New Iraq Policy

from JoeUser Forums

Below is my advice of what we should do in Iraq:


1. Shift 50,000 troops to Afghanistan and keep the balance in Iraq.

2. Reassign remaining U.S. military in Iraq to perform the following missions:

A.Secure the border of Iraq and help protect the infrastructure.
B.Destroy all foreign terrorist forces in western Iraq and prevent their operation in the future.
C.Provide logistical and air support for Iraqi military forces.

3.Turn over ALL combat operations against Sunni/Shiite areas to Iraqi Forces.

4.Increase the training of Iraqi military and police forces.


If the Iraqi Government and military ends the sectarian violence and provides the political compromises to end the violence, we would continue the four missions above. If the Iraqi’s fail to establish security and come to the political compromises within the next 12 months, we REMOVE ALL U.S. Forces from Iraq!
politics
15,189 views 55 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Glad to see you all agree with my suggestions.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
The New York Times


January 15, 2007
U.S. and Iraqis Are Wrangling Over War Plans
By JOHN F. BURNS

This article was reported by John F. Burns, Sabrina Tavernise and Marc Santora, and written by Mr. Burns.

BAGHDAD, Jan. 14 — Just days after President Bush unveiled a new war plan calling for more than 20,000 additional American troops in Iraq, the heart of the effort — a major push to secure the capital — faces some of its fiercest resistance from the very people it depends on for success: Iraqi government officials.

American military officials have spent days huddled in meetings with Iraqi officers in a race to turn blueprints drawn up in Washington into a plan that will work on the ground in Baghdad. With the first American and Iraqi units dedicated to the plan due to be in place within weeks, time is short for setting details of what American officers view as the decisive battle of the war.

But the signs so far have unnerved some Americans working on the plan, who have described a web of problems — ranging from a contested chain of command to how to protect American troops deployed in some of Baghdad’s most dangerous districts — that some fear could hobble the effort before it begins.

First among the American concerns is a Shiite-led government that has been so dogmatic in its attitude that the Americans worry that they will be frustrated in their aim of cracking down equally on Shiite and Sunni extremists, a strategy President Bush has declared central to the plan.

“We are implementing a strategy to embolden a government that is actually part of the problem,” said an American military official in Baghdad involved in talks over the plan. “We are being played like a pawn.”
Fences - Organize your desktop icons today!
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Glad to see you all agree with my suggestions.

Not feeding the troll does not indicate agreeing with said troll.

'nuff said.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

Silence is consent.


WRONG! We just choose not to respond to your idiocy!
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

Silence is consent.

Like when someone posts how good the economy is doing, and it draws no comments?

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
IslandDog


I have documented that the economy is only GOOD for the upper income Americans. The retires and working Americans have scene a drop in their RERAL after inflation wages and the new jobs that are being created pay far less then the jobs that were lost. The U.S. Metro Economies Report done for the U.S. Conference of Mayors Documents this fact. The average salary for the jobs lost from 2001-2003 was $43,629. The Average salary for the jobs created during the past three years is $34,378. That is 20% drop and after inflation is over 30% less. That same study documented that in 18 states the employment has NOT returned to the 2000 level and that we need 1 million MORE jobs to be just even with 2000. That is the real story about Jobs not just that we have added 5 million jobs. In addition the same study said that health and retirement benefits have also dropped for the newly created jobs compared with the jobs that were lost.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

I have documented that the economy is only GOOD for the upper income Americans.

And we have documented otherwise.

The U.S. Metro Economies Report done for the U.S. Conference of Mayors Documents this fact.

In which newer data shows incomes are rising even after inflation.  Try again.

Why do you ignore anything that shows good?  The economy is not as half as bad you make it out to be. 

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
You have not shown that the drop in salaries for the new jobs has been overcome. You have not shown that the 1 million jobs that we are short have been created. You have not shown that the new jobs are restoring health and retirement benefits. The economy is GOOD only for the upper income Americans. The Low and middle income workers have NOT benefited from the Bush Economy! The majority of the retired see their after inflation income buy less every year!
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
You have not shown that the drop in salaries for the new jobs has been overcome. You have not shown that the 1 million jobs that we are short have been created. You have not shown that the new jobs are restoring health and retirement benefits. The economy is GOOD only for the upper income Americans. The Low and middle income workers have NOT benefited from the Bush Economy! The majority of the retired see their after inflation income buy less every year!


