"Gates: US troops won't drop to 100,000"
By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press
Last updated: 7:42 p.m., Thursday, April 10, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday he sees no chance that the number of U.S. troops in Iraq will drop to 100,000 by the end of the year, guaranteeing a heavy American military presence as the war grinds into its sixth year to the end of the Bush presidency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Powell: Troops in Iraq must be reduced"
Associated Press
Last updated: 6:12 p.m., Thursday, April 10, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said Thursday that President Bush's successor will have to come to grips with the reality that the United States cannot continue to keep such large numbers of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When those experts who claim to know, have exact opposite opinions on a course of action, it becomes very confusing to the average person to form a strong opinion on who to believe.
Both sides present seemingly knowledgeable facts. How can they be so different?
And how should a person decide which is right?
Naturally, one has to, in the long run, make a decision on one of two factors ----
1. ) Which view seems to be more in line with one’s own beliefs, and presents more logical facts.
2. ) Which person or persons is the more credible -- less biased or more experienced.
Personally, I have always gone with my feelings about the person, when all else is fairly equal. I have all my life felt that a deal sealed with a handshake with a person you know to be honest is stronger than a signed contract with one you don’t really trust.
Perhaps, there are other criteria to consider other than the two I listed.
If so, I would enjoy any comments others have to make.
A.B.
Full Version: Who's right? - Who's wrong
Common Ground Common Sense > National & International News > Original Essays, Research and Op-ed Pieces by Our members
[quote name='Abu Beacon' date='Apr 13 2008, 08:38 AM' post='825141']
"Gates: US troops won't drop to 100,000"
By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press
Last updated: 7:42 p.m., Thursday, April 10, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday he sees no chance that the number of U.S. troops in Iraq will drop to 100,000 by the end of the year, guaranteeing a heavy American military presence as the war grinds into its sixth year to the end of the Bush presidency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Powell: Troops in Iraq must be reduced"
Associated Press
Last updated: 6:12 p.m., Thursday, April 10, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said Thursday that President Bush's successor will have to come to grips with the reality that the United States cannot continue to keep such large numbers of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote]
The above quotes were taken from the 4/12-08 post of Livyjr in his excellent thread " Thoughts of a Veteran --- "
A.B.
"Gates: US troops won't drop to 100,000"
By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press
Last updated: 7:42 p.m., Thursday, April 10, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday he sees no chance that the number of U.S. troops in Iraq will drop to 100,000 by the end of the year, guaranteeing a heavy American military presence as the war grinds into its sixth year to the end of the Bush presidency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Powell: Troops in Iraq must be reduced"
Associated Press
Last updated: 6:12 p.m., Thursday, April 10, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said Thursday that President Bush's successor will have to come to grips with the reality that the United States cannot continue to keep such large numbers of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote]
The above quotes were taken from the 4/12-08 post of Livyjr in his excellent thread " Thoughts of a Veteran --- "
A.B.
I am a handshake type person
I believe look 'em in the eye, shake their hand
If there are 2 people, 2 choices, the one I feel most secure about, is the choice I make
(although I am told that is old school and kids today don't do this anymore).
I would trust Powell on this issue. He has nothing to lose here by telling the truth on this, nothing to gain by lying here.
I believe look 'em in the eye, shake their hand
If there are 2 people, 2 choices, the one I feel most secure about, is the choice I make
(although I am told that is old school and kids today don't do this anymore).
I would trust Powell on this issue. He has nothing to lose here by telling the truth on this, nothing to gain by lying here.
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Apr 13 2008, 09:03 AM) 
I would trust Powell on this issue. He has nothing to lose here by telling the truth on this, nothing to gain by lying here.
So would I. That would be a good third factor to consider in making a decision.
Good point!!
A.B.
QUOTE(Abu Beacon @ Apr 13 2008, 11:00 AM)
[/color]
So would I. That would be a good third factor to consider in making a decision.
Good point!!
A.B.
So would I. That would be a good third factor to consider in making a decision.
Good point!!
A.B.
We ought to do it because it is the right thing and most in our best interest to do, not because we
have to. We are there 140000+ strong because we can and we have no other good reason for being there. So let's re-position our troops while we can still choose to do so. Otherwise, we're using Bill Clinton's explanation, "...because I can, which is the worst possible reason for doing something."
Perhaps if someone could actually state what they see as the US's long-term goals should be in Iraq, they could then explain their statements about leaving troops there. Then we could see who we agree with.
The way I see it is that everyone (including BO & HC) has bought into the scene that keeping Iraq'a oil available to the US is in our country's best interest, and they think that the troops are going to guarantee this. There's no other reason I can fathom why the troops are there at all. They should have been recalled when Saddam was jailed, at the very latest.
