Bush says leaving Iraq would send 'terrible signal'

.
Bush says leaving Iraq would send a terrible signal

The terrible signal is that American Intelligence on WMDs is either that faulty, rigged or both.

The terrible signal is that American planning of the war and especially the post war environment was so poorly estimated.

The terrible signal is that American adapting to the unexpected situation on the ground never came.

The terrible signal to the world is America is not to be trusted either in integrity or competence.

The terrible signal is that US leaders don't understand what most 8 year olds do, That if you stomp on an egg and break it, more stomping will not un-break it.

If this is what leadership gets you, sign me up for anarchy.

Bring the military home.
They have done the maximum damage they can.
From here on out it is just pumping more money into Halibuton.

I support flag burning when the Neocons have themselves wrapped in it.

Sorry Bush but that train already left the station.

[edit on 11-8-2005 by slank]

are you saying that leaving now will make the situation any better??

could you expand on that?

Originally posted by slank
Bush says leaving Iraq would send a terrible signal

From Bush's perspective:

The terrible signal that he has made a crapload of terrible mistakes.
The terrible signal that he is a loser.
The terrible signal that his father should be ashamed and not proud of him.

evanfitz, I don't know that it would make the situation any better or any worse. And you really don't either. A lot of the fighting that is happening every day is because we're there. If we left, sure some internal fighting would begin, but some would stop. Can you really say that it would be worse? Maybe temporarily. But we have no business there. We've taken Saddam out (Yay!) and we need to get back to protecting our country and our borders from terrorists and let Iraq get on with the business of determining what kind of country they're going to have.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by slank
Bush says leaving Iraq would send a terrible signal

From Bush's perspective:

How in the hell can you say anything from Bush's perspective. Are you Bush...have you ever been Bush...have you ever lead a nation...have you ever had to give a life or death order. If I said from Benevolent Heretic's perspective or slank's perspective you all would jump down my throat and tell me how I am not this person or that person. HELLO you can only judge from your own perspective. PERIOD!

[edit on 11-8-2005 by SOCIAL_TAKEOVER]

[edit on 11-8-2005 by SOCIAL_TAKEOVER]

"How in the hell can you say anything from Bush's perspective. Are you Bush...have you ever been Bush...have you ever lead a nation...have you ever had to give a life or death order. If I said from Benevolent Heretic's perspective or slank's perspective you all would jump down my throats and tell me how I am not this person or that person. HELLO you can only judge from your own perspective. PERIOD! "

But I suggest judgement can really be made from the actions and reslults of the Bush Administration as they are actionable items.

Dallas

Yes, we can make statements in regards to Bush's perception of reality, synthetic a priori judgements, and other such observable phenomenom; ie, praxeological analysis.

We know from previous light that the Bush Aministration has acted in x behaviour and under y influence, thus, we can assertain a precedence of these in future situations that call for a reaction by the Bush Administration.

George Bush's statements sends a statement of reproach from popular consensus in Iraq, which, correct me if I'm wrong, expresses avidly the retreat of American soldiers.

Luxifero

Among your list of "terrible signals," slank, is your failure to mention the most important one:

That Islamic terrorism has won, that in backing out or retreating from Iraq, the West is basically admitting that Islamic terrorism has prevailed and that their demands will be followed. That those who have sacrificed their lives for this mission and its goals, did so for nothing.





seekerof

Yes judgement can be made...however when you say from someones perspective that is not judement, that is assuming you know what that person thinks and feels. You presume to know all that weighs in on desicion making.

Originally posted by Luxifero
Yes, we can make statements in regards to Bush's perception of reality, synthetic a priori judgements, and other such observable phenomenom; ie, praxeological analysis.

You may be able to make statements but you can not say from his perspective. That would be like me saying. from the perspective of Luxifero I can derive that he/she must have been drunk when posting. It is impossible to make a statment like that. The only one who knows my perspective is me!

Anyway sorry I got off topic. The only terrible thing now would be to leave Iraq in the hands of the few warmongers that continue to kill UN/American troops and civilians. That apparently is exactly what the cry-baby, panty waste liberal kerrycrats want. Oh well, should have won the election then huh?

Originally posted by Seekerof
Among your list of "terrible signals," slank, is your failure to mention the most important one:

That Islamic terrorism has won, that in backing out or retreating from Iraq, the West is basically admitting that Islamic terrorism has prevailed and that their demands will be followed. That those who have sacrificed their lives for this mission and its goals, did so for nothing.

seekerof

And what exactly does or did Iraq have to do with Terrorisme?

I thought we went there to take out a dictator with dangerous worldtreatening Weapons of Mass Destruction?

I think slank already covered that with "The terrible signal is that American Intelligence on WMDs is either that faulty, rigged or both. "

And if all Islamic terrorism exist purely because of the Iraqi Invasion, then well, aren't they like 100% in their right and correct to be seriously pissed of?

Originally posted by SOCIAL_TAKEOVER
How in the hell can you say anything from Bush's perspective.

I've been observing this man almost daily for 5.5 years. I know he has never admitted to a mistake even when directly confronted with the question.

Bush has a history of desiring power and control, and wanting to win at all costs. “One thing that G.W.'s childhood friends told me repeatedly was that he has to win, he absolutely has to win and if he thinks he's going to lose, he will change the rules or extend the play”

There may also have been discrepancies between Bush Sr.’s public, idealized persona and his actions in private. This created a situation where the younger Bush desperately wanted to be like his father, but also had mixed feelings about him and developed narcissism to hide his feelings of inadequacy. This scenario also explains Bush’s obsession with Iraq; he is simultaneously trying to get revenge on Saddam Hussein out of love for his father, and wanting to prove that he is better than his father by being the one to depose Hussein.

Narcissism in the White House See the bottom of the page for references.

You could actually say something from my perspective if you had been observing me daily for a few years, yeah. You could probably even do it by reading my posts here over the last month.

I will try and expain this one more time then its off to the pub for with me mates. I could observe you...but if it is what you want me to observe and not actually how you would be then I know nothing of your perspective. Only an imaginary routine that I have observed. Even if it is really your everyday actions...still not your persepective, but how I percieve you to be. Hope that is clear.

It is clear, and I might agree if I hadn't studied psychology so much.

Edit: How about if I say "From my perspective, and from what I have come to believe as I have studied Mr. Bush over the years, he probably doesn't want to pull out of Iraq because that would send the message that he has made a mistake, lost the war and is a terrible dissappointment to his daddy."? How's that?

I am usually very careful about my wording, but apparently I could have been more articulate.

The only reason I said 'from his perspective' in the first place was to be clear that I wasn't calling him a 'loser', but that he might feel like a loser.

[edit on 11-8-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]

I think this article is well worth the read and along my views, contray to some here:'
Stay the Course, Mr. President

Despite what you may have read, the military situation in Iraq today is positive--far better than it ever was when we were fighting guerrillas in Vietnam, or when the Soviets were fighting the Afghan mujahedin, or in almost any other major insurgency of the 20th century.

With few exceptions, the insurgents in Iraq are not able to undertake militarily meaningful attacks on U.S. troops. They cannot prevent U.S. forces from moving wherever they want in the country nor can they keep U.S. forces from carrying out the operations they choose to pursue aggressively. This situation contrasts markedly with both the Vietnam and Soviet-Afghan wars, in which insurgents actually besieged U.S. forces at Khe Sanh and isolated a large Soviet garrison at Khost for nearly the entire conflict, among other incidents.

Yes, the Iraqi insurgents have inflicted a steady stream of casualties on U.S. troops with improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, and car bombs, but they are not able to hold ground or attack prepared U.S. forces and fight them toe-to-toe as the North Vietnamese and mujahedin did regularly.

Another piece of good news from Iraq is that the insurgents are offering a mainly nihilistic message. Most skillful revolutionaries promise concrete benefits from their victory. Insurgents frequently work not only to terrorize local villagers but to help improve their lives in small ways.

The Iraqi insurgents offer only fear.....

thematrix:

And if all Islamic terrorism exist purely because of the Iraqi Invasion, then well, aren't they like 100% in their right and correct to be seriously pissed of?

And that is a mighty big "if".
Islamic terrorism existed long before the US invaded Iraq and removed Saddam from power. All that the regime change did was stir the hornets nest. Personally, the time had come to combat Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism instead of continuing with the policies of simply ignoring them and doing nothing when such acts took place. Instead of pointing your fingers at the US and Coalition for removing Saddam and stirring those Islamic fundamentalist act of terrorism committing hornets, you might want to look to the real problem and that being those Islamic fundamentalist act of terrorism committing hornets themselves.





seekerof

[edit on 11-8-2005 by Seekerof]

.
Yes,
Bring the troops home within two months.