I see how it is now...ID knocked the leg out from under your tripod. So rather than possibly admitting defeat, you skip over it and repeat the same tired talking points.

The U.S. Metro Economies Report done for the U.S. Conference of Mayors Documents this fact.

In which newer data shows incomes are rising even after inflation. Try again.
Why do you ignore anything that shows good? The economy is not as half as bad you make it out to be.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Drmiler

Wages have increase to some degree but middle income workers are not better off after inflation.

You have not addressed the fact that the NEW jobs being created do not pay as much as the jobs that have been lost. You have not shown where companies are restoring health and retirement benefits. You have not shown where we have added enough new jobs to make up for the 1 million jobs we are SHORT compared with 2000.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Now lets get back to the subject of this Blog - A New Iraq Policy.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

 

Wages have increase to some degree but middle income workers are not better off after inflation.

Wages are still up after inflation, this directly disputes the rhetoric you talk about.  The economy is good col, no matter what DNC talking points you bring up. 

Now lets get back to the subject of this Blog - A New Iraq Policy.

LOL

Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
IslandDog

You like Bush are not interested in alternatives for Iraq just more Stay The Course which is what the NEW Bush plan amounts to.

The data from the census bureau says after inflation Average Weekly wage is NOT UP. It is also true that the New jobs from this great Bush economy pay over 20% LESS then the jobs that were lost and have less health and retirement benefits. SOME GREAT ECONOMY. In addition show me how the 46 Million Retired are better off under the Bush economy?
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
You like Bush are not interested in alternatives for Iraq just more Stay The Course which is what the NEW Bush plan amounts to.


I don't want "stay the course", I want take the restrictions off our troops and let them do what they need to do!  But of course if that happens people will complain, so we can't do that. 

It is also true that the New jobs from this great Bush economy pay over 20% LESS then the jobs that were lost and have less health and retirement benefits. SOME GREAT ECONOMY. In addition show me how the 46 Million Retired are better off under the Bush economy?


First of all, your wages opinion is just false.  I have shown you how it was democratic rhetoric that Kerry started during his campaign, and was proven FALSE.

Secondly, none of it is Bush's fault anyways!  Bush does not control what you make col!  Do you understand that basic fact?

People don't have health insurance....IT'S NOT THE FAULT OF BUSH!
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
My data comes from a study done for the U.S. Conference of Mayors and it is not false. You just do not like the results! It documented the DROP in Average salaries of the new jobs. It documented where the 1 million job shortfall exists (18 States) and documented the reduction of both health and retirements benefits for the new jobs that Bush is bragging about!

You are correct Bush did not cut off health care to 2 million working families that lost health care since 2001. He has done NOTHING to help find a solution to this serious problem.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
My data comes from a study done for the U.S. Conference of Mayors and it is not false.


Maybe it's not false, but it's out of date, and we have shown recent data that says otherwise. 

You are correct Bush did not cut off health care to 2 million working families that lost health care since 2001. He has done NOTHING to help find a solution to this serious problem.


Because it's not a problem for him to solve.  Health care, or rather health insurance is not the responsibiity of the president.  If you want a socialized health care system, then vote Hillary!
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
IslandDog

You are wrong. The data on the average salaries for the jobs that are being created is correct. The new jobs pay significantly less then the jobs that were lost in the early years of the Bush Administration. You are talking about some improvement in the Average weekly wage. However over the past 6 years, there has been NO improvement in the AFTER Inflation Wage for working Americans. The only group that is doing well under the Bush policies is the wealthy. They have shown a steady improvement in their financial condition. That is in part due to the fact that 70% of the tax cuts go to the wealthy. The low income and low middle income workers have not got much if anything from the tax cuts. They have been impacted by higher insurance, energy, health and food costs. In Florida homeowners insurance has doubled in some cases and has wiped out their entire wage increases.

