March 28, 2024, 07:03:58 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: NEW CHILD BOARD CREATED IN THE POLITICAL SECTION FOR THE 2016 ELECTION
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: General Pataeus Delivers His General's Report to Capitol Hill  (Read 6076 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
crazybabyborg
Guest
« on: September 10, 2007, 01:51:28 PM »

General Patraeus is delivering his General's Report on Capitol Hill right now. I'm listening and thought I'd start this thread to get the monkey's reaction. Tomorrow is Sept. 11, and his report is certainly related.
Logged
LouiseVargas
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 2524



« Reply #1 on: September 11, 2007, 12:12:10 AM »

He is in league with the Bushes and cannot give a true assessment.
Logged

Hope is everything. I see angels everywhere.
pdh3
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 3019



« Reply #2 on: September 11, 2007, 01:44:09 AM »

It's impossible to know what's really going on in Iraq. No one in the Bush Administration has told the truth about it from day one.
Logged

What's done in the dark will always come to light.
GreatOwl
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 1427



« Reply #3 on: September 11, 2007, 08:31:23 AM »

The assessment calls for a beginning of a troop withdrawal of the 30,000 plus build up to "possibly" be finished by next summer.  Then we will need to maintain our former troop levels to maintain security for the future.  Seems to me that says we have made no progress what so ever in Iraqi security.  All we will do is to return to the status quo of 2006 with no end in sight.  All this means is that we will continue to sacrifice American lives as more and more nations pull their meager number of troops out of Iraq. 

We need to cease being the policeman of the world and let this type of action be handled by the United Nations.  We would be on much safer ground if we would just stay away from the civil wars of other nations. 
Logged

"May you have the hindsight to know where you've been,
 the foresight to know where you're going and
 the insight to know when you've gone too far."
pdh3
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 3019



« Reply #4 on: September 11, 2007, 12:38:08 PM »

The US removed the structure that was in place, and is responsible for the civil war that is takng place right now. Saddam was an evil man, and he needed to go, but it should have been a multi-nation decision. And that's not what we were told the invasion was about anyway. All we have done is plunge the Iraquis into chaos. Whatever is needed to finish the job should be done, and then we need to leave them to either sink or swim on their own. We can't stay there forever, but since we made the mess, we do need to clean it up. And the next time a President decides to send us into war, we need to be sure he's smart enough to understand what he's doing.
Logged

What's done in the dark will always come to light.
LouiseVargas
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 2524



« Reply #5 on: September 15, 2007, 02:13:28 AM »

  B  R  A  V  O ! 
Logged

Hope is everything. I see angels everywhere.
mrs. red
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9318



WWW
« Reply #6 on: September 15, 2007, 11:00:13 PM »

My question to all of you:

what do you think of Daufur?  Should we go there?  TIA
Logged

To accomplish great things we must not only act but also dream, not only plan but also believe.
Author: Anatole
Dihannah1
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5264


God watch over our children and keep them safe.


« Reply #7 on: September 15, 2007, 11:37:57 PM »

My question to all of you:

what do you think of Daufur?  Should we go there?  TIA

The sad thing is, we are stretched so thin and now the talk of going after Iran possibly within 6 months, I don't believe we can manage going IN TO Darfur.  But we definately need to do something.  I just wish I had an answer.  Isn't that what the UN is for?  I know, what a joke!  But something needs to be done, however, we can't tackle the world!  We are to busy protecting it.
Logged

God has FINAL Judgement!<br />
mrs. red
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9318



WWW
« Reply #8 on: September 16, 2007, 10:28:31 PM »

My question to all of you:

what do you think of Daufur?  Should we go there?  TIA

The sad thing is, we are stretched so thin and now the talk of going after Iran possibly within 6 months, I don't believe we can manage going IN TO Darfur.  But we definately need to do something.  I just wish I had an answer.  Isn't that what the UN is for?  I know, what a joke!  But something needs to be done, however, we can't tackle the world!  We are to busy protecting it.

my next question is ...

if we should not be in Iraq, why should we stop a civil war in Darfur?  Why is Darfur more important?

Not trying to be a smart aleck... just wonder why one and not the other? 

