Democrats call for a phased pullout

[luckydevil]

From the oil in those countries.

That's our biggest mistake thus far in Iraq. It would have to change going forward.

Sadly, I dont hink Bush or anyone else has the stones to do it all the way.

I bet blowback means nothing to you. And I thought Mass Skins fan was crazy. What exactly is conservative about this agenda?

[The Terminator]

Italy was not responsible for Pearl Harbor or the Holocaust

Yeah, we all know it was aliens. :paranoid:

[Kilmer17]

I bet blowback means nothing to you. And I thought Mass Skins fan was crazy. What exactly is conservative about this agenda?

Where did I claim it was a conservative agenda?

We can leave Iraq now and go back to the pre 9/11 state of our heads in the proverbial sand, but Id prefer to remain on the offensive.

As long as there are people who want to harm us, we should continue to find and harm them first.

[Baculus]

I think we need to be wary of righteous imperialism. After all, didn't George Bush himself talk about "humility" in the manner that we interact with the other nations? The War on Terror does not mean that this would need to change. Of course War War 2 changed us as a nation, so perhaps I am naive in this thinking.

But, I would be wary of hubris...

[Kilmer17]

I agree, but it's not Imperialistic to destroy Ogvts that are our enemies and help establish new ones.

It would be Imperialistic if we installed a local Governor to do the bidding of the US. As we have seen both in Iraq and Afghanistan, that's far from the case.

[luckydevil]

We can leave Iraq now and go back to the pre 9/11 state of our heads in the proverbial sand, but Id prefer to remain on the offensive.

I am getting really tired of this argument. It's simply dishonest to suggest that our government did nothing before 9/11. It seems like you suffer from massive amnesia. The war on terrorism didn't start on 9/11(it just went public). Our government has intervened in that region for decades. Sadly, it has come back to haunt us.

[Kilmer17]

I am getting really tired of this argument. It's simply dishonest to suggest that our government did nothing before 9/11. It seems like you suffer from massive amnesia. The war on terrorism didn't start on 9/11(it just went public). Our government has intervened in that region for decades. Sadly, it has come back to haunt us.

And Im tired of that line of crap as well.

We didnt do ANYTHING on the scale of what needed to be done or what we are doing now.

And regardless of your disgust with past foreign policy decisions and whether they led to the attacks or not, the attacks happened, and our CURRENT foreign policy was shaped by them.

The amnesia is ignoring the affects that day had on our policy.

[jbooma]

Politicians need to stay out of war. The only ones that understand when we can start pulling out are the join chiefs and the leaders of the military. It is easy for someone on the house to propose a plan when they are clueless on what is happening.

Last I checked Congress is just asked to approve going to war, but not the plans on the war, and they should never decide the actual plan of the war that is not their job.

Playing politics during war is just plain dumb, and the voters are aware of it.

[jbooma]

I am getting really tired of this argument. It's simply dishonest to suggest that our government did nothing before 9/11. It seems like you suffer from massive amnesia. The war on terrorism didn't start on 9/11(it just went public). Our government has intervened in that region for decades. Sadly, it has come back to haunt us.

Technically the war on Terror has been going on since the 60's, however it was not till 9/11 when we made the declaration on a nation that supported terrorism, that is different.

[luckydevil]

The problem Kilmer is not that our government did too little, they did too much. Hence, the term blowback. I am simply amazed how conservative can understand how welfare policy can create negative consequences (at times devastating consequences), but can't grasp that the line of thinking when it comes to foreign policy.

[Kilmer17]

I can grasp it fine, I just dont have a time machine available to go back and change it from the beginning.

It's faulty to think we can somehow leave Iraq and the middle east and have the people who hate us there all of a sudden not want us dead anymore.

[Midnight Judges]

Where did I claim it was a conservative agenda?

We can leave Iraq now and go back to the pre 9/11 state of our heads in the proverbial sand, but Id prefer to remain on the offensive.

As long as there are people who want to harm us, we should continue to find and harm them first.

I think this is a rather selfish outlook. To turn someone else's country into a battlefield on the off chance that you might be attacked. I have heard this many times and while I admit there is some truth in the fact that if you keep starting wars in other countries, the terrorists will be attracted to that battlefield and thus diverted from attacking America, I don't think that foriegn policy is ethical nor will it suit our long term goals. As another poster said, there is such a thing as blowback.

[Kilmer17]

I think this is a rather selfish outlook. To turn someone else's country into a battlefield on the off chance that you might be attacked. I have heard this many times and while I admit there is some truth in the fact that if you keep starting wars in other countries, the terrorists will be attracted to that battlefield and thus diverted from attacking America, I don't think that foriegn policy is ethical nor will it suit our long term goals. As another poster said, there is such a thing as blowback.

I disagree, but I think you and I have far different long term goals.

[luckydevil]

I can grasp it fine, I just dont have a time machine available to go back and change it from the beginning.

So in other words our government has to create even more mistakes to fix past mistakes. Getting back to the welfare analogy, it's like a social democrat who cries for more funding or regulation instead of admitting that the policy/program failed. All it does is create more problems. When will we learn?

It's faulty to think we can somehow leave Iraq and the middle east and have the people who hate us there all of a sudden not want us dead anymore.

We are screwed either way. There are two options. It’s a lot like our elections. You go with the lesser evil; in this case the lesser evil is declaring victory and leaving.

[Kilmer17]

Sorry man, that analogy is an apples to oranges comparison.

In the welfare situation, you arent changing the mind and ideas of people trying to kill you. Your making them accept a