Blogger Challenge: Let's start with Iraq, shall we?

Salt Lake Tribune ^ | 9 15 2004 | Kathleen Parker

[Stallone]

The article is quite complimentary to the new media.

It ends with a challenge to help solve world problems that media organizations only whine about.

So, taking up the challenge:

Freepers, in all seriousness, how to we best resolve the Iraq situation.

[Jonah Lomu]

nosofar said
"Promote free elections in those local areas that are more amenable to the concept and let them govern themselves, including their own Iraqi security forces. This will do in miniature what the advocated goal is for Iraq as a whole .."

I like this idea, reward the behavior you want to encourage.

On a slightly different tack, I think the war effort, and especially the setbacks and difficulties, would be better received if Bush imitated Churchill in the respect of constantly warning of how difficult the road ahead will be, talking frankly about the obstacles, the efforts to frustrate Iraqi freedom by Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and others. Openly accuse the bad guys. Promise to remain steadfast to our friends through thick and thin.

Outrageously high expectations, fueled by the ease of victory over Saddams army, create a climate of public disappointment whenever the inevitable setbacks occur. We need to lower expectations, and get tough.

[Stallone]

a. A situation in which national sentiment and world opinion runs counter to the positive results on the ground, thereby diminishing the continuing use of pre-emption;
b. A situation in which terrorists continue to hold sway over some of the Iraqi landscape.

[self_evident]

Leave it alone, they're doing great?

Although we have no basis for knowing if it is working. The real story in Iraq is not generally covered.

The Najaf situation made the US strategy perfectly clear. We are playing rope-a-dope until a sufficient Iraqi force is trained and equipped to do the heavy lifting. In the meantime.. minimize casulties and to do as much good as possible.

We have become a remarably impatient nation.

[self_evident]

On a slightly different tack, I think the war effort, and especially the setbacks and difficulties, would be better received if Bush imitated Churchill in the respect of constantly warning of how difficult the road ahead will be, talking frankly about the obstacles, the efforts to frustrate Iraqi freedom by Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and others. Openly accuse the bad guys. Promise to remain steadfast to our friends through thick and thin.

Good point. And not just Bush. I think the only person that has been consistent in saying this is Rice.

If Kerrey would have taken this tact.. I think Bush would be defeated, but instead it's clear he wants to jump ship and then we are back to square one (or worse).

[nosofar]

We have become a remarably impatient nation.

Yup, but the administration must take this into account in their policy making. They can't just wish it were otherwise. It does seem like Bush and his advisors were trying to wage this war based on the election cycle.

[nosofar]

If Kerrey would have taken this tact..

Expect him to start.

[texasflower]

What is with the attitude? I've read two of your posts so far that have been nasty.

What's your problem?

[Diddley]

Thanks.

[Stallone]

The GOP desperately needed coherent and organized talking points throughout the last year, and were nearly left defenseless as the bar was defined and raised by the weasel left - delivery of stockpiles of Iraqi WMD, or else.

Now, either the GOP is performing (still) the rope-a-dope of the century and are sitting on WMD stockpiles or equivalent, or more likely they were left with their pants around their ankles and mouths open. And so were we in their defense. The Bush administration completely lost control of the issue in the public domain.

Of course, there were innumerable reasons to take out Saddam irrespective of WMD, but I wonder did this administration get setup?

And how did they permit the 'discovery of WMD stockpiles' to be allowed to judge all measurement of success in Iraq in the first place? And why didn't they change the premise quickly?

The repair of this public relations disaster is going to be slow and ugly, even with a Bush mandate in November.

I still don't believe they've seized control of the issue, particularly on the world stage.

[Stallone]

Here's a thought I haven't seen posted yet:

Hillary, 2008. (Sorry, I know it is dinner time for some of you out East...).

If we allow that there will be no last minute bait-and-switch candidacy for Hillary this time, or some other October surprise, then Kerry/Edwards loss puts Hillary on the books as the clear leading 'Rat candidate for '08.

