This is why the Democrats will lose in '08

[iplaw]

P.S.

Please don't bother taking on any more terrorist regimes anyhwere else either, as it will just lead to more violence in retaliation from us.  If you just learn to submit to Allah now we can all proceed in an orderly fashion.

[USRufnex]

See, ippy.... that's the problem.

You lump in Saddam Hussein's Stalinist regime with the bin ladin terrorists...

We should have gone after the bin ladin terrorists...

But if Bush had asked the American people to sacrifice and asked for a re-institution of the draft and the abolition of the Bush tax cuts IN A TIME OF WAR to topple a brutal Stalinist dictator and engage in nation building to establish an Iraqi democracy as a beach head against the terrorists, I'd have a little more respect for your position.

Once the weapons of mass destruction argument was proved to be false.... Bush sounded suspiciously like Jimmy Carter.... funny how the republicans and fox news NEVER criticised Bush but would have pilloried any dem who ever argued the war was worth it just for the sake of human rights and establishing democracy in the middle east...

I will be proudly voting for Giant Douchebag in 2008.

[USRufnex]

Sometimes the truth hurts...

Nir Rosen: There is no best-case scenario for Iraq. It's complete anarchy now. No family is untouched by kidnappings, murders, ethnic cleansing -- everybody lives in a constant state of terror. Leaving aside Kurdistan, which is very different, there's nobody in Iraq who is safe. You can get killed for being a Sunni, for being a Shia, for being educated, for being part of the former regime, for being part of the current regime. The Americans are still killing Iraqi civilians left and right. There's no government in Iraq; it doesn't exist outside of the Green Zone. That's not only the government's fault, that's our fault: We deliberately created a weak government so that we would have final authority over everything in Iraq.

[inteller]

what I havent figured out is every time a spending bill gets held up like this the democrats are accused of not supporting the troops.

When will a paradigm be established that supporting the troops = getting them out of iraq?  i don't consider prolonging their stay in the middle of a civil war a very good way of supporting them.

[iplaw]

quote:See, ippy.... that's the problem.

You lump in Saddam Hussein's Stalinist regime with the bin ladin terrorists...

Guess you like to split hairs when it comes to terrorists.  ZZZZZzzzzzz.....

quote:
We should have gone after the bin ladin terrorists...

Someone should apologize to those people in Kabul that we bombed then...

quote:
But if Bush had asked the American people to sacrifice and asked for a re-institution of the draft and the abolition of the Bush tax cuts IN A TIME OF WAR to topple a brutal Stalinist dictator and engage in nation building to establish an Iraqi democracy as a beach head against the terrorists, I'd have a little more respect for your position.

I don't quite care if you have any respect for my position or not, seems that you have your facts mixed up in the first place anyways.

quote:
Once the weapons of mass destruction argument was proved to be false....

Wish there was a "Rolled Eyes" emoticon on this forum.  It would come in handy sometimes.

quote:
Bush sounded suspiciously like Jimmy Carter....

I've never once heard him mention the word peanut, not once.

quote:
funny how the republicans and fox news NEVER criticised Bush but would have pilloried any dem who ever argued the war was worth it just for the sake of human rights and establishing democracy in the middle east...

Again with the Fox News bashing.  I've never seen so many people who watch Fox News in all my life.

quote:
I will be proudly voting for Giant Douchebag in 2008.

Just cause she needs one doesn't mean you can call her that.

[perspicuity85]

Although the Democrats have been very wishy-washy about their plan for ending the war, I still fail to see why I should vote for a Republican candidate who believes the war is a great success.  I don't believe there is an effective strategy for winning in Iraq.  We can't create a new culture for the people.  There will always be Iraqi citizens that hate America and believe we are only in Iraq to steal oil.  All we have done in the Iraq war is purvey the United States as a stubborn, bull-headed nation and promote a "for us or against us" attitude.  Our global image only angers terrorists further.  Our method of fighting terrorism is like trying to kill weeds with just a lawnmower.  They always come back if you don't get the "root" of the problem.  Our current foreign policy not only drains our monetary resources, but lowers the value of our global image.  I want to see someone run for president that has a plan for restoring our global image.

[Chris]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

Dear Iraqi People, Politicians and Terrorists of the region,

The United States Military Command, at the request of the United States' Democratically-Controlled Congress, offer this Public Service Announcement:

U.S. Armed Forces will be conducting foriegn war-like operations in and around the Iraqi territory between now and September 1, 2007. As these activities can be quite dangerous, we suggest you not attempt hostile engagement of our forces during this time because they will kick your as*(es). However, if you wish to attempt to cause us harm and/or aggrivation, try to take time during this very public opportunity to do so. We will be pleased to fit you in. Otherwise, please mark your calendars and make appropriate adjustments to your schedules so as to cause the least negative effect on your ordinary activities. If everyone cooperates, we'll be outta here in no time.

