Reaching a Deal on North Korea.

[erynthered]

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8...1588816,00.html

 

 

Bush Bad!!!

[yall]

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8...1588816,00.html

Bush Bad!!!

 

Now if we can only get Iran to do the same...

[VABills]

Now if we can only get Iran to do the same...

One thing at a time. I know the hot pocket mentality of wanting it now and not actually having to work for your meal. But in the real world it takes time and effort. It isn't as simple as people around here will have you believe. If it was they would be working for State and signing a new trade or peace agrrement everyday, and the whole would would be singing Kumbaya.

[PastaJoe]

One thing at a time. I know the hot pocket mentality of wanting it now and not actually having to work for your meal. But in the real world it takes time and effort. It isn't as simple as people around here will have you believe. If it was they would be working for State and signing a new trade or peace agrrement everyday, and the whole would would be singing Kumbaya.

 

So you're saying that Bush had a hot pocket mentality with Iraq.

[VABills]

So you're saying that Bush had a hot pocket mentality with Iraq.

No you and the media do thining that it was going to be settled in a year. Even when you had lots of former military folks and some who wrote war planning options telling you it would be AT LEAST 5-8 years before you actually saw Iraq capable of even standing up and maintaining any order. Bush was actually very good about never giving a timeframe and still doesn't. But any good military mind know that you need battalions to stand up and be lead. A battalion is typically lead by a field grade officer (major, LtCo, Col). You don't become one over night it takes at least 6-8 years to get even a good one to that level. Hence why most folks said 5-8 to even get to the point of Iraq starting to take over.

 

Again your hot pocket mentallity got upset that it wasn't 6 months.

[Tux of Borg]

No you and the media do thining that it was going to be settled in a year. Even when you had lots of former military folks and some who wrote war planning options telling you it would be AT LEAST 5-8 years before you actually saw Iraq capable of even standing up and maintaining any order. Bush was actually very good about never giving a timeframe and still doesn't. But any good military mind know that you need battalions to stand up and be lead. A battalion is typically lead by a field grade officer (major, LtCo, Col). You don't become one over night it takes at least 6-8 years to get even a good one to that level. Hence why most folks said 5-8 to even get to the point of Iraq starting to take over.

 

Again your hot pocket mentallity got upset that it wasn't 6 months.

 

David Petraeus (my old commander) is now running the show in Iraq. I'll be interested to see how things unfold under his watch.

[yall]

One thing at a time. I know the hot pocket mentality of wanting it now and not actually having to work for your meal. But in the real world it takes time and effort. It isn't as simple as people around here will have you believe. If it was they would be working for State and signing a new trade or peace agrrement everyday, and the whole would would be singing Kumbaya.

 

It wasn't so much hotpocket mentality as it was wishful thinking. I have serious doubts that Iran can be persuaded to drop their plans. I hope the UN can get something done, but I've seen the results of their efforts in the past, and have been less than impressed.

 

It seems that if a nation really wants to get the bomb, all of the non-proliferation treaties in the world won't stop them.

[RunTheBall]

This is perfect political maneuvering by a psycho dictator. He's basically getting 1 million tons of fuel oil to prop up his teetering country while shutting down a couple of known reactors after he's extracted enough plutonium for a few dozen bombs. Brilliant.

 

In a couple years when he runs out of fuel again: SURPRISE! I've got a reactor sitting over here! Back to square 1.

 

Anyone who honestly thinks the North Koreans are going to live up to any agreement is abso-farking-lutely delusional.

 

The only way to deal with this nut-job is to kill him.

 

RTB

[molson_golden2002]

1) No you and the media do thining that it was going to be settled in a year. Even when you had lots of former military folks and some who wrote war planning options telling you it would be AT LEAST 5-8 years before you actually saw Iraq capable of even standing up and maintaining any order. Bush was actually very good about never giving a timeframe and still doesn't. But any good military mind know that you need battalions to stand up and be lead. A battalion is typically lead by a field grade officer (major, LtCo, Col). You don't become one over night it takes at least 6-8 years to get even a good one to that level. Hence why most folks said 5-8 to even get to the point of Iraq starting to take over.