But since then, the "mission" has changed.......to what no one knows except the cretin in the WH and he's not talking.
So first, we need a firm goal and then plans to fulfill that goal.. And no more of this crap about an Iraq government. Just put the best bet at this moment in time in as boss and let him go. Whoever it may be has got to be better than al-Maliki. He's so ineffectual he's perpetually out to lunch.
IMO though, for moral reasons, the US should NOT claim any part of Iraq'a revenues or anything from that country. Bush bought it with the first bomb that was dropped and as much as I hate to say so, someone has to fix it. And the Iraqis shouldn't be kept in poverty because Bush doesn't have the good sense God gave a cockroach. Since the SCOTUS appointed him 'fearless leader', the rest of us have to take the lumps from being asleep and complacent about those who have almost destoyed this nation.
And yeah, you can bet your farm, I'M MORE BITTER THAN I EVER THOUGHT POSSIBLE TO BE ABOUT ANYTHING. My only regret is that at my age I don't think I'll live long enough to see Bush & Cheney get what's coming to them.
QUOTE(grammydidi @ Apr 13 2008, 02:13 PM)
Perhaps if someone could actually state what they see as the US's long-term goals should be in Iraq, they could then explain their statements about leaving troops there. Then we could see who we agree with.
I thoroughly enjoyed reading your comments,grammydidi. Everything you wrote corresponds with my feelings. I don't believe we will hear in our lifetime why our troops were sent to Iraq and why they are there now.
Most people, even those who shoud know, don't and those who really do know are not going to speak up. Most Americans still believe we have a rational government in Washington. No one wants to believe that we are being led by evil weasels, with limited ability to govern. We have had incompetent leaders in the past but not to the degree we have now, nor with the complete disregard for doing what's best and right for the American people.
The way I see it is that everyone (including BO & HC) has bought into the scene that keeping Iraq'a oil available to the US is in our country's best interest, and they think that the troops are going to guarantee this. There's no other reason I can fathom why the troops are there at all. They should have been recalled when Saddam was jailed, at the very latest.
But since then, the "mission" has changed.......to what no one knows except the cretin in the WH and he's not talking.
So first, we need a firm goal and then plans to fulfill that goal.. And no more of this crap about an Iraq government. Just put the best bet at this moment in time in as boss and let him go. Whoever it may be has got to be better than al-Maliki. He's so ineffectual he's perpetually out to lunch.
We have been led into a swamp, mostly quicksand, with no visible way out to those in charge except just leaving which would cost them a complete loss of face, which is more important to them than the cost of human lives and being able to lead decent lives with a decent standard of living for the majority of people..
IMO though, for moral reasons, the US should NOT claim any part of Iraq'a revenues or anything from that country. Bush bought it with the first bomb that was dropped and as much as I hate to say so, someone has to fix it. And the Iraqis shouldn't be kept in poverty because Bush doesn't have the good sense God gave a cockroach. Since the SCOTUS appointed him 'fearless leader', the rest of us have to take the lumps from being asleep and complacent about those who have almost destoyed this nation.
Will America ever wake up to what is going on? We can only hope and pray for this.
And yeah, you can bet your farm, I'M MORE BITTER THAN I EVER THOUGHT POSSIBLE TO BE ABOUT ANYTHING. My only regret is that at my age I don't think I'll live long enough to see Bush & Cheney get what's coming to them.
I thoroughly enjoyed reading your comments,grammydidi. Everything you wrote corresponds with my feelings. I don't believe we will hear in our lifetime why our troops were sent to Iraq and why they are there now.
Most people, even those who shoud know, don't and those who really do know are not going to speak up. Most Americans still believe we have a rational government in Washington. No one wants to believe that we are being led by evil weasels, with limited ability to govern. We have had incompetent leaders in the past but not to the degree we have now, nor with the complete disregard for doing what's best and right for the American people.
The way I see it is that everyone (including BO & HC) has bought into the scene that keeping Iraq'a oil available to the US is in our country's best interest, and they think that the troops are going to guarantee this. There's no other reason I can fathom why the troops are there at all. They should have been recalled when Saddam was jailed, at the very latest.
But since then, the "mission" has changed.......to what no one knows except the cretin in the WH and he's not talking.
So first, we need a firm goal and then plans to fulfill that goal.. And no more of this crap about an Iraq government. Just put the best bet at this moment in time in as boss and let him go. Whoever it may be has got to be better than al-Maliki. He's so ineffectual he's perpetually out to lunch.
We have been led into a swamp, mostly quicksand, with no visible way out to those in charge except just leaving which would cost them a complete loss of face, which is more important to them than the cost of human lives and being able to lead decent lives with a decent standard of living for the majority of people..