As for the UN... I now understand the old 70's bumper stickers saying get us out...  Wink
Logged

To accomplish great things we must not only act but also dream, not only plan but also believe.
Author: Anatole
GreatOwl
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 1427



« Reply #9 on: September 17, 2007, 12:07:26 AM »

Mrs. Red, I do believe you have a legit point.  Of course, it can be traced back to Woodrow Wilson and the "League of Nations."  The structure of the United Nations is so flawed that it is rendered virtually non functional.  While I would never be one to advocate isolationism there is a point at which we as a nation can no longer sacrifice the lives of our own to protect the world.  As the decades have passed, I think history has proven that other nations are contributing less and less to the functionality of the United Nations. 

I have no answer as to how that is to be fixed except to say we as a nation can not expect to survive if we expend all our resources beyond our own borders while other nations seek to increase their own wealth at our expense.

Perhaps it is late and my thinking is cloudy, but that is just my thought process this evening.
 Sad

Logged

"May you have the hindsight to know where you've been,
 the foresight to know where you're going and
 the insight to know when you've gone too far."
MuffyBee
Former Moderator
Monkey Mega Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 44737



« Reply #10 on: September 17, 2007, 03:39:50 PM »

Mrs. Red, I do believe you have a legit point.  Of course, it can be traced back to Woodrow Wilson and the "League of Nations."  The structure of the United Nations is so flawed that it is rendered virtually non functional.  While I would never be one to advocate isolationism there is a point at which we as a nation can no longer sacrifice the lives of our own to protect the world.  As the decades have passed, I think history has proven that other nations are contributing less and less to the functionality of the United Nations. 

I have no answer as to how that is to be fixed except to say we as a nation can not expect to survive if we expend all our resources beyond our own borders while other nations seek to increase their own wealth at our expense.

Perhaps it is late and my thinking is cloudy, but that is just my thought process this evening.
 Sad


I don't believe your thinking is cloudy at all GO

Logged

  " Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."  - Daniel Moynihan
mrs. red
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9318



WWW
« Reply #11 on: September 17, 2007, 09:29:27 PM »

I am not an isolationist, but I do agree GO.


I also have been curious about the people that scream for Darfur and think that Iraq should be left to its own devices. In particular actors and actress, and yes I do hear people around me saying this...

and I just wondered.
Logged

To accomplish great things we must not only act but also dream, not only plan but also believe.
Author: Anatole
LouiseVargas
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 2524



« Reply #12 on: September 17, 2007, 09:46:06 PM »

MrsRed,

I had a Darfur conversation with Carnut. He said we are involved in two wars, Afghanistan and Iraq and don't want to get into a third war with a Muslim country. The Darfur situation is very complicated. And also we are stretched thin.
Logged

Hope is everything. I see angels everywhere.
mrs. red
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9318



WWW
« Reply #13 on: September 17, 2007, 09:55:13 PM »

MrsRed,

I had a Darfur conversation with Carnut. He said we are involved in two wars, Afghanistan and Iraq and don't want to get into a third war with a Muslim country. The Darfur situation is very complicated. And also we are stretched thin.

I agree with what you are saying... my question is for those that say out of Iraq and are screaming to go into Darfur?  Why should we, it's a civil war...?

I am very interested in the reasons people think this...
Logged

To accomplish great things we must not only act but also dream, not only plan but also believe.
Author: Anatole
Tylergal
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9535



« Reply #14 on: September 23, 2007, 02:10:28 AM »

We still have troops in Bosnia; I remember our president telling us at that time they would be out by Christmas.  Was that in 2003 or 2004?
Logged

There is always one more imbecile than you counted on
Tylergal
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9535



« Reply #15 on: September 23, 2007, 02:12:14 AM »

That Bush has done nothing but keep us in wars, first Bosnia (oh, wait -- that was not in 2003-2004, now was it?). That was not even Bush.  Who was the president back then?  Were we not defending Muslims in that war?  Darn, how quickly I forget.
Logged

There is always one more imbecile than you counted on
SteveDinMD
Scared Monkey
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 209


« Reply #16 on: September 23, 2007, 01:29:43 PM »

My question to all of you:

what do you think of Daufur?  Should we go there?  TIA

The sad thing is, we are stretched so thin and now the talk of going after Iran possibly within 6 months, I don't believe we can manage going IN TO Darfur.  But we definately need to do something.  I just wish I had an answer.  Isn't that what the UN is for?  I know, what a joke!  But something needs to be done, however, we can't tackle the world!  We are to busy protecting it.

my next question is ...

if we should not be in Iraq, why should we stop a civil war in Darfur?  Why is Darfur more important?

Not trying to be a smart aleck... just wonder why one and not the other? 