 

Again your hot pocket mentallity got upset that it wasn't 6 months.

Oh boy, back to media bashing again. Could it be the media was simply repeating the "cakewalk," "Oil will pay for the war," "Weeks rather than moths," "mission accomplished" mantra the Bush administrtion was feeding it?

 

And your 5-8 years time frame is complete fantasy. There is a sectarian war(s) going on, there is massive corruption and many other factors dividing that 'nation' and they are not going to get a national army together anytime soon and probably not ever. The middle class has fled the country. You know what that means? No technichans, no administratiors, doctors, lawyers, nurses, teachers, managers etc. Try running a country without those people. We can keep our people there until kingdom come and that place will still be a sh--hole

[OnTheRocks]

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8...1588816,00.html

Bush Bad!!!

with a Democrat majority in Congress it was only a matter of time.

[Johnny Coli]

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8...1588816,00.html

Bush Bad!!!

 

Isn't it "Bush Hypocrite!"?

 

Bush’s North Korea accord is a reversal for the administration

More than anything else he has done in his second term, George W. Bush’s embrace of a fuel-for-nukes accord with North Korea shows that he is adjusting to the harsh realities of diplomacy—and straying ever further from the ideology of regime change. The proof: the president has cut a deal that is likely to help a member of his notorious “Axis of Evil,” Kim Jong Il, stay in power longer, even while it may make the world safer.

 

The agreement announced today represents a major change in attitude that goes beyond North Korea. The most evident sign is that the accord, under which Pyongyang will immediately get 50 tons of emergency fuel oil with nearly a million more tons to come, is plainly a reversal of the administration’s previous principled stand against the “nuclear blackmail” that it accused Bill Clinton of engaging in. Until this week the administration refused to reward “bad behavior”—secret weapons programs—by promising dictators like Kim goodies in return for giving up nukes. “There’s a little bit of tripping over earlier rhetoric,” says Michael Green, the senior director for Asia on the National Security Council in Bush’s first term.

 

[...]

 

All of which leaves the question: is the North Korea pact a good deal? Critics said it was full of pitfalls—not least of which is that it doesn’t directly address the disposition of Pyongyang’s alleged arsenal of several nuclear weapons, nor its secret uranium-enriching program.

 

[...]

 

Other critics also said that the deal could have been negotiated six years ago, before the North had already tested a nuclear weapon.

 

 

Hypocrite or no, I applaud his distancing of himself from the sabre-rattling nut-jobs that seemed to have had his ear for the first six years of his presidency.

[VABills]

Oh boy, back to media bashing again. Could it be the media was simply repeating the "cakewalk," "Oil will pay for the war," "Weeks rather than moths," "mission accomplished" mantra the Bush administrtion was feeding it?

 

And your 5-8 years time frame is complete fantasy. There is a sectarian war(s) going on, there is massive corruption and many other factors dividing that 'nation' and they are not going to get a national army together anytime soon and probably not ever. The middle class has fled the country. You know what that means? No technichans, no administratiors, doctors, lawyers, nurses, teachers, managers etc. Try running a country without those people. We can keep our people there until kingdom come and that place will still be a sh--hole

Care to show me where he said it would take weeks? The mission accomplished was over the direct war, and everyone knew it was going to be years before it stablized. Care to show me he would have all the troops home in a year?

 

Yeah didn't think so, that was all a liberal and media push knowing that it would take years.

 

As far as the middle class, until the iraqis take over and stablize of course you lose that. When they start stablizing that segment of society will return quickly. Again, you obviously are not much into history. Take a look at post WWII Germany, Austria, etc... when the nazis were removed. Look at Serb/Coate wars. They didn't stablize in a year or two, it took clearly 10+ years to really settle.

