Put up, or shut upFollow

Don't blame me, I never voted for this bugger. I was out protesting initially and belong to a message board that is strongly anti-Bush.

By the way, has anyone seen Osama recently?

:P I know, that was sarcasm.

I swore at the beginning of the war is was partly one hell of a distractionary technique so we'd forget about Osama. It took awhile, but it seems the vast majority of people have. I can't even remember the last time I saw him in the news, which is pretty pathetic.

First off, I think it's silly to define "new plan" and "old plan" as either "leaving Iraq" or "staying in Iraq". That's incredibly simplistic and well... silly. It just seems like when the current course of action isn't working well, instead of say making adjustments to what we're doing, all anyone on the "other side" can think of it "leave now!!!".

Just because Bush's new plan does not include removing US troops from Iraq as soon as possible does not mean it's not "new" (again, unless you are actually arguing the illogical case I outlined above). My understanding is that they're changing deployment positions, changing some ROIs, and changing some aspects of how US and Iraqi troops operate together in some regions of the country. I'm sure there are literally hundreds of other minor changes that anyone not intimately familiar with staff level decisions made by the military in the region would understand. He did replace the top general as well, so that's going to automatically have an effect on how things are done.

If that general thinks that 20,000 more troops to help re-secure Bagdad in the short term will help things in the long run then maybe he has a better idea then you or I do? Dunno. Just a wild thought here...

I'm going to comment on an earlier statement that we're gambling with lives. That's absolutely correct. But *all* foreign policy is about gambling with lives. It's silly to assume that the only lives on the table here are those of US soldiers stationed in Iraq. How Iraq shapes up in the next 5 years may very well determine the direction the entire region goes in over the next 50 years. Will it become more violent and cause a massive increase in terrorism globally? Or will it become less violent and less of a source of terrorism? We simply cannot know the full impact of the decisions being made in the long term. However, I think it's safe to argue that the lives of the US soldiers stationed there is likely to be the *smallest* number of potential human lives at stake here. If things go right in Iraq it could easily mean the difference of hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of lives over the next 50 years. If things go wrong, it could mean that same number in the opposite direction.


It's important to weigh those numbers as well. Just following a course that minimizes the loss of soldiers in the short term is pretty much a perfect example of "shortsighted thinking". Regardless of whether you agree or agreed with the set of circumstances that got us into Iraq, it does not change the fact that each and every one of us has a vested interest in how we get out of Iraq. I believe that working through the violence in Iraq today until it subsides and the nation stabilizes is worth the cost because I believe the cost in future lives if we fail will be hundreds, if not thousands of times higher.

Sure. But the other part of my post was. The "cost" of the war in Iraq should not be compared to "zero cost" on the other side without actually establishing what that other course of action would be and considering what *its* cost will be. I think questioning the lack of a "better idea" is incredibly valid in that light.

Too often, the loss of lives in Iraq is pretty obviously being compared to a presumed zero loss if we weren't there. I just don't think that's a valid comparison. I also fear that the pressure to "get our troops out of Iraq" is being generated and fueled without any real debate on the costs of doing so. I honestly believe that most people supporting that position really don't think there's any cost (or just plain haven't thought that far ahead).

It's just that I find it somewhat amusing (in my own sicko way) that almost without fail, those who argue the most strongly that Bush led us into this war with no plan or understanding of the costs entailed are also those who seem to argue the most for leaving Iraq without themselves having considered the costs entailed. If their position is truely about the "costs" and not just a blanket "I don't like war", or "I don't like Bush/Republicans", then shouldn't *their* position be based on an actual analysis of those costs?


Which brings us right back to the original question. Is there a "better" alternative? So far, no one's presented one. Not one that's actually been thought out fully at least...

I'm still pretty sure Osama is dead. It makes no sense otherwise. He hasn't given any messages, neither for Christmas, nor for the 9/11 5 year anniversary, he hasn't threatened infidels...

He's either dead or severely injured/ill.

In either case Osama is now irrelevant. And to be honest, the War on Terror was not about Osama. He's a puppet. Thinking that killing him would change anything, is like thinking that killing Bush will kill the neo-con ideology. Some other ******* will step up and do the job instead.

That's teh problem of the media, they tend to focus on an individual instead of a global movment. Simply because its much more simple: Osama, Saddam, now we have good old Mahmoud. They're all tools, and only the tiny tip of the giant iceberg.

I wouldn't hold your breath.