Bush's Speech on Sacrifice

[Mephisto]

I'm currently watching Bush's speech on the war in Iraq and he laughingly called on people to continue to sacrifice (as though he knew the meaning of the word on the same level as anyone else involved). He suggested that Americans see the war in Iraq through to the end in order that the sacrifices made by our soldiers (we ironically reached the 2,000 casualty mark shortly before his speech) not be made in vain.

One of my biggest points of contention is the assertion (by many people not just Bush) that pulling out of Iraq under any conditions other than Bush's constitutes failure. This belief inadvertantly tells the friends and family of the 59,000 killed in Vietnam that they died in vain. How many soldiers in Iraq right now would agree to another 2,000 killed so that the first soldier killed in Iraq won't die in vain?

I am an ex-soldier and a disabled veteran and I think that continuing this war based on lies serves only to solidify Muslim extremists against us, line the pockets of American corporations like Halliburton and take the lives of an ever-increasing amount of people (soldiers and civilians alike) in the area.

Call me a dedicated misanthrope, but Bush calling for people to make more sacrifice is like the Catholic church asking for donations. I'd be willing to bet that Bush has very little idea of the hardships miliary famlies are undergoing right now. The constant (and multiple) deployments are straining the entire country from the workforce to disaster preparedness, yet he asks US to sacrifice.

Maybe I'd go along with him if Jenna and Barbara were with the Marines!

 

[Ed]

I'm currently watching Bush's speech on the war in Iraq and he laughingly called on people to continue to sacrifice (as though he knew the meaning of the word on the same level as anyone else involved). He suggested that Americans see the war in Iraq through to the end in order that the sacrifices made by our soldiers (we ironically reached the 2,000 casualty mark shortly before his speech) not be made in vain.

Not to appear callous but dead soldiers are a sunk cost.
This kind of thinking is what has given us charmers like the Isreali/everybody else mess.

 

[Mark]

Hardly a statistical universe, but yesterday I spoke with a Marine friend who says that every Marine he knows in Iraq is really starting to hate Bush.

As I say, it is anecdotal, not a scientific poll or anything; but it is interesting.

 

[CBL4]

I supported the war at the start because I did not the depth of Bush's incompetence and lack of morals. At this point, it is pretty obvious that the war in the manner executed was a mistake.

Having said that, I still think we should stick around because I think we have a pretty good chance of a mediocre finish. I freely admit that I may change my mind with two additional years of hindsight.

In my view, the proper sacrifice would be a repeal of some of the tax breaks as long as the war continues.

CBL

 

[Mark]

I supported the war at the start because I did not the depth of Bush's incompetence and lack of morals. At this point, it is pretty obvious that the war in the manner executed was a mistake.

Having said that, I still think we should stick around because I think we have a pretty good chance of a mediocre finish. I freely admit that I may change my mind with two additional years of hindsight.

In my view, the proper sacrifice would be a repeal of some of the tax breaks as long as the war continues.

CBL

I agree...although my support was limited to Afghanistan.

The tax breaks for the wealthy were supposed to be temporary anyway, so they shouldn't need to be repealed at all. Of course, Bush was lying about that, too, but at this point who is counting anymore?

 

[joe1347]

". . . In a lengthy speech, Bush said those calling for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq were refuted by a simple question, whether America and other nations would be more or less safe if Iraqi insurgency leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden were in control of Iraq. . . . "

http://news.lycos.com/wired/story.asp?section=MyLycos&storyId=1107320

Am I missing something or was Al Qaeda in control of Iraq before the US Invasion and occupation? How about would America be less or more safe if Bush was no longer president?

 

[Mark]

". . . In a lengthy speech, Bush said those calling for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq were refuted by a simple question, whether America and other nations would be more or less safe if Iraqi insurgency leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden were in control of Iraq. . . . "

http://news.lycos.com/wired/story.asp?section=MyLycos&storyId=1107320

Am I missing something or was Al Qaeda in control of Iraq before the US Invasion and occupation? How about would America be less or more safe if Bush was no longer president?

It is very un-American of you to ask such questions.

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by joe1347
Am I missing something or was Al Qaeda in control of Iraq before the US Invasion and occupation?

Unfortunately, as a result of the invasion, al Qaeda and Zarqawi have significant influence within Iraq now. At this point, the fact that Bush helped al Qaeda is kind of irrelevant as to deciding our next step.

Bush clearly is exagerating the dangers but that does not mean there are not dangers. They need to be taken into account.

CBL

 

[pgwenthold]

". . . In a lengthy speech, Bush said those calling for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq were refuted by a simple question, whether America and other nations would be more or less safe if Iraqi insurgency leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden were in control of Iraq. . . . "

Well, geez, maybe if they actually focused on trying to catch bin Laden, it wouldn't be so much of a problem. Instead, they took a bunch of resources that could have been to catch the clown and sent them off to destabilize Iraq.

 

[Mycroft]

While every death is a tragedy, the honest truth here is that for having more than 150,000 troops in action for two and a half years, 2,000 dead is a very small number.

We're bringing democracy to 25 million people who used to live under a brutal dictatorship. That's worth something.

I may have been against going to war in Iraq, but I do recognize the absolute worst thing we could do is to withdraw early.

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Mycroft
I may have been against going to war in Iraq, but I do recognize the absolute worst thing we could do is to withdraw early.

No, the worse thing we could do is torture people with tacit approval from the top and make it obvious that we are hiding the worst abuses.