After that date, please send all requests to Harry Reid and/or Nancy Pelosi c/o The United States Congress, that is, if you're not dead.
=====

Need any other reason?

Would you like us to stay there permanently? If not what do you suggest?

[Conan71]

Everyone's crystal ball is crystal clear these days.  Yes, there have been mistakes, over-estimations, and under-estimations.  IMO, The biggest mistake I see we are making right now is not sitting down with the Syrians and Iranians about stabilizing the situation.  They have more of a vested interest in a peaceful neighbor in the region than we do, but those are two countries who ostensibly support terrorists.

You Bush bashers have a great time with the whole "Where's the WMD?" while you ignore that Bush's successor acknowledged there WAS unaccounted for WMD on the day he left office.  I watched a speech to the ABA over the weekend on C-Span and Hans Blix was acknowledging there was a very good case for WMD's in '02 & '03.

I also listened to George Tenet on "Meet The Depressed" yesterday.  This guy was a Mr. Magoo if there ever was one in our intelligence community.  It's no wonder they got a lot of their intel messed up.

There are a lot of people who have bought into Democrats having severe reservations about the Iraq invasion, yet there is quote after quote from the most respected Democrats saying this was a necessary action and there was no doubt Saddam would sell his WMD's to terrorists if we didn't act then.  They are saying now Bush sold them that story.  Pretty amazing since there was a lot of that information the intelligence committies were compiling before Bush took office.

Whoops, things are sloppier than anyone would have guessed, un-accounted for WMD's are still un-accounted for, and there are elections to win.  Kerry didn't have much of a problem with the war until he figured out he was going to need to speak out against it to garner enough votes to mount a serious challenge in '04.

Look, I understand there has to be some sort of timeline to give Iraq incentive to get their butts in gear to be prepared to defend itself, otherwise it will go on indefinitely.  I don't believe though legislators are the best arbitor of when you do and don't pull troops out.  Leave that up to the military, that is their specialty.

[Chicken Little]

WAPO

quote: Correction to This Article
A May 3 Page One article about negotiations between President Bush and congressional Democrats over a war spending bill said the Democrats offered the first major concession by dropping their demand that the bill it include a deadline to bring troops home from Iraq. While Democrats are no longer pushing a firm date for troop withdrawals, party leaders did not specifically make that concession during a Wednesday meeting with Bush at the White House

There was no "agreement to drop their demand for a timeline" when this story was written.  As I said earlier, they are still in negotiations on a new bill.

[iplaw]

It won't be in there for the next bill, you can bet on it.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

I will be proudly voting for Giant Douchebag in 2008.

[xx(]



[xx(]

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

I don't believe though legislators are the best arbitor of when you do and don't pull troops out.  Leave that up to the military, that is their specialty.

It is not up to the military to decide where we go, when we'll go, or how long we'll be there.  The military's job is to fight wars.  That's it.  This is not a military dictatorship, the military is not in charge of foreign policy.  Tactical interest of the military do not trump strategic interests as provided by civilians.   The military is run by civilians, and civilians make those decisions.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

I don't believe though legislators are the best arbitor of when you do and don't pull troops out.  Leave that up to the military, that is their specialty.

It is not up to the military to decide where we go, when we'll go, or how long we'll be there.  The military's job is to fight wars.  That's it.  This is not a military dictatorship, the military is not in charge of foreign policy.  Tactical interest of the military do not trump strategic interests as provided by civilians.   The military is run by civilians, and civilians make those decisions.

You are taking my comments out of context.

Don't you think commanders in Iraq are better suited to say when/if there needs to be a troop pull-out instead of politicians and wannabe politicians who are fighting over $168K per year jobs and all the attendant benefits, perks, and power?

Arbitrary pull-out dates set by Congress are nothing more than crappy politics at it's worst.

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71
[brDon't you think commanders in Iraq are better suited to say when/if there needs to be a troop pull-out

No, and it wouldn't matter if the "campaign" were going extremely well.  It's not the military's job to make decisions about pulling out the troops.  Ever.  It would be the height of disloyalty for the military commanders to tell the civilian gov't that sent them there, "we have to leave."

I'm sure military leaders have an opinion, one way or another.  It's worth something, but it's not their decision.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by perspicuity85

Although the Democrats have been very wishy-washy about their plan for ending the war, I still fail to see why I should vote for a Republican candidate who believes the war is a great success.  

I don't know anyone who is running for president who thinks it is a great success.  We need to keep separate the ideas of the war being the right thing to do, and discussions of implementation or strategy.  I don't think anyone is arguing that the war has been waged as effectively as it could have been, but that doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to do.  Even if we would have suffered a miserable defeat in Afghanistan, it would still have been the right thing to do.