 

But keep making up new rules because you don't like the boy in office. Neither do I but for factual reasons not media driven and made up reasons.

[Oneonta Buffalo Fan]

This could be bad in the long run.

[chicot]

No you and the media do thining that it was going to be settled in a year. Even when you had lots of former military folks and some who wrote war planning options telling you it would be AT LEAST 5-8 years before you actually saw Iraq capable of even standing up and maintaining any order. Bush was actually very good about never giving a timeframe and still doesn't. But any good military mind know that you need battalions to stand up and be lead. A battalion is typically lead by a field grade officer (major, LtCo, Col). You don't become one over night it takes at least 6-8 years to get even a good one to that level. Hence why most folks said 5-8 to even get to the point of Iraq starting to take over.

 

Again your hot pocket mentallity got upset that it wasn't 6 months.

 

Seems that it wasn't just the media that had a somewhat shorter timescale than 6-8 years in mind:

 

Iraq war plan "delusional"

[VABills]

Seems that it wasn't just the media that had a somewhat shorter timescale than 6-8 years in mind:

 

Iraq war plan "delusional"

Nice they they actually show these "declassified" documents. What about initial troops strengths, I bet they were higher then what was presented here as well. Again, take the package as a whole, and if they are going to refer to seemingly declassified docs maybe they should show them. Also, just because one plan was presented doesn't mean it realistic or the plan that operations were based on. Please don't tell me you buy into this bad reporting.

[molson_golden2002]

Care to show me where he said it would take weeks? The mission accomplished was over the direct war, and everyone knew it was going to be years before it stablized. Care to show me he would have all the troops home in a year?

 

Yeah didn't think so, that was all a liberal and media push knowing that it would take years.

This is a joke right? You are seriously arguing that the Bush administration didn't make this sound easy? Cheney said on Meet the Press it would take weeks instead of months, that we would be welcomed as liberators. Please show me where Bush or anyone else in his administration said this was going to be a long hard bloody struggle to set up a stable government there before the war started. And your take on 'Mission Accomplished' is just plain wrong. They were having a !@#$ celebration, clueless to what was going on. You declare 'Mission Accomplished when you "know" its going to take years to stablize a country?

 

You can blame the media all you want, but what you are really doing is sticking your head in the sand.

[VABills]

This is a joke right? You are seriously arguing that the Bush administration didn't make this sound easy? Cheney said on Meet the Press it would take weeks instead of months, that we would be welcomed as liberators. Please show me where Bush or anyone else in his administration said this was going to be a long hard bloody struggle to set up a stable government there before the war started. And your take on 'Mission Accomplished' is just plain wrong. They were having a !@#$ celebration, clueless to what was going on. You declare 'Mission Accomplished when you "know" its going to take years to stablize a country?

 

You can blame the media all you want, but what you are really doing is sticking your head in the sand.

Again show me the link where we said we would be out in a year or two. Show me an actual quote from Bush stating that. Not yours or the media "interpretation" of events, but an actual and truthful quote.

[molson_golden2002]

Nice they they actually show these "declassified" documents. What about initial troops strengths, I bet they were higher then what was presented here as well. Again, take the package as a whole, and if they are going to refer to seemingly declassified docs maybe they should show them. Also, just because one plan was presented doesn't mean it realistic or the plan that operations were based on. Please don't tell me you buy into this bad reporting.

Seems like 'delusional' applies to more than just those running the war. These were the people who led the invasion. You are just sticking your head in the sand again. Get over your emotions and actually think. BTW, I think I know why Tommy Franks got out while the getting was good.

_____________________________________________________

 

The August 2002 material was obtained by the National Security Archive (NSA). Its officials said the plans were based on delusional assumptions.

 

The US currently has some 132,000 troops in the violence-torn state.

 

'Completely unrealistic'

 

The documents - in the former of PowerPoint slides - were prepared by the now-retired Gen Tommy Franks and other top commanders at the time.

 

The documents were presented at a briefing in August 2002 - less than a year before the US invasion of Iraq in April 2003.