So, what do you imagine will be the strategy to oust the GOP then?

Here's my prediction:

Hillary leads an Iran-Contra style smear attack on the Bush administration in the waning years to weaken the nation's GOP appeal leading into '08. Expect an attempt at an impeachment-equivalent scandal to dominate the headlines.

You heard it here, maybe first...

What to do? How do we prevent it?

Really, the ONLY thing that will help is for mainstream media to continue to be diminished, possibly with our help, in the intervening years.

But the 'Rats, on the other hand, will try to reign in the bloggers and bulletin boards, including Free Republic, to once again regain control of the news Pravda-like.

So we might also look for the 'Rats to seize upon or create a Columbine-style national Internet scandal to falsely trumpet and increase the public's desire for control of this forum. We must be ready well in advance!

Comments?

[marty60]

The question is ridiculous. the problem with this parker person is that she is trying to be a conser, but unfortunately doesn't follow through on her thought process. Now really, just exactly can "bloggers" a term I find stupid and insulting solve the problems of Iraq. Our troops are at WAR. There is nothing to discuss except victory. But, as stallone suggests, if you think the U.N. can solve the problems of terrorism go for it. what's wrong with me? I have lost patience for people that keep looking at the world thru rose colored glasses, so they don't have to see the blood on the world stage caused by the Islamofascist and their fellow travelers right her in the U. S.

[texasflower]

Well, you are just as nasty with me as you were to the original poster.

If you didn't want to play the game, why did you bother commenting at all?

Did you read the article?

You said there is nothing to discuss, except victory. That's right.

There are a lot of people here that would do some things differently in the pursuit of that victory.

What is so wrong about speculating and having a debate between posters here about the best way to do that?

It's just a fun exercise.

I happen to enjoy these sort of threads, because I learn a lot from them.

I am not participating in the debate personally, but I enjoy reading other's views.

The insight that comes from different posters is interesting.

You sound like a bright person. Surely you understand a good debate or brainstorming session.

I don't anyone here really expects to fax this thread over to the Pentagon or White House for immediate implementation.

[onyx eyes]

Bush has, imitated Churchill, talking about how difficult the days ahead are going to be. And, was as usual, ignored by the MSM, as far as reporting his message in a fair and balanced story, that is.

[Smokin' Joe]

Divide the country into 10 mile squares. (100 square miles each). Number each square, from 1 to whatever. Exclude those squares with our troops or allies.

The next time someone sets off an IED, performs a rocket attack, whatever, nuke a square at random. For each IED, nuke a square. Things should settle down pretty quickly. Pull our troops out, keep the target coordinates handy./SARCASM

Really? This could be a think tank, we have the minds here. But that might take a lot of the fun out of it. Besides, the libs would sneer, look condescendingly at us, shout us down (the best they could), and then take credit for the solution.

[marty60]

You bet I read the article. and her final slam ruined it for me. The U.N. (annon) is NOW saying the War in Iraq is illegal. If you agree that stallones view that the U.N. should be the arbitor or our foreign policy......skerry believes that now doesn't he.

It's soooo nasty to challenge a view. I have to defend mine and i don't get weepy when someone points out a view different then mine. Hopfully it makes people think.

[texasflower]

I think you should re-read Stallone's first post.

It doesn't sound to me like he is advocating putting the UN in charge of us there.

To me, it sounds like he is throwing stuff out there and one of the things he tossed was for us to throw in the towel and let the UN have the entire thing, with the side benefit to us of having the UN the hell out of here.

I got an entirely different view of his post than you did. He didn't want to have the UN arbitrate, he was essentially saying that if the UN thinks they can do it better, then let them.

It wasn't even necessarily his opinion of what should be done.

It just looked to me like a way to open up a discussion here on FR, that and the other things he put out there.

To me the key to understanding what he might have meant was that he said "Send them there".

There is nothing wrong with challenging a view, I just don't understand why you had to be so nasty towards him.