As for the UN... I now understand the old 70's bumper stickers saying get us out...  Wink

Mrs. Red:

You've touched upon the very essence of the issue.  The decision to intervene militarily anywhere must be based upon an assessment of national interest, period.  Such interest must then be weighed against prospective costs and benefits.  In the case of Iraq, you're dealing with absolutely CRUCIAL national interests for the United States, and it's puzzling to me that these interests are being completely ignored in the current public discourse, much to our country's detriment.  What are the United States' crucial interests in Iraq?  Consider the following: 

1)  Preserving unrestricted access of petroleum resources to world markets. 

2)  Impeding and/or discouraging the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.   

3)  Denying to enemies of the United States the vast wealth derived from petroleum resources in furthering interests inimical to our own. 

4)  Denying enemy states the ability to use terrorist proxies in advancing their interests.

These national interests are both valid and persistent.  Why do you suppose the votes in Congress were so lopsided in favor of authorizing the invasion of Iraq?  It's because every serious politician in the country recognized what was at stake and the imperative of the United States to protects its crucial interests.  By contrast, all other considerations and competing objectives in Iraq are of but peripheral concern.  Is it necessary for the Iraqis to unite under an effective, democratically elected government of national reconciliation for U.S. goals to be achieved?  No, but it would be helpful.  Is it necessary that there be an end to sectarian violence in Iraq?  No, but it would be helpful.  Is it even necessary for Iraq to avoid devolving into civil war?  No, but it would be helpful.  Frankly, it doesn't matter whether Iraqi society succeeds or fails, whether the Iraqis reconcile or not, or whether they eschew violence or kill each other down to the last man.  Core U.S. objectives are still achievable under all circumstances, as they have been consistently achieved since day one of the invasion.  There are possibly alternate ways of achieving them, different from the current path, but these aren't being seriously debated on the merits, I'm afraid. 

What we're seeing today is almost exclusively superficial sloganeering anchored firmly in the pursuit of domestic partisan political advancement.  Partisanship should end at the water's edge, but that's not the case now.  Why not?  You'll find the answer's origins in the 2002 mid-term Congressional elections.  Given how closely divided both houses were, and given the historical electoral advantages acruing to non-presidential parties in mid-term elections, the Demcrats had strong expectations of taking control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives.  When the votes were counted, though, the Republicans scored a historic landslide victory.  Democrats surmised that their poor electoral performance was due to a "war bounce" enjoyed by the President and his party.  Their answer was to attack that war bounce, not by dilligently working to demonstrate superior command of U.S. national security or military policies -- that would be too difficult and take too long -- but by undermining the war effort, itself.  It was the easiest thing to do.  Since 2002, the Democrats have worked tirelessly to hamper the Government's ability to prosecute the Global War On Terrorism.  They have worked tirelessly to promote doubt among the American people that they face any threat.  They have worked tirelessly to undermine public confidence in the war's justness and necessity.  Finally, they have worked tirelessly to enhance the enemy's ability to inflict damage on U.S. personnel and national interests, while at the same time diminishing the Government's ability to respond. 

Kerry, Reid, Pelosi, Hillary, etc. all know what's at stake.  They all know what they're doing, yet deliberately advance their personal agendas by stabbing the USA in the back.  They inwardly rejoice at every U.S. casualty, using each as but another stick with which to beat the President and their political opponents.  What would they not do?  Whom would they not betray in their pursuit of raw power?  The answers are "nothing" and "no one".  These people are the vilest traitors in the history of this country, and deserve nothing less that the fullest measure of opprobrium that our society can bestow. 
Logged
SteveDinMD
Scared Monkey
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 209


« Reply #17 on: September 23, 2007, 03:16:10 PM »

Mrs. Red, I do believe you have a legit point.  Of course, it can be traced back to Woodrow Wilson and the "League of Nations."  The structure of the United Nations is so flawed that it is rendered virtually non functional.  While I would never be one to advocate isolationism there is a point at which we as a nation can no longer sacrifice the lives of our own to protect the world.  As the decades have passed, I think history has proven that other nations are contributing less and less to the functionality of the United Nations. 

I have no answer as to how that is to be fixed except to say we as a nation can not expect to survive if we expend all our resources beyond our own borders while other nations seek to increase their own wealth at our expense.

Perhaps it is late and my thinking is cloudy, but that is just my thought process this evening.
 Sad



GreatOwl: 

You're asking questions that the overwhelming majority of people forgot the answers to long ago:  "What is the U.N.?"  "What is it good for?"  "What are the limits of its usefulness?" 

