Skip to comments.
The failure of the Iraqi Study Group
NeoVista ^
| 12/09/2006
| Bob Gonzalez
Posted on 12/09/2006 8:17:07 AM PST by etradervic
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-27 next last
There is no line like a hard-line.
To: etradervic
So yeah, when the opposed of a hard line is a stupid line, then there is "There is no line like a hard-line.
It what happens when Old Boy DC trys to micromanage a war from DC.
Some where the ghost of LBJ is laughing his ass off watching a bunch of chicken hearted Congress critters and 10 DC Lawyers trying to micromanage their war from DC the same way he screwed up Vietnam from DC.
NEXT time you have a "Study Group" actually have people who KNOW the issue and the region rather then hire has been political machine types who can be relied upon to simply recreate what the Editorial position of the Washington Post and the NY Times is.
"
2
posted on
12/09/2006 8:30:02 AM PST
by
MNJohnnie
(I do not forgive Senator John McCain for helping destroy everything we built since 1980.)
To: etradervic
The Iraq surrender group proposed a "chat and run" strategy.
3
posted on
12/09/2006 8:30:57 AM PST
by
outofsalt
("If History teaches us anything it's that history rarely teaches us anything")
To: etradervic
Iraq Study Group: Choosing To Lose
4
posted on
12/09/2006 8:34:29 AM PST
by
angkor
("Bush needs to decide that the bad guys are going to die" Podhoretz, NY Post, 12/5/06)
To: etradervic
One thing is missing in their report. This world of ours is in the middle of major conflict.....could be considered WWIII, a religious war. Look at the Iraq, Lebonon, Syria, Israel, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Africa, Europe, Russia, Phillipines and the list goes on. It will hit here in the US one of these days unless we have the balls to stand up against it and admit who is causing all the problems. Muslims, but our media won't admit it either. Who are the waring factions in the list above and other countries? We are in a religious war!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
5
posted on
12/09/2006 8:43:26 AM PST
by
Ron2
To: angkor
Your tagline says it all. I hope that when this decision is finally made that they resolve to go after the tyrants as opposed to solely inflicting infrastructure damage.
Reagan's action against Libya is our template.
6
posted on
12/09/2006 8:47:05 AM PST
by
etradervic
(Rumsfeld - the sack heard around the world)
To: Ron2
Who are the waring factions in the list above and other countries? We are in a religious war!
There is no doubt that the terrorists are motivated by the religious intolerance and megalomania of Islam. It may be almost cliche to hold that all of the terrorists that we are currently fighting fall into this group, but that the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists.
It is wise to divide Muslims between the fanatics and moderates and not to unite them by attacking Islam as a whole.
7
posted on
12/09/2006 8:57:44 AM PST
by
etradervic
(Rumsfeld - the sack heard around the world)
To: etradervic
How much did the members of this group get paid? How about their staff, how much did they get paid?
Same old "Independent Commission" crap. Independent from what?... Reality?
8
posted on
12/09/2006 9:00:10 AM PST
by
BigDaddyTX
(Don't Mex with Texas)
Comment #9 Removed by Moderator
To: TEX06
i understand that Baker has never been a supporter of israel. but is there evidence that he is an anti-semite, as you charge?
10
posted on
12/09/2006 9:17:06 AM PST
by
drhogan
To: etradervic
The Republican and Democratic pragmatists could be the death of the USA.
11
posted on
12/09/2006 9:19:35 AM PST
by
yldstrk
(My heros have always been cowboys-Reagan and Bush)
To: etradervic
I don't believe we have any choice since the Moderate Muslim's will not stand up against the fanatics. Muslim's cannot attack another Muslim and it's not our position or job to do it for them. That being the case, how do we tell them apart? When it comes down to it, we need to protect ourselves and just like war, the innocent will some times get caught up in it. Either they stand up against the radicals or they fall in line with them.
12
posted on
12/09/2006 9:29:10 AM PST
by
Ron2
To: outofsalt
Perhaps we should revert to the simpler strategy of "cut-and-run", without all this business of bringing in Iran and Syria for their contributions. Then they shall have to meet directly, without the US as intermediary.
Oh, I forgot. They ALREADY meet directly, without the aid and assistance of the US.
We are just getting written out of the script now, is all.
And the "stability" we so desperately seek, shall continue to elude us and everybody.
13
posted on
12/09/2006 9:41:53 AM PST
by
alloysteel
(Facts do not cease to exist, just because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley)
To: etradervic
James Baker was just doing the bidding of his Saudi masters. Baker and his commission gave the Saudis everything they paid for.
14
posted on
12/09/2006 9:53:28 AM PST
by
jimbo123
To: etradervic
I smell a huge back-stabbing, double-cross in the works here.
I wonder if James Baker was part of the group that recommended to President George H.W. Bush that he strike a deal with Congressional RATS to raise taxes in exchange for a promise from the RATS to cut spending.
15
posted on
12/09/2006 9:57:27 AM PST
by
Texas Eagle
(If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all.)
To: MNJohnnie
I read the entire "proposal" in two sittings, from front to back. I honestly couldn't believe some of things I was reading. We could put forth a much better proposal, in about a tenth of the time. The blatant hypocrisy and outright wishful thinking of these so called "academics" is glaringly obvious to anyone with even an ounce of reasoning power. Bank on this though, it will be touted in January by the new Dem Congress left and right, without anyone there even reading it. It will be the new "buzz word". I mean, come on, we're supoose to depend on the despotic regimes of Iran and Syria to help in the building process of a Democratic state. Right. new "Land for peace" deals in Israel? yeah, that's worked well in the past (not). I have a headache.
16
posted on
12/09/2006 10:07:37 AM PST
by
corlorde
(New Hampshire)
To: etradervic
It's hilarious the way buffoons are running out and buying this "study group's" pamphlet when it can be downloaded free off the internet. LOL! I guess maybe they just want to impress their friends and neighbors by carrying it around with them during the holidays. There are too many weirdos living in this country.
17
posted on
12/09/2006 10:08:23 AM PST
by
FlingWingFlyer
(Study hard and do your homework or you'll end up stuck in the House or Senate.)
To: corlorde
We could put forth a much better proposal, in about a tenth of the time. Here's what I propose. Why not gather a group of Freepers that have experience from a military, political, organizational and execution perspective and do just that. You will need to have 2 or 3 people from each discipline to make it work and to cover all the bases so there is no room for disagreement.
My guess is you won't find something that is going to be 100% effective or have the good members of Free Republic be in harmony with your outcomes.
The Iraq mess is a very complex situation. We can't stay forever, which it looks like me may, and we can't just walk away.
There are portions of the Iraq Study Group report that I find hard to agree with too. But clearly our current and past strategies haven't worked in a critical region in Iraq, and being led by the best and brightest. Why pick on this group. I don't see anything in their report that would necessarily make the wheels fall off more than they already are.
To: etradervic
The Iraqi Study Group are apparently in their second childhood as the report reads like it was written by a group of twelve year olds.
It is also anti-Semitic.
19
posted on
12/09/2006 10:20:15 AM PST
by
Dustbunny
(The BIBLE - Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth)
To: joesbucks
In the ISG report, the only thing that really stood out in my mind is beefing up the training of the Iraqi security forces. Most of our effort should go into this aspect of the report, and the rest of our forces should just stay out of the way and protect Iraqi infrastructure. Getting in between the Saudi backed Sunni's and Iranian backed Shi'a doesn't make sense to me. I just don't know why we have to hitch a sell out of Israel while we are at it.
20
posted on
12/09/2006 10:22:56 AM PST
by
corlorde
(New Hampshire)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-27 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson