Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Dadano on May 30, 2007, 10:40:41 PM
-
WASHINGTON, May 30 (Reuters) - President George W. Bush would like to see a lengthy U.S. troop presence in Iraq like the one in South Korea to provide stability but not in a frontline combat role, the White House said on Wednesday.
The comment came as Bush, under pressure to steer the warring groups in Iraq toward a political reconciliation, held a secure videoconference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, Sunni Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi and Shi'ite Vice President Adel Abdul al-Mahdi.
Bush encouraged them to make progress toward an oil revenue-sharing plan and political reforms. "It's about the need to bring everybody together in Iraq," said Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for the White House National Security Council.
The United States has had thousands of U.S. troops in South Korea to guard against a North Korean invasion for 50 years.
Democrats in control of the U.S. Congress have been pressing Bush to agree to a timetable for pulling troops from Iraq, an idea firmly opposed by the president.
White House spokesman Tony Snow said Bush would like to see a U.S. role in Iraq ultimately similar to that in South Korea in which "you get to a point in the future where you want it to be a purely support model."
"The Korean model is one in which the United States provides a security presence, but you've had the development of a successful democracy in South Korea over a period of years, and, therefore, the United States is there as a force of stability," Snow told reporters.
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said in a statement he believes it is time for Bush to "recognize the reality on the ground in Iraq," that U.S. troops are mired in an Iraqi civil war and a change in course is urgently needed.
"Democrats know that Americans demand realistic plans, not more White House rhetoric, rosy predictions and best-case scenarios. Our troops and the American people deserve better," Reid said.
Iraq's neighbors have raised concerns about the possibility of the United States maintaining permanent bases in Iraq, and some U.S. lawmakers have said they think the Iraqi insurgency may have been fueled by perceptions the United States wants a permanent presence in the country.
Washington has consistently denied wanting permanent bases in Iraq.
Snow said U.S. bases in Iraq would not necessarily be permanent because they would be there at the invitation of the host government and "the person who has done the invitation has the right to withdraw the invitation."
"I think the point he's (Bush) trying to make is that the situation in Iraq, and indeed, the larger war on terror, are things that are going to take a long time. But it is not always going to require an up-front combat presence," Snow said.
"The president has always said that ultimately you want to be handing primary responsibility off to the Iraqis," he said.
"You provide the so-called over-the-horizon support that is necessary from time to time to come to the assistance of Iraqis but you do not want the United States forever in the front."
********************************
I'd say we're up **** creek without a paddle if this attitude prevails.
-
Neither good nor bad, simply unrealistic.
The South Koreans actually seem to like us, and their culture doesn't really have anything against us. We're considered to be a bit uncultured but trainable (as you'd train any child) but in general the South Koreans don't seem to think we're destroying their lives or their culture.
Iraq... There are many stories of individual relationships being built up there, but even western non-combatant aid workers are often seen as a direct threat to their culture and their way of life.
I just don't see it happening. Iraq is a completely different situation than Korea or even Vietnam. At least in Vietnam, the Vietnamese themselves could be united into a single cultural/political group even if unwillingly. Saddam Hussein never united Iraq, he merely kept a ruthless grip on his power and kept others from becoming powerful enough to challenge him. I think our greatest intel failure was not realizing this.
-
Bad idea.
Yeah... it's bad. Horrible. Terrifically stupid.
-
We'll appoint another dictator, because those people are not ready for a democracy. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
-
Originally posted by Xargos
We'll appoint another dictator, because those people are not ready for a democracy.
Winner!
-
US bases are cash cows for the local economy, now that the secret is out, everybody will want one.
remember all the whining that happened during the base closings?
-
This isn't just bush's idea. The dems have also proposed basing US troops in iraq but out away from the population centers so we maintain a presence there. I don't know exactly why they think a small post out in the middle of nowhere is an y benefit other than a staging area for a quick reaction force but they did propose it. The problem with a post away from a town or city is that civilians will start to migrate there for the jobs and support roles it would bring which will open it up to infiltration and unconventional attacks similar to being in town.
-
Originally posted by Xargos
We'll appoint another dictator, because those people are not ready for a democracy. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
You talking about America or Iraq?
-
Originally posted by Hap
You talking about America or Iraq?
:lol
-
i think Bush's proposal is going to happen in some fashion- no matter which party wins in 08.
-
Related to this announcement...
The USAF is asking for volunteers to stand up an Iraqi flying training squadron near Baghdad... They'll be flying cessna 172s. Everyone I know figures it's a suicide mission and if I somehow ended up getting that assignment involuntarily, I might have to allow the medical waiver on my back surgery to expire. I feel no obligation to take a suicide mission to train Iraqi pilots flying a completely defenseless aircraft in the hottest combat zone in the world simply because when we try to train Iraqis in the US, they seem to vanish a week before graduation.
If they figure it's suicide to go back to Iraq so they go AWOL here, what possible reason could I have to want to go there? Everyone knows that flying jobs are volunteer jobs and I'd cheerfully volunteer to fly pretty much anything with wings if it was in support of US troops, but to take a suicide mission for no reason other than the Iraqis would go AWOL if we trained them over here makes no sense in my opinion.
They teach us here in AETC that there is NO training mission worth a single casualty, then they ask for volunteers to fly C-172s near Baghdad... That's a training mission, right? And they'll be shooting at us, right? So, by default, the correct answer every single sortie is to simply not fly because there is no training mission worth a single casualty.
It's not an illegal order to be told to do that, but there is absolutely no legal obligation for a pilot to accept that mission either because there is no "in the face of the enemy" basis for the order. Sure, declining it would most likely mean losing your wings and ruining your career, but I think that's a whole lot better than getting shot down flying a training sortie.
Now if it was in Qatar or the UAE, that would be a totally different story. But to put a flying training base near Baghdad... That seems to go against pretty much every principle of operational risk management I've ever been taught.
-
Teach the feudal tribes democracy. Yeah, that oughta work.
-
They have been fighting in the middle east for hundreds of years they will never change there way of life to suit the American Politicans..... Democracy has to be wanting by the Iraq people NOT FORCED UPON THEM by some mental midget
WAIT i got an idea send Bush and the congress over there to run iraq sense hes doing such a "great" Job here this can be his Election Poster
(http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s35/68zoom/turbanator.jpg)
Hes already changed the Iraq's currency to this
(http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s35/68zoom/iraq_currency.jpg)
-
Originally posted by 68ZooM
They have been fighting in the middle east for hundreds of years they will never change there way of life to suit the American Politicans..... Democracy has to be wanting by the Iraq people NOT FORCED UPON THEM by some mental midget
WAIT i got an idea send Bush and the congress over there to run iraq sense hes doing such a "great" Job here this can be his Election Poster
I think I like this one best:
(http://256.com/gray/thoughts/2003/20030324/episode_2.jpg)
-
LOL i got that one to heres a good one
(http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s35/68zoom/bush_dude.jpg)
(http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s35/68zoom/bush_we-werent-soldiers.jpg)
-
Originally posted by eagl
Neither good nor bad, simply unrealistic.
The South Koreans actually seem to like us, and their culture doesn't really have anything against us. We're considered to be a bit uncultured but trainable (as you'd train any child) but in general the South Koreans don't seem to think we're destroying their lives or their culture.
Iraq... There are many stories of individual relationships being built up there, but even western non-combatant aid workers are often seen as a direct threat to their culture and their way of life.
I just don't see it happening. Iraq is a completely different situation than Korea or even Vietnam. At least in Vietnam, the Vietnamese themselves could be united into a single cultural/political group even if unwillingly. Saddam Hussein never united Iraq, he merely kept a ruthless grip on his power and kept others from becoming powerful enough to challenge him. I think our greatest intel failure was not realizing this.
Neither good nor bad, just entirely failing history class.
Do you actually think when you type? Or do you just let your fingers do the wandering?
-
:lol I don't think you know who you're talking to.
-
Was thinking the same thing moot.