IMO though, for moral reasons, the US should NOT claim any part of Iraq'a revenues or anything from that country. Bush bought it with the first bomb that was dropped and as much as I hate to say so, someone has to fix it. And the Iraqis shouldn't be kept in poverty because Bush doesn't have the good sense God gave a cockroach. Since the SCOTUS appointed him 'fearless leader', the rest of us have to take the lumps from being asleep and complacent about those who have almost destoyed this nation.
Will America ever wake up to what is going on? We can only hope and pray for this.
And yeah, you can bet your farm, I'M MORE BITTER THAN I EVER THOUGHT POSSIBLE TO BE ABOUT ANYTHING. My only regret is that at my age I don't think I'll live long enough to see Bush & Cheney get what's coming to them.
grammyididi, everyone who truly cares about our country has a right to be bitter, but we cannot give up!
A.B.
QUOTE(Abu Beacon @ Apr 13 2008, 08:38 AM)
"Gates: US troops won't drop to 100,000"
By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press
Last updated: 7:42 p.m., Thursday, April 10, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday he sees no chance that the number of U.S. troops in Iraq will drop to 100,000 by the end of the year, guaranteeing a heavy American military presence as the war grinds into its sixth year to the end of the Bush presidency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Powell: Troops in Iraq must be reduced"
Associated Press
Last updated: 6:12 p.m., Thursday, April 10, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said Thursday that President Bush's successor will have to come to grips with the reality that the United States cannot continue to keep such large numbers of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When those experts who claim to know, have exact opposite opinions on a course of action, it becomes very confusing to the average person to form a strong opinion on who to believe.
Both sides present seemingly knowledgeable facts. How can they be so different?
And how should a person decide which is right?
Naturally, one has to, in the long run, make a decision on one of two factors ----
1. ) Which view seems to be more in line with one’s own beliefs, and presents more logical facts.
2. ) Which person or persons is the more credible -- less biased or more experienced.
Personally, I have always gone with my feelings about the person, when all else is fairly equal. I have all my life felt that a deal sealed with a handshake with a person you know to be honest is stronger than a signed contract with one you don’t really trust.
Perhaps, there are other criteria to consider other than the two I listed.
If so, I would enjoy any comments others have to make.
A.B.
By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press
Last updated: 7:42 p.m., Thursday, April 10, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday he sees no chance that the number of U.S. troops in Iraq will drop to 100,000 by the end of the year, guaranteeing a heavy American military presence as the war grinds into its sixth year to the end of the Bush presidency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Powell: Troops in Iraq must be reduced"
Associated Press
Last updated: 6:12 p.m., Thursday, April 10, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said Thursday that President Bush's successor will have to come to grips with the reality that the United States cannot continue to keep such large numbers of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When those experts who claim to know, have exact opposite opinions on a course of action, it becomes very confusing to the average person to form a strong opinion on who to believe.
Both sides present seemingly knowledgeable facts. How can they be so different?
And how should a person decide which is right?
Naturally, one has to, in the long run, make a decision on one of two factors ----
1. ) Which view seems to be more in line with one’s own beliefs, and presents more logical facts.
2. ) Which person or persons is the more credible -- less biased or more experienced.
Personally, I have always gone with my feelings about the person, when all else is fairly equal. I have all my life felt that a deal sealed with a handshake with a person you know to be honest is stronger than a signed contract with one you don’t really trust.
Perhaps, there are other criteria to consider other than the two I listed.
If so, I would enjoy any comments others have to make.
A.B.
The Leader is whoever best makes Explicit what is--at various interrelated levels of Abstractions--in Critical Domains (Situations) and says, "let's do this, and Others follow." The out come of Leadership is what follows. One could add on to the schema g4a started with # 3).How does this View differ from the Default Model of the Immediate and Extended Social System of which we are equal members? Looking deeper at your #2, what needs to be emphasized is the methodology
employed and the quality of Documentation--not how much of a slime ball the person is?
QUOTE(rla @ Apr 13 2008, 11:22 AM)
We ought to do it because it is the right thing and most in our best interest to do, not because we
have to. We are there 140000+ strong because we can and we have no other good reason for being there. So let's re-position our troops while we can still choose to do so. Otherwise, we're using Bill Clinton's explanation, "...because I can, which is the worst possible reason for doing something."
have to. We are there 140000+ strong because we can and we have no other good reason for being there. So let's re-position our troops while we can still choose to do so. Otherwise, we're using Bill Clinton's explanation, "...because I can, which is the worst possible reason for doing something."
May be the question is better framed as, "What's Right" - "What's Wrong?" rather than, "Who's
Right or Wrong?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.