Comments on: Will Bush fantasies add to our nightmare?

By: Terrell

Terrell — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 01:23:51 +0000

I agree that larger force in the beginning may have helped, but I see no positive outcome now. We must choose the least bad of the several bad choices we have. To send 30,000 more troops in now is to provide more targets to our enemies.

I am no military expert by any stretch, but it seems to me that 30,000 is far short of what it would take to pacify that huge, violent country, and that the idea that the American people will support even that escalation is absolutely unrealistic.

By: S.W. Anderson

S.W. Anderson — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 00:13:37 +0000

OK, RSF, that might get somewhere if we were fighting a monolithic or even somewhat cohesive enemy, even of guerrilla fighters. Problem is, it’s a civil war with many competing interests resorting to violence against each other and against our troops.

Your scheme might also get somewhere if Iraq’s borders were secure and other countries and factions in the region were warned away from interfering. Problem is, owing to bad thinking, bad leadership and lack of resources, this isn’t the case.

By: rightsaidfred

rightsaidfred — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 23:01:22 +0000

It is a reasoned opinion to stay and make something work in Iraq. To leave now sets up bigger problems in the future. Pay the price now, it will be less than in the future.

I was hearing of one idea called the “ink blot”, where you start with the green zone, and slowly expand it, letting in only secure personnel, with the goal of making all of Bahgdad a “green zone”. Outside of that area you liberally use air power and heavy artillery against the enemy.

By: Thrillhous

Thrillhous — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 17:25:57 +0000

After these years of war, I don’t think “more war” is the answer. Actually, a redeployment of the Iraq troops to Afghanistan might be a good idea.

It seems to me that at this point, all we’re doing is doing standing in for Iran. Iraq is pretty much theirs now, we’re just helping them eliminate the Sunnis.

By: S.W. Anderson

S.W. Anderson — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 08:49:35 +0000

The U.S. Constitution specifies when and how impeachment can be undertaken. I do not know of any provision for an individual state to do this.

By: Josh

Josh — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 08:32:30 +0000

“There ought to be some mechanism to remove an incompetent political hack from the most powerful office in the land ahead of schedule.”

Unfortunately, the American people can’t impeach anybody…
I know that House and Senate can.
Though, I thought that also individual US states could start the impeachment process due to some ancient loop hole and special clause for the states…? Wasn’t there some plan for this underway? What happened?