Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Bush Proposes 'Korea Model' For Iraq  
User currently offlineCba From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 4530 posts, RR: 3
Posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks ago) and read 1292 times:

Quote:

U.S. ponders a 'Korea model' for long-term presence in Iraq


WASHINGTON: For the first time, the Bush administration is beginning publicly to discuss basing U.S. troops in Iraq for years, even decades to come, a subject so fraught with political land mines that officials are tiptoeing around the inevitable questions about what the long-term mission would be there.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/03/america/assess.php

Saw this in the paper this morning. I cannot think of a worse idea so far as handling Iraq is concerned. Basing permanent forces there will only mirror what happened when the US sent troops to Lebanon...

Bush is at it again...

13 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 7951 posts, RR: 26
Reply 1, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1278 times:

Oh for crying out loud. The PotUS displays the extent to which he's out to lunch yet again. The situation in Korea isn't anything like the Middle East. To draw any parallel between the two is a display of outright ignorance.


If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently onlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 16944 posts, RR: 48
Reply 2, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1267 times:

Quoting Cba (Thread starter):
the Bush administration is beginning publicly to discuss basing U.S. troops in Iraq for years, even decades to come

This is what needed to happen anyway from day one--from before day one had the administration given any thought to post-war planning...



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1254 times:

Quoting Cba (Thread starter):
Bush is at it again...



Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 1):
Oh for crying out loud. The PotUS displays the extent to which he's out to lunch yet again.

Are you guys so full of hate that you jump on him just for considering anything except retreat? Nothing has been decided.

Personally, I agree with you that permenant bases in Iraq would be magnets for terrorist attacks, and far more risky than bases in Germany or Korea. I hate the idea. But Iraq does have a lot of enemies in the region, both internally and externally, and if a permenant base, with the Iraqi government's madate, at least stand in the way of the external enemies while the Iraqis concentrate on the internal ones, I'd be willing to at least consider the idea.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 2):
This is what needed to happen anyway from day one--from before day one had the administration given any thought to post-war planning...

Bush more or less said it from the beginning. Perhaps your ears (and those of much of the world) need cleaning.

(from Bush's speech announcing the invasion, March 2003)

Quote:

A campaign on harsh terrain in a vast country could be longer and more difficult than some have predicted. And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable, and free country will require our sustained commitment.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030322.html


User currently offlineCba From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 4530 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1253 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 2):

This is what needed to happen anyway from day one--from before day one had the administration given any thought to post-war planning...

I recall Bush comparing Iraq to Japan and Germany after World War II, saying that the country would be quick to accept democracy and that the US could exit quickly. Now he's saying we need to be there for a while...

Do you really think that anyone would have been for the war had he said that we'd be committed for years, even decades?! The US is not an imperial country and we have no reason being there. Iraq did not possess WMDs and was not harboring terrorists. Establishing permanent bases there would only make the situation worse as we would be seen as occupiers.

The Bush Administration doesn't seem to have a problem spending hundreds of billions trying to break up a civil war (it's now a full blown civil war, not an insurgency), yet the slightest mention of spending less than half that amount on say, improving education and health care, and people go nuts and cry communism!


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1241 times:

Quoting Cba (Reply 4):
I recall Bush comparing Iraq to Japan and Germany after World War II, saying that the country would be quick to accept democracy and that the US could exit quickly.

If you want to compare Iraq to Germany and Japan, it took 10 years before those two countries were granted back their sovereignty, and US forces are still there today, in relatively small numbers.


User currently offlineCba From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 4530 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1234 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 5):

If you want to compare Iraq to Germany and Japan, it took 10 years before those two countries were granted back their sovereignty, and US forces are still there today, in relatively small numbers.

That is correct, and Japan and Germany were unified states from around the 1870's (Meiji restoration and Bismarck's unification of Prussia into Imperial Germany), and did not have different warring religious and ethnic factions. Iraq was unified under Saddam essentially because he brutalized any opposition into oppression. This is why the place is in a state of civil war currently, because it was never an effectively unified country to begin with! If it took 10 years to help Japan and Germany recover, then we're looking at a lot longer for Iraq. It's not something that we can just fix by sending in troops and expect the country to adopt a western capitalist democracy.


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1225 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 2):
This is what needed to happen anyway from day one--from before day one had the administration given any thought to post-war planning...

From berfore day-one, someone should have told Mr. Bush that 1. No one likes to be invaded and told what to do or how to run their country, and that any invasion would be met, ultimately, with guerilla warfare; 2. That even thinking of staging U.S. troops in an Islmaic nation was idiocy on the hightest degree, and that 3. Such bases would be a call for terrorists attacks, and that 4. It could permanently damage our relationship with those Islamic//Arab nations who are inclined to work with us, such as Jordan, Egypt, the Gulf States.

The fact is, once again, we do see just how either short-sighted, or dangerously naive-or both-this Administration was in planning this iraq fiasco. I have no doubt that the Administration thought this campaign would be over 3 years ago, at least, and that we would be welcomed as liberators. Well, funny thing, #1 on my list was true-no one likes to be dictated to, or invaded and told what to do.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 3):
Are you guys so full of hate that you jump on him just for considering anything except retreat? Nothing has been decided.