This inept administration has had years to try and make something constructive come out of Iraq.
They have failed miseralbly.

How by magic will this same administration be able to do what they haven't had one ounce of effectiveness doing in the past?

If you make a bad investment it is better to recognize your mistake and cut your losses. Don't throw good money after bad.

What is most likely going to be left behind when we leave 3 or 5 years from now? Civil war? continued chaos from a population who does not want us there? Those can all be had right now without anymore expense.

Bush is no Uniter.
Bush is no nation builder.

Leaving now and leaving then will make no measurable difference.
We have spent 1/5th of a Trillion dollars turning a stable nation into a breeding ground for terrorism.

From here on all we do is keep ourselves a focus of Middle East hatred and squander more money and human lives on Haliburton.

Cut the cost in money and human lives.

Don't worry about leaving with pride, we lost that going in, now its time to leave.
.

The way I look at it.
Bush and his supporters threw america into this war.
So its bush and his supporters that should do the hard yards to get us out.

Its unfair on the entire country to have to live through this.
I say if you agree for bush and this war.. stop complaniing about BUSH HATERS and ANITAMERICANS.. U got fight this stupid bloody war.

You either agree with him that the US should of removed government, or you dont.
If you do agree with him, go follow your leader and fight.
If you dont, if you think for urself.. then stay home.

That'll seperate the sheep from the wolves.

USA went in, removed the only people with the power and brass kahonee's to manage this fanatical country.
Now that he's removed its leader ship laeving now would just leave a big empty void for those fanaticals to enter and the nand ONLY then will IRAQ be the threat to the world that george bush tricked you into beileving.
Im just glad im far away from AMerica...

Yoru soo damn issued ridden with democrat this republic that..
who gives a rats a$$.. ur AMERICANS, and its YOUR COUNTRY killing the world.

I have no idea how your going to solve the problem you created George bush, but im sure your willing to sacrifice many of your country men for the lies your STILL telling today.

Originally posted by Seekerof
Among your list of "terrible signals," slank, is your failure to mention the most important one:

That Islamic terrorism has won, that in backing out or retreating from Iraq, the West is basically admitting that Islamic terrorism has prevailed and that their demands will be followed. That those who have sacrificed their lives for this mission and its goals, did so for nothing.

So you have no problem supporting a war of futility, correct? There are enough with that mentality to ensure that this pointless, and indeed it is pointless, war will continue. All those that die in it, be it citizens of the United States of America, Britain, Australia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and every other country involved are dying in vain for a war that has no merit to continue.

[edit on 12-8-2005 by Frith]

Do you have any idea how annoying it is to start every sentence with "There terrible ...."

The terrible signal, regardless of whether you like us there or not, is that we cave under pressure. The consequences would be more attacks from emboldened enemies.

It ain't rocket science.

Originally posted by Seekerof
Among your list of "terrible signals," slank, is your failure to mention the most important one:

That Islamic terrorism has won, that in backing out or retreating from Iraq, the West is basically admitting that Islamic terrorism has prevailed and that their demands will be followed. That those who have sacrificed their lives for this mission and its goals, did so for nothing.

I am inclined to agree with you Seekerof,
nothing productive has been acomplished in Iraq.
Thus far there is nothing you can point to that has improved the world situation for America.

My thought is why spend another 1/5th of a trillion dollars and more American and Iraqi lives while nothing is still acomplished? 0+0 still equals ZERO. More nothing makes no difference.

What is the magic something you thing 3 or 5 more years of the same entrenchement is going to produce?
You think they will send in more troops? [that is laughable short of a military coup here in the US]
We are going to get all those Iraqis to be nice to us and one another?

Somehow we are going to get a democracy going in a nation of people who basically have other plans?

I realize many on the right believe in magic.

I just want to know what your expectations are.

Without a change of the people running the show how does More of the Same Thing manage to change things?

If you get stuck in the mud it is time to get out and push or arrange for a tow. Spinning your tires endlessly just wears them out.
.