 

The commanders predicted that after the fighting was over there would be a two- to three-month "stabilisation" phase, followed by an 18- to 24-month "recovery" stage.

 

They projected that the US forces would be almost completely "re-deployed" out of Iraq at the end of the "transition" phase - within 45 months of invasion.

 

"Completely unrealistic assumptions about a post-Saddam Iraq permeate these war plans," NSA executive director Thomas Blanton said in a statement posted on the organisation's website.

 

"First, they assumed that a provisional government would be in place by 'D-Day', then that the Iraqis would stay in their garrisons and be reliable partners, and finally that the post-hostilities phase would be a matter of mere months'," Mr Blanton said.

 

"All of these were delusions," he added.

 

The NSA said it received the documents last month, after making a request in 2004.

 

The NSA is an independent research institute at George Washington University.

 

It obtained the papers under the Freedom of Information Act.

 

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/6364507.stm

 

Published: 2007/02/15 12:41:14 GMT

[molson_golden2002]

Again show me the link where we said we would be out in a year or two. Show me an actual quote from Bush stating that. Not yours or the media "interpretation" of events, but an actual and truthful quote.

 

http://zfacts.com/p/87.html

 

How about you show me where Bush said it was going to be a long bloody struggle to set up a democracy in Iraq. You can't do that.

 

No, no! Where would I get the impression this administration said it would be a short conflict? Where?

 

Bush, 5/2005.

"Good news to the men and women who fought ... their mission is complete."

 

 

Bush: Mission Accomplished

May 1, 2003

George W. Bush

"Thank you all very much. Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended." Under the banner "Mission Accomplished." Presidential Documents

 

Rumsfeld: WMD? We know where they are. Baghdad; east, west, south & north.

Mar. 30, 2003

Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." (more)

 

Wolfowitz: A country that can really finance its own reconstruction

Mar. 27, 2003

Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary

There’s a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people…and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.” (more)

 

Perle: days or weeks -- this will be a short war

Mar. 25, 2003

Richard Perle, Chairman of the Defense Policy Board

I can't tell you exactly how many days or how many weeks. But by

historical standards, this will be a short war. (more)

 

Cheney: In weeks rather than months

Mar. 16, 2003

Dick Cheney

"My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . [in] weeks rather than months." --on NBC's Meet the Press

 

Rumsfeld: I Doubt Six Months

Feb. 7, 2003

Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense

"It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." —to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: (more)

 

Rumsfeld: Under $50 billion

Jan. 10, 2003

Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense

“Well, the Office of Management and Budget, has come up come up with a number that's something under $50 billion for the cost. How much of that would be the U.S. burden, and how much would be other countries, is an open question.”

 

Rumsfeld: Five days or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last longer

Nov. 15, 2002

Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense

"The idea that it's going to be a long, long, long battle of some kind I think is belied by the fact of what happened in 1990," he said on an Infinity Radio call-in program. "Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that." (more)

 

Adelman: Liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk

Feb. 13, 2002

Ken Adelman

"I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk.” - Washington Post

 

Ledeen: Just wage total war -- Children will sing great songs about us

Oct. 29, 2001

Michael Leeden, American Enterprise Institute, research fellow

"If we just let our own vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to be clever and piece together clever diplomatic solutions to this thing, but just wage a total war against these tyrants, I think we will do very well and our children will sing great songs about us years from now."

[VABills]

Again that is just a relink from chicot above. Nice that they have these "declassified" docs but don't print them. They don't tell the whole plan, or even if it was one of many options presented and quickly discounted. Hell I plan in my head what I would do if I won the lottery but I also know that plan isn't realistic. First you have to base it off certains knows, how many troops expected in the initial invasion, what are targets (maybe Sadar and other known radical clerics were at that time), expectations to be able to control infusion of insurgents, expectation that UN or other forces whould be used as well, which I know was the plan, but the UN said no until the US stablized and agreed to pay the UN.