I'm sure most of you saw the stunning tape of G. W. Shrub landing on the deck of the Abraham Lincoln. It was primetime glitz at its best. What better photo-op for our glorious leader then to be thundering in on a US fighter jet and then being surrounded by America's best as if he had lead the troops himself from the frontlines in Iraq.

Of course, we had to forget that these are the same guys in spirit with whom he had refused to fight alongside of when it was his turn during Vietnam. McCain had been there, so was Kerry; they were the real heroes while Shrub was AWOL from his Texas Air unit, too lazy to even show up for his physical.

But that was then and he's a changed man now -- instead transformed one might say. Historians will now see him as a victorious wartime leader. It was official that he was added to a small but elite list of American Presidents who had won in war. Just as Rumsfeld and the boys had been heaping prise on themselves for their "historical victory," as Rummy himself declared it.

But our trimuphant prez reminded me of another president often thought of in time of war: TR -- yes, Teddy Roosevelt. Not that Bush is even half the prez that TR was, yet images of TR charging up San Juan Hill with the Rough Riders during another strange war that America was involved in comes to mind. The Spanish-American War -- "Remember the Maine," yeah.

Back then we started another war that we knew we would not have much trouble winning, much like the one in Iraq. The difference is that even Teddy, (who is one of my favorite presidents, because of how superbly outrageous he was), commented on afterwards in a very direct manner:

"It was a puny war, but it was all we had
at the time."

Perhaps historians will see Iraq and GW in much the same way, despite all the glitz. Afterall, they might be puny men, but they are currently all we've got.

Flame suit on. Feel free to comment.

[ May 04, 2003, 05:11: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

It's easy to conquer a country. It's something completly different to occupy a country.

But they will use this footage in the presidential campaign in 2004, over and over again.

Now, since he is back from his grand photo-op, Bush wants to be the peace and prosperity prez. We are hearing about his "roadmap of peace,"
and his new focus on the economy, which, much like he has left Iraq, is in shambles. He is covering all the political bases. Whether they have a test in reality or not is another matter.

As far as I know, there's still no convincing plan concerning the near future of Iraq. Maybe when Election day draws near, pictures with a President posing as "conqueror" won't be the best idea. I think there's a slight possibility, that this was a PR-move with the backlash potential. Still, there's a country with 40 million people to be "ruled". And it eats up a whole lotta money.

Seems like you have a lot to criticize about.

Any ideas about what he should be doing instead?

Any ideas about what he should be doing instead? If I had, I would post them. But I didn't conquer another country, so I am not responsible for a plan.

But I think the UN had one. But you probably would not like it anyway, would you ?

I don't see why I would reject a plan I have no idea about.

OK, I present my views how things should be. Roughly and I don't claim to be an expert in foreign affairs nor expert in middle-east issues.

1. The people in Iraq are very able. They can make decision for themselves. As fast as possible, they should be put in charge of their communities.

2. Long term decisions concerning companies who rebuild the country shouldn't be made, before the Iraqis have their own goverment. The same applies to Oil contracts. Rebuilding should mainly involve Iraq's own workforce.

3. Baath-party members, i.e. members of the old dictatorship should go in jail. But the people in Iraq should decide who replaces them.

4. Iraqis are mainly muslims. I think the best way would be confederation of a lot of states, not only three (I think the country is split in a lot of "provinces" anyway). It's ok if those states are governent by muslim-parties. I can't see no other way, democracy in Iraq means ruling muslim-parties.

5. Democracy in Iraq will be no copy of anglo-saxon democracy. It will be a Arab-style of democracy. An Arab-style-democracy is not better, not worse than other democracies in the west, just because its Arab-style. (I have no better word in my vocabulary).

6. No plans for long term troops on Iraqi-soil. It is theirs.

7. No threating of neighbours. Iraq should not be abused as military HQ in the region.

8. At least in 1 year, a lot of progress concerning self-rule (home-rule) has to be accomplished.

9. Infrastructure (Hospitals, light, water) is the most important thing. It has to be back in shape as fast as possible.

That's roughly my imagination, how things should work out.

Edit: Shia is ok. If they want to live this way, it is their decision. Their not bad or evil. If they want things "Shia-way", as long they respect their northern neighbours, it is 100% ok.

I don't know about you, but I for one do believe that the three main ethnicities of Iraq (Kurds, Sunni, and Shiites, but you knew that), won't be able to cooperate easily.

