Larry Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 Second, it seems to me the Democrats are just playing politics by setting a timetable. Oh, I don't think Congress has ever done anything where politics wasn't the #1 motive. Where I have a big problem is with the constant assertions that every thing Party X does is because Party X is pure, honest, ethical, and is motivated by What's Best for America, whereas everything Party Y does is because they're a bunck of lieing, conieving terrorist-lovers who rape small children while planning which soldier to murder next. Larry, the Islamic Revolution was far far simpler: Economics. The Shah had a ton of money. he kept telling the people that they too would have lots of money. The economy's bottom fell out and the people were poor, while the Shah was still rich. In steps the Ayotollah who says that the Shah and the West are evil. One thing led to another and boom goes the dynamite.Simply put, the US shouldn't even consider pulling out of Iraq till Iraq's economy is stablized. I'd agree with you. IMO, The Marshall Plan has a much better success rate at fighting Communism than the "brutal dictator but he's our brutal dictator" plan. Unfortunately, if you think it's tough to impose democracy through military force, just try to impose prosperity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 I don't think we should outright reject the Democrats plan simply for the fact that it's from the Democrats. But the Republicans may be correct that a pullout plan may embolden any such insurgency if a pullout is announced. But here is the catch - even though an objective has been stated for Iraq, i.e. Iraqi government self-sustainability, this is very open ended. And, for what I currently see, I really do not see a pullout being able to happen for the next few years. Unless the insurgency is broken in the near future and the Iraqi military and police improves in the near future, which is not impossible, the Iraqi government will be reliant upon US troops for a period of time. Here is the irony: 1. A lack of a hard date for a pull out is the self reason why Clinton was criticized in Bosnia. http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/gop_kosovo.pdf Does today's Democrat criticism sound familiar? Is it the same remarks of "unclear exit strategy" and "possible long-term occupation" that we heard in the past during the Clinton administration? We also have to keep in mind that last year, it was suggested by the Bush administration, that a troop reduction was possible this year. So, we have to ask, when does it become "cowardly" for one side or the other to suggest a troop reduction? If President Bush declared a plan similiar to what Murtha has suggested, would he be a coward? What is the situation was reversed - what if Bush suggested a pullout, and Congressional Democrats criticized the plan for the reasons being stated by some Republicans - would we flip-flop in our support or criticism, or would we stay consistent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 1) Y'know, I'm willing to bet that the plan does not contain the words "cut and run" in it once. (Since you seem to be in the mood for criticizing people's tone.) 2) Last I heard, it wasn't necessary when ending a war to specify where the now-"peacefull" army will be deployed to. You simply remove them from the combat zone. Does any plan have to list individual soldiers by name? Obviously, the dems aren't going to use the term "cut and run" in their own plan. :doh: But, the bottom line is that is what they are proposing. The other thing is that the Dems/Libs can come up with stupid plan after stupid plan. It doesn't matter. The president, as the commander-in-chief, will make the ultimate decisions on how the war in Iraq is conducted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinthePRF Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 And granted, it was never one of the stated goals, but after we went into Afghanistan and bordered Iran on the east, I'm sure the adminstration probably said "If we whack Iraq (For whatever reason) we'll have Iran surrounded.Iran has long been the leading source of terror in the area, (along with the Sauds) ever since the hostage situation and the fall of the Shah (Brought about by Carter) For whatever reason? The irony would be humorous if you discount the continuing death toll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webnarc Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 Here is the irony:1. A lack of a hard date for a pull out is the self reason why Clinton was criticized in Bosnia. http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/gop_kosovo.pdf Does today's Democrat criticism sound familiar? Is it the same remarks of "unclear exit strategy" and "possible long-term occupation" that we heard in the past during the Clinton administration? You have a good memory, this is at least the second time I've seen you use the GOP's words to present a very clear picture of who they are, what they stand for and when they'll stand for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 All well and good. The difference is 9/11. Foreign Policy decisions made prior to that cannot be compared with those made after that. That day changed our foreign policy forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 All well and good.The difference is 9/11. Foreign Policy decisions made prior to that cannot be compared with those made after that. That day changed our foreign policy forever. Way to pretend the war in Iraq has anything to do with 9/11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 Way to pretend the war in Iraq has anything to do with 9/11. It has everything to do with the war on terror. Pay attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinthePRF Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 It has everything to do with the war on terror. Pay attention. Let me know when we win the war on terror and I will sit back and accept the "I told you so's" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 Let me know when we win the war on terror and I will sit back and accept the "I told you so's" You will have a long wait then. No one, not even President Bush, has said the war on terror will be easily won. Iraq is just one part of the overall war on terror. We will be fighting the war on terror for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinthePRF Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 You will have a long wait then. No one, not even President Bush, has said the war on terror will be easily won. Iraq is just one part of the overall war on terror. We will be fighting the war on terror for years. Longer than that. It's how the war on terror is being handled is what creates the divide. Right now it is being handled as if there are a finite number of people in the world that hate the US and will resort to terror. History proves otherwise over and over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 At no point has Bush EVER said Iraq was responsible for 9/11. And at no point have I made that claim. But he has stated over and over, and I have reiterated over and over and over, to the point that you either arent paying attention or just arent smart enough to