CBL

 

[Mark]

No, the worse thing we could do is torture people with tacit approval from the top and make it obvious that we are hiding the worst abuses.

CBL

Indeed. One of the great things about this country was that we were supposed to be better. Sadly, the neocons have tarnished our image around the world for years (decades?) to come no matter what we do now.

 

[Mycroft]

No, the worse thing we could do is torture people with tacit approval from the top and make it obvious that we are hiding the worst abuses.

CBL

That would be bad.

But would it really be worse than pulling out of Iraq and exposing them to a potential civil war that could kill hundreds of thousands?

(Besides, it's not as though this is an either/or choice.)

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Mycroft
But would it really be worse than pulling out of Iraq and exposing them to a potential civil war that could kill hundreds of thousands?

Unfortunately, as I said to joe1347, the past is done. The torture, approval and coverup cannot be undone. Simply stopping it now would be less bad than leaving Iraq. I think. Maybe. Not really sure. Probably.

It is quite possible that a real action about torture and abuse (e.g. changing policies everywhere and trials for ALL associated with torture including impeachment if appropriate) would do more good than a pull out would do harm. There is the potential for civil war but there is also the (lesser) potential for peace.

CBL

 

[joe1347]

As I suggested in another thread - is there an alternative to either "cutting and running" (from Iraq) or "staying the course"? Obviously, the Bush Administration is manipulating the American public into supporting "staying the course", since we (Americans) certainly don't want to look like failures. However, is there a "third option" that involves the acceptance by the "Arab World" of the elected Iraqi Government? I guess what I'm advocating is that dirty word to the Bush Administration called "diplomacy" - you know what Condi Rice is supposed to be doing while the US Military is stomping on the Insurgency. Wouldn't multi-party talks (diplomacy) at least provide a patina of legitimacy on the US Occupation - where we (the US) would at least be seen as trying to reach an agreement to end the violence? Instead of just calling the insurgents "evil doers" and arresting and pissing off yet more Iraqi citizens. To be honest, I think that there is zero chance that any Arab leaders will be seen "cooperating" with the US to reach a diplomatic solution. But is it possible to change the "worlds" perception of the US occupation if we are at least trying to achieve legitimacy through diplomatic means. An alternative thought is that even if overt diplomacy fails - at least we can take moral cover in the fact that we at least tried.

 

[headscratcher4]

That would be bad.

But would it really be worse than pulling out of Iraq and exposing them to a potential civil war that could kill hundreds of thousands?

(Besides, it's not as though this is an either/or choice.)

I too, actually, agree that pulling out and leaving would be bad. The problem that drives me nuts is that the guy who made the mess -- whether you consider the mess the war in the first place or going in with too few troops and no plan for managing the situation on the ground -- are managing the situation. There is no creative thinking going on, just a stay the course attitude...Bush has mislead the American people, he has bungled resource allocations, he has mismanaged the diplomatic side of the equation, he has alienated our allies, and after this D- performance, he gets to take the test over till he gets it right (or the 2008 election comes around).

I know we can't fire him till 2008...but while acknowldging that we stepped in it, broke it and now must fix it, we should demand some creative thinking from the Administration...but I am not holding my breath.

Interesting interview with Richard Clark on NPR this morning about his new novel. The point he made, and one that seems very relevant, is that Iran (remember, one of the axis of evil) is the real winner here and they didn't have to mobilize their army. What we are calling democracy in Iraq is bringing Iranian allies to power....Clark's interesting point is that almost all of Iran's goals for Iraq -- toppling Hussien, brining Iranian allies to power, radicalization of the government, more dominant role for ◊◊◊◊◊ Islam, etc. has been accomplished thanks to George Bush....

We spend the money. We loose the lives. Iran gets what it wants.

Great bargain we struck here.

 

[TragicMonkey]

For everyone who thinks pulling out would be bad....do you have a time limit on that? Hypothetical: If the situation remains unchanged for another ten years, should we still stay on? Twenty years? Thirty? There has to be a point in time when it becomes a good idea to cut our losses and go.

 

[Mycroft]

For everyone who thinks pulling out would be bad....do you have a time limit on that? Hypothetical: If the situation remains unchanged for another ten years, should we still stay on? Twenty years? Thirty? There has to be a point in time when it becomes a good idea to cut our losses and go.

Realistically, do you really think things can remain unchanged for that long?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Realistically, do you really think things can remain unchanged for that long?

I can't help but notice that the exact same type of warfare has been waged by the exact same sort of people not very far away for much longer than the three years it's been going on in Iraq. And the longer it drags on, the smaller the forces we'll have to deal with it, thanks to the death toll and recruitment slump.

 

[CapelDodger]

For everyone who thinks pulling out would be bad....do you have a time limit on that? Hypothetical: If the situation remains unchanged for another ten years, should we still stay on? Twenty years? Thirty? There has to be a point in time when it becomes a good idea to cut our losses and go.

If civil war and/or the break-up of Iraq are inevitably going to follow Coalition withdrawal, all that is gained by putting it off is the chance to influence the outcome. Iraq's long-term future would lie the other side of that. I tend towards the conclusion that Coalition presence is simply putting off the inevitable. I think. Maybe. Not really sure. Probably. (To use CBL4's excellent formulation.) As I see it, the only reason Iraq is not already considered to be in a state of civil war and/or dissolution is that there are foreign troops present.