Quoting Cfalk (Reply 3):
I hate the idea.

But boy, Charles, you're ready to jump on anyone else who hates it, like myself, who thinks this President has so screwed up Iraq, and so hurt this nation, aren't you?


User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12040 posts, RR: 47
Reply 8, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1225 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 5):
and US forces are still there today

But not because of the need for security inside the country. The cold war had a whole lot more to do with the continued stationing of US troops in Germany than any internal issues left over from WWII.



Hey AA, the 1960s called. They want their planes back!
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1217 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 7):
But boy, Charles, you're ready to jump on anyone else who hates it, like myself, who thinks this President has so screwed up Iraq, and so hurt this nation, aren't you?

It's the rhetoric I dislike. For the most part all I see in response to anything is a nearly violent and immediate ridicule. Bush has done a lot of things to piss me off royally, but I am not ready to condemn everything he does just because I'm pissed at him. For one thing, I consider the alternatives - has anyone proposed a better idea? In my opinion, no. Withdrawal from Iraq will just delay the inevitable, and probably worsen the outcome, IMHO. But if anyone comes up with a better solution than the Bush formula, whether it comes from Ralph Nader or Whoopi Goldberg, I'm ready to listen.

But jumping all over Bush without providing a reasonable alternative is just worthless.


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1206 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 9):
For the most part all I see in response to anything is a nearly violent and immediate ridicule.

It deserves ridicule, Charles, and you know that. To think about this stuff 4 YEARS after the invasion, is just incredible! That should have been thought of-and discareded-in 2003, when this whole debacle was started, not in the spring of '07. Again, it shows the naivete, short-sightedness and wilfull blindness of this Administration in concocting this whole idiocy.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 9):
Bush has done a lot of things to piss me off royally, but I am not ready to condemn everything he does just because I'm pissed at him.

Hell, you don't condemn him at all, Charles. Maybe he has pissed you off, but you're one of the first on here to defend him at every turn-even with something that you yourself say is not a good idea.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 9):
I consider the alternatives - has anyone proposed a better idea?

How about we propose to the Arab League that we let them constitute a peace-keeping force, and we will pay for them to set up bases in key areas of the nation? Let Arabs help in the process of stabalizing an Arab nation. And we should guarantee to them that if Iran attacks Iraq, their forces will be backed up by the U.S. military in repelling any such invasion?

I think that's a good start.


User currently offlineAirportSeven From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 327 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1195 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 3):
Bush more or less said it from the beginning. Perhaps your ears (and those of much of the world) need cleaning.

"The impression that's left around the world is that we plan to occupy the country, we plan to use their bases over the long period of time, and it's flat false," Rumsfeld said at Monday's Pentagon briefing. "We went in there to change a regime, we went in there to find weapons of mass destruction, we went in there to stop them from threatening their neighbors, and we have said precisely what we're there for, and it's not what that article says."

While Rumsfeld was forceful and animated in his denunciation of the newspaper article, he did not explicitly rule out any U.S. interest in such a military relationship -- although he described it as unlikely.

"The likelihood of it seems to be so low that it does not surprise me that it's never been discussed in my presence," Rumsfeld said, stressing that the article gave the "inaccurate and unfortunate" impression that the United States wants to set up some kind of permanent presence in Iraq. "


Donald Rumsfeld, April 21, 2003


User currently onlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 16944 posts, RR: 48
Reply 12, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1195 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 3):
Perhaps your ears (and those of much of the world) need cleaning.

Where did he suggest troops may be necessary for upwards of five decades? More than one decade?



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineME AVN FAN From Switzerland, joined May 2002, 13920 posts, RR: 25
Reply 13, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1177 times:

Quoting Cba (Thread starter):
Bush is at it again.

Carter is right ! Proven now ! GWB should be politely and carefully transferred into a mental asylum !

 Sad  Sad  Yeah sure  Yeah sure  eyepopping   eyepopping   eyepopping   eyepopping 
-


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Bush Seeks $87 Billion For Iraq posted Mon Sep 8 2003 16:11:57 by Matt D
Bush's Plan For Iraq Afghanistan Syria North Korea posted Sat May 21 2005 20:13:08 by Airlinerfreak
More Troops For Iraq? Bush Ignores. posted Fri Sep 29 2006 22:00:38 by ArtieFufkin
Solutions For Iraq posted Mon Apr 30 2007 17:04:36 by Dougloid
New Idea For Iraq Withdrawal posted Sat Mar 31 2007 15:49:48 by Yellowstone
Bush And Rove Perform For The Press posted Thu Mar 29 2007 18:17:40 by AsstChiefMark
House Approves End Date For Iraq War posted Fri Mar 23 2007 19:47:37 by KaiGywer
Bush Wants Flu Shots For Illegals.. posted Wed Nov 29 2006 17:23:22 by Airlinelover
Bush Still In Denial Over Iraq posted Tue Nov 28 2006 22:09:12 by Falcon84
NYT Confirms: Dems Have No Plan For Iraq posted Mon Nov 13 2006 16:22:44 by Cfalk