The U.N. is an international organization intended to reduce conflict among nations by offering avenues for international cooperation beyond traditional bilateral diplomacy.  The key term here is "cooperation," which implies that U.N. authority is accepted voluntarily.  The U.N. is NOT a super-national government asserting its authority through coersion.  All member states retain their full sovereignty, and are free to reject the expressed will of the collective membership, but they do so at their peril. 

The design and organization of the U.N. is rooted in pragmatism, not idealism.  All nations are NOT created equal, and the U.N.'s structure thoroughly reflects this.  When examining this structure, the essential utility of the U.N. becomes apparant.  At its core, the U.N. is a vehicle through which the Great Powers can assert their will in matters where they agree.  It also affords an orderly mechanism for deciding issues where the Great Powers don't care.  Period.  That's it. 

Recongnizing the limits of the U.N. as a vehicle to advance national policy is the key to avoiding frustration and disappointment.  The U.N.'s effectiveness breaks down where the Great Powers disagree.  Actually, it breaks down where the Great Powers lack unanimity of agreement.  This is an unavoidable limitation of ANY such international organization, and as such is not to be lamented.  Rather, this limitation is to be WELCOMED.  It protects the citizens of each sovereign member state from possible arbitrary depredations inflicted by any "tyranny of majority."  Also, U.N. resolutions are not self-enforcing.  To have any practical effect, they must be voluntarily enforced by the membership, and only those member states that have important national interests at stake in any specific issue can be expected to voluteer for such duty.  Unfortunately, the U.N. and its processes do not eliminate the possibility of diplomatic duplicity, nor can they.  Member states may publicly agree on a matter and support it, yet secretly (or even overtly) undermine enforcement of any relevant resolutions. 

Given the above, it should therefore be understood that the U.N. neither "legitimizes" nor "de-legitimizes" any course of action.  It merely expresses a collective sense that might or might not be just and fair.  Moreover, that collective sense isn't self-enforcing and may fail through member duplicity and/or insufficient membership will.  Where no collective sense emerges, the members are left to decide issues outside of U.N. channels, relying upon the traditional elements of statecraft:  diplomacy, economic leverage, and war.  Even in the presence of such collective sense, each member state much remain vigilant, and retains the primary responsibility in defending its own national interests.  In conclusion, the U.N. is both a tool and a process for advancing U.S. foreign policy, and neither its origin nor arbiter. 
Logged
LouiseVargas
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 2524



« Reply #18 on: September 23, 2007, 10:16:20 PM »

Dear Steve,

I think we are so lucky that you are a member of Scared Monkeys. Your posts have been very informative and thorough regarding analyzing what's going on in the world today. However, obviously you are a fanatical Republican and an example of someone who sees only your side of the picture.

1) "They all know what they're doing, yet deliberately advance their personal agendas by stabbing the USA in the back." Can you give me an example? In simple terms, please.

2) "They inwardly rejoice at every U.S. casualty, using each as but another stick with which to beat the President and their political opponents. You don't really know that they are rejoicing." Can you give me an example in simple terms?

3) When you say "These people are the vilest traitors in the history of this country, and deserve nothing less that the fullest measure of opprobrium that our society can bestow" it makes me realize you are speaking your opinions only and nothing factual at all.

From now on, I'll read your posts with grains of salt.

*****************
SteveDinMD wrote: Kerry, Reid, Pelosi, Hillary, etc. all know what's at stake.  They all know what they're doing, yet deliberately advance their personal agendas by stabbing the USA in the back.  They inwardly rejoice at every U.S. casualty, using each as but another stick with which to beat the President and their political opponents.  What would they not do?  Whom would they not betray in their pursuit of raw power?  The answers are "nothing" and "no one".  These people are the vilest traitors in the history of this country, and deserve nothing less that the fullest measure of opprobrium that our society can bestow. 
Logged

Hope is everything. I see angels everywhere.
mrs. red
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9318



WWW
« Reply #19 on: September 24, 2007, 12:10:49 AM »

SteveD... I persoally agree with what you said. great post.
Logged

To accomplish great things we must not only act but also dream, not only plan but also believe.
Author: Anatole
Pages: 1 2 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Use of this web site in any manner signifies unconditional acceptance, without exception, of our terms of use.
Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC
 
Page created in 6.121 seconds with 19 queries.