You are correct Bush does not care how many Americans do not have health coverage. I wish Bush had the experience of not having a job, health care and not being able to feed his family. He is a person of privilege that results from not his accomplishments but upon the accomplishments and contacts of his family. He is a sorry excuse for a leader and has proven that the failures he experienced thought his life has been replicated as president. You would be hard pressed to show how Bush succeeded thought his life from his own efforts. Every time he got into trouble, Daddy and Daddy's friends bailed GWB out!
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
You are wrong. The data on the average salaries for the jobs that are being created is correct. The new jobs pay significantly less then the jobs that were lost in the early years of the Bush Administration. You are talking about some improvement in the Average weekly wage. However over the past 6 years, there has been NO improvement in the AFTER Inflation Wage for working Americans


Col, if you pay attention to threads that show good things out of the economy instead of ignoring them, then you would have noticed.  You are wrong col, and we have proved it. 


You are correct Bush does not care how many Americans do not have health coverage. I wish Bush had the experience of not having a job, health care and not being able to feed his family. He is a person of privilege that results from not his accomplishments but upon the accomplishments and contacts of his family. He is a sorry excuse for a leader and has proven that the failures he experienced thought his life has been replicated as president. You would be hard pressed to show how Bush succeeded thought his life from his own efforts. Every time he got into trouble, Daddy and Daddy's friends bailed GWB out!


I didn't say Bush didn't care, I said it's not his repsonsibility to provide health care or health insurance.  This is a simple fact you keep ignoring!

The rest of your statement proves to me you have an emotional obesession and hatred for Bush.  I also detect some jealously of him and wealthy people in general. 


The low income and low middle income workers have not got much if anything from the tax cuts. They have been impacted by higher insurance, energy, health and food costs. In Florida homeowners insurance has doubled in some cases and has wiped out


Not true at all.  I benefited greatly from the tax cuts and so have many others that aren't part of the "evil rich".  If someone is "poor" it's their own fault, not the governments or Bush.  Personal responsibility col.  That is where it begins.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Opposition is growing to the Bush Surge.

At least seven Republican senators have said they flatly oppose the troop increase: Sam Brownback of Kansas, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Gordon Smith of Oregon, George Voinovich of Ohio, Susan Collins of Maine and Olympia Snowe of Maine
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
IslandDog

The study that the U.S. Conference of Mayors sighted was a detailed study that covered the entire country and looked at data over 5 years. That is not a thread.

You are talking about some recent improvement in the Average weekly wage for all workers. The issue I was talking about is the quality of the 5 million new jobs that Bush is crowing about not wages overall. The new jobs pay far less and have fewer benefits. That is not something to point to as a success. Creating lower paying jobs with less health and retirement benefits is not a GOOD accomplishment!

As to the overall wage growth during the past six years, it has not offset the inflation during those same six years. That is per the Census Bureau.

Other studies I have read have concluded that only the top income group has experienced real after inflation improvement in their financial condition. The large tax cuts to the upper income Americans is the primary reason for that improvement along with the fact that upper income workers have received larger wage increases during the past 6 years then the low and middle income workers. In fact many of the low paying jobs have not experienced ANY wage growth.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think you just ignore anything that differs from your posts.  We have shown your claims to be bogus but you still present them as fact.  Unbelievable!
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
IslandDog

BS you have not shown anything that disputed the study I posted. It shows that the Bush job growth is for jobs that pay far less then those that were lost.


The Average wage for the jobs that were lost between 2001-2003 was $43,629. The Average salary of the jobs created from 2003-2005 was $ 34,378. How is that good economic performance? How would you like to take a CUT in pay of 20%?
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top

Keep believing that col.

  

Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
IslandDog

The facts speak for them selves. You do not want to accept anything that proves the Bush policies are not helping the majority of the people of this country. There is a reason why less then 1/3 of American agrees with the path he has taken this country down in the past 6 years. It does not matter what the issue—the vast majority including many Republicans do not support him—Iraq, Immigration, Energy, trade, the deficit—Issue after issue is the same.