comprehend, that the war on terror is not limited to a war against Al Queda or a battle to get Bin Laden. Can anyone on the left explain why this is such a difficult concept to comprehend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webnarc Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 At no point has Bush EVER said Iraq was responsible for 9/11. And at no point have I made that claim.But he has stated over and over, and I have reiterated over and over and over, to the point that you either arent paying attention or just arent smart enough to comprehend, that the war on terror is not limited to a war against Al Queda or a battle to get Bin Laden. Can anyone on the left explain why this is such a difficult concept to comprehend? They have difficulty understanding BS and that's why they ask so many questions. The war on terror no longer has the focus of finding the world's worst terrorist, Bin Laden. The left probably doesn't understand why not or why Bush has desided to give him a pass (or shift the focus away from him). The bulk of the present war on terror *seems* focused on people in Iraq who didn't ever harm the US until they ended up in that country, and the left probably doesn't understand how this is a war on terror. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 This is how each political party does it: Take the existing plan that has been on the table for several years/months. Rename it / Make it your own. done! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 You have a good memory, this is at least the second time I've seen you use the GOP's words to present a very clear picture of who they are, what they stand for and when they'll stand for it. Sometimes a political party's or official's words can easily be used against itself - this is one way we can keep our elected officials on the straight and narrow. And least in my naive thinking that is... It is sometimes too easy, but too often, we have short memories or simply shrug it off as, "Hey, it's how things are done." It does NOT have to be done in that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 This is how each political party does it:Take the existing plan that has been on the table for several years/months. Rename it / Make it your own. done! You forgot: Make up a ficticous position Announce that it's your opponent's position. Point out how much better your position is than "your opponent's". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 You forgot: Make up a ficticous position Announce that it's your opponent's position. Point out how much better your position is than "your opponent's". Typical Dem- "Bush said Iraq tried to buy Urnaium from Niger" Typical Dem- "Just another example of Bush lying" Typical Dem- "There's a better way, but we're not going to tell you what it is yet". OR "Bush said Iraq was responsible for 9/11" "Bush and the GOP are wrong because Iraq wasnt responsible for 9/11" "We have a better plan, but we're not going to tell you what it is yet" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 They have difficulty understanding BS and that's why they ask so many questions.The war on terror no longer has the focus of finding the world's worst terrorist, Bin Laden. The left probably doesn't understand why not or why Bush has desided to give him a pass (or shift the focus away from him). The bulk of the present war on terror *seems* focused on people in Iraq who didn't ever harm the US until they ended up in that country, and the left probably doesn't understand how this is a war on terror. Bin Laden is a non-factor. He is hiding in some cave in Pakistan and has absolutely no relevance today. If he ever chose to crank things up again, we will kill him (see: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi). Because the complete lack of activity on his part, it is practically impossible to find him. If and when he becomes active again, our military will kill him. We have the baddest, most kick ass special ops in the world and it's only a matter of time before Bin Laden sticks his head out of his cave and we take him out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 Typical Dem- "Bush said Iraq tried to buy Urnaium from Niger"Typical Dem- "Just another example of Bush lying" Typical Dem- "There's a better way, but we're not going to tell you what it is yet". OR "Bush said Iraq was responsible for 9/11" "Bush and the GOP are wrong because Iraq wasnt responsible for 9/11" "We have a better plan, but we're not going to tell you what it is yet" I'm assuming you just said something witty, and I'm only half- But I don't get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 I'm assuming you just said something witty, and I'm only half-But I don't get it. Just pointing ou that your description is PRECISELY what I've been saying some lefty's have been doing over the past 12 months or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 At no point has Bush EVER said Iraq was responsible for 9/11. "If we're successful in Iraq ... we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9-11."-Dick Cheney "the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."-George W. Bush ...and statements like these were deliberately crafted to deceive Americans, even the ones in the theatre: Almost 90% [uS Troops] think war is retaliation for Saddam’s role in 9/11, most don’t blame Iraqi public for insurgent attacks They didn't get that false notion out of thin air. They were deceived by the Bush administration and the Republican media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 Yes, "INCLUDING" not "LIMITED TO". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 I'm assuming you just said something witty, and I'm only half-But I don't get it. Odd, that's how I perceive most of your posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webnarc Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 Bin Laden is a non-factor. He is hiding in some cave in Pakistan and has absolutely no relevance today. If he ever chose to crank things up again, we will kill him (see: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi). Because the complete lack of activity on his part, it is practically impossible to find him. If and when he becomes active again, our military will kill him. We have the baddest, most kick ass special ops in the world and it's only a matter of time before Bin Laden sticks his head out of his cave and we take him out. So he's been given an informal amnesty because he's not doing a lot these days. If he never acts up again he'll not die at the hands of American justice and never pay for the murder of all those people. He's killed more American's than anyone else on the planet but doesn't die because he isn't a dangerous terrorists. You may wanna tell the people who run this site - http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/fugitives.htm You see why this would seem like unfinished business to many and how it clouds the notion that the war in Iraq is a war on terror. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seabee1973 Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 I wonder where fienstein was told 30-40 days we in the military was told to expect it to last up to 5 yrs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.