I quote my government teacher here (well, actually, I'm paraphrasing him).

"I predict that in the next ten years or so, there will not be a united Iraq."

Chandos,

This thread is beneath you. It is sour grapes, vitriol, and petty. It is obvious that no matter what the President did, you would still have no respect for him. This serves no purpose, forwards no ideas and does nothing to encourage thought.

Even the admin at the forums of Democratic Underground shut down a thread a lot like this.

:(

C'Jakob, that is my fear too. But there is a chance that the country will stay intact. I say 50-50. I may be optimist.

But to achieve stability inside of Iraq, the biggest mistake would be to "play" them versus eachother.

An Iraqi-exile politics expert said here on tv, that there a lots of "provinces" in Iraq -> Not unlike the "states" in mine and your country -> Example -> They may be from the "south", but there is still a difference, like Alabama and California.

Edit: Kurds (which are Sunni too) and Sunites will be together 40 % and act as a "sperr"-minority (block-minority ?) versus the Shiites. The Shiites them selves are not homogen. They are split in sacular and religious groups.

[ May 03, 2003, 20:54: Message edited by: Yago ]

I don't have any problems with The President showing up on a carrier. Christ, the engineer from Star Trek liked doing a catapult launch and arrest a couple of times.

And the vast majority of guys (and girls) on that boat were interested in seeing and listening to the president. There were some people who could care less, and some people who didn't care to, but I'd tell you their number was under 250. Figure, 5%.

As far as "leading from the front", there's a strategic and taticial side. The strategists do not ever lead from the front; the taticians do. That, alone, is the difference between strategy and tatics. Someone pointing a rifle at your monkey ***, and you doing something about it or dying right then and there.

The President of the United States is a strategist. If he was a tactician, you'd have such a high mortality rate that you'd have nothing but Academy graduates in Office.

Other than that, you're talking about a war boosting the economy.

Here's the deal: We weren't at war.

Now, if you're talking to a Vietnam veteran, then of course you don't tell him he was involved in a Police Action. I certainly wouldn't. But that's just out of respect, and a little bit of first hand knowledge. When you're trying to stay alive, it is a war.

Iraq was at war with us. And so was Korea and Vietnam (Norths, at least).

Teddy was at war. It came to vote with Congress.

Other than that, you can moan and complain about it. You can justify it any way you can. The end result is there's a fundamental change in government in Iraq going on, and the United States has learned what not to do after Afghanistan and Serbia. We're going to do it like we did in Germany and Japan.

We're going to be there for a long time. Make some popcorn.

Darkwolf -- IMO Bush II is the most politcal prez we have had in my lifetime. The guy is a bigger political animal than Bill Clinton. That is saying a lot considering what the office has become in recent years; maybe it has always been like that, and I just don't know it.

Did you know that Carl Rove has an office in the White House? James Carville did not. Neither had any of the other chief politcal advisors for past presidents. They are supposed to work privately for the president and are not in any public duty that would require them to work out of the white house. So why does this guy? Because he is a part of our public policy. Colin Powell got so tired of his input, that he will longer tolerate him in the same room when he meets in an official capacity for the president, so it is rumored.

You despise Bill Clinton even more than I despise Shurb. And you flame him whenever the opportunity arises -- even if the post has nothing to do with him. He has not been prez for two years now and republicians still can't help themselves from attacking him. Now, I attack Bush because IMO, he is playing politics with the lives of our soldiers and the people of the middle east. And I am viewed by you as being petty. I think not.

My flame suit is holding up just fine, thank you.

The difference is Clinton relied on the CIA and the "black ops" guys, quite nearly, 100%.

Image was everything.

Hack, tap, bypass, kill, club, drown. Whatever. Just so long as no one ever finds out about it.

And that is one way to get the job done. There's no one single right way; that's why it's good for us to have a mix. I can't say Clinton did anything wrong, since some of the stuff he was doing and the way he was doing it, needed to be done that way.

However, I do think getting a blowjob while you're telling the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to send in the troops, isn't the most stylish way of doing things. Just kind of like, a thing of respect. Before or after is cool, but not during. It would be different if he was eating or something; you can have sex and eat at the same time. Just not call in the troops.

lol, ej, and I agree. Despite his shortcomings, you still must admit that the current crop of dems who would be pretenders to his throne, seem, well, dorky, compared to Bill.

[ May 05, 2003, 03:53: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]