioned national security threats. Right now I just don’t see it.

With all of this said, if we can maintain the ability to deal with other national security threats, I would like to go all in for Iraq, however, I’m concerned that all of the focus on Iraq has caused us to lose sight of other more serious threats to national security.

]]> By: Johnny Tremaine http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/12/14/if-bush-goes-all-in-im-with-him/comment-page-1/#comment-441616 Johnny Tremaine Fri, 15 Dec 2006 03:10:03 +0000 http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/12/14/if-bush-goes-all-in-im-with-him/#comment-441616 Although I don't read Andrew Sullivan much, I clicked on a link to his site where he describes what is going on now in Iraq, Lebanon, and soon the rest of the Middle East as the beginning of a new Thirty Years War based on religious and ethnic conflict akin to the one that decimated Europe. He says basically that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was the trigger. I think he's probably right, that we're at the beginning of something pretty fricking terrible in world history, but did the U.S. trigger it? Probably not. Did it give the existing simmering conflict a shot of adrenaline? Probably so. Although I don’t read Andrew Sullivan much, I clicked on a link to his site where he describes what is going on now in Iraq, Lebanon, and soon the rest of the Middle East as the beginning of a new Thirty Years War based on religious and ethnic conflict akin to the one that decimated Europe. He says basically that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was the trigger. I think he’s probably right, that we’re at the beginning of something pretty fricking terrible in world history, but did the U.S. trigger it? Probably not. Did it give the existing simmering conflict a shot of adrenaline? Probably so.

]]> By: B.Poster http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/12/14/if-bush-goes-all-in-im-with-him/comment-page-1/#comment-441597 B.Poster Fri, 15 Dec 2006 02:51:49 +0000 http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/12/14/if-bush-goes-all-in-im-with-him/#comment-441597 Perhaps even more important than an increase in the number of troops is allowing the ones who are currently in Iraq and Afghanistan to actually fight. Right now American troops are essentially fighting with one hand behind their backs. I think both more troops are needed and the ones who are there need to be allowed to pursue the enemy more aggressively. Also, part of a successful war effort is effectively getting our message accross. Essentially we have allowed the lies of the enemy to go virtually unchallenged. This will need to change. Johnny I'm not aware of a major war effort that has been fought with only non drafted troops. I could be wrong of course. A draft was used in WWII and I think a draft was used in other major wars. The enemy we currently face has goals that are every bit as mbitious as those we faced during WWII and they are steadily growing stronger. I estimate we have, at most, a five year window to be able to deal with this. After five years, we may find ourselves either unable to deal wtih this enemy or our enemies will force on us a war that will be even more costly in terms of lives lost and money spent than WWII was. In the past, we have tried to appease implacable enemies and it did not work out. It appears some people want to go down the same path. If we do so, I don't think it will end any better than it has in the past. I don't want to make the same mistakes again. This is why I think it is imperative to defeat this enemy now while we still can. Perhaps even more important than an increase in the number of troops is allowing the ones who are currently in Iraq and Afghanistan to actually fight. Right now American troops are essentially fighting with one hand behind their backs. I think both more troops are needed and the ones who are there need to be allowed to pursue the enemy more aggressively.

Also, part of a successful war effort is effectively getting our message accross. Essentially we have allowed the lies of the enemy to go virtually unchallenged. This will need to change.

Johnny

I’m not aware of a major war effort that has been fought with only non drafted troops. I could be wrong of course. A draft was used in WWII and I think a draft was used in other major wars. The enemy we currently face has goals that are every bit as mbitious as those we faced during WWII and they are steadily growing stronger. I estimate we have, at most, a five year window to be able to deal with this. After five years, we may find ourselves either unable to deal wtih this enemy or our enemies will force on us a war that will be even more costly in terms of lives lost and money spent than WWII was.

In the past, we have tried to appease implacable enemies and it did not work out. It appears some people want to go down the same path. If we do so, I don’t think it will end any better than it has in the past. I don’t want to make the same mistakes again. This is why I think it is imperative to defeat this enemy now while we still can.

]]> By: Johnny Tremaine http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/12/14/if-bush-goes-all-in-im-with-him/comment-page-1/#comment-441583 Johnny Tremaine Fri, 15 Dec 2006 02:28:57 +0000 http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/12/14/if-bush-goes-all-in-im-with-him/#comment-441583 Although I find myself in agreement with Cato, I hope he's wrong and Rick turns out to be right. I really want the U.S. to successful in pacifying Iraq which seems to be edging towards an abyss of complete anarchy by the day. My brain tells me 30,000 more troops won't be enough for what Bush wants to accomplish; my gut hopes my brain is wrong. And B.Poster may be right: to fight a long term Globar War on Terror we probably will need to initiate a military draft. Although I find myself in agreement with Cato, I hope he’s wrong and Rick turns out to be right. I really want the U.S. to successful in pacifying Iraq which seems to be edging towards an abyss of complete anarchy by the day.
My brain tells me 30,000 more troops won’t be enough for what Bush wants to accomplish; my gut hopes my brain is wrong.
And B.Poster may be right: to fight a long term Globar War on Terror we probably will need to initiate a military draft.

]]> By: Kate http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/12/14/if-bush-goes-all-in-im-with-him/comment-page-1/#comment-441521 Kate Fri, 15 Dec 2006 01:40:02 +0000 http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/12/14/if-bush-goes-all-in-im-with-him/#comment-441521 I still think we can pull this out, but it has to be fought on the battlefield but there needs to be a communication team to counter the overwhelmingly hostile media. Of course, facts on the ground will be what counts, but the president has to communicate the stakes. He's been terrible doing that. I still think we can pull this out, but it has to be fought on the battlefield but there needs to be a communication team to counter the overwhelmingly hostile media. Of course, facts on the ground will be what counts, but the president has to communicate the stakes. He’s been terrible doing that.

]]> By: harrison http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/12/14/if-bush-goes-all-in-im-with-him/comment-page-1/#comment-441518 harrison Fri, 15 Dec 2006 01:37:35 +0000 http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2006/12/14/if-bush-goes-all-in-im-with-him/#comment-441518 I share your sentiments - I'm with the president if he chooses to go "all in". As for the recommendation that there has to be an increase in the number of US troops, we have to ensure that this isn't just a short-term measure that would simply result in more targets for the death squads and insurgents to trip over one another to kill. [<a href="http://gotfetch.blogspot.com/2006/12/at-gates-of-fantasyland-ii.html" rel="nofollow">More</a>] I share your sentiments - I’m with the president if he chooses to go “all in”.

As for the recommendation that there has to be an increase in the number of US troops, we have to ensure that this isn’t just a short-term measure that would simply result in more targets for the death squads and insurgents to trip over one another to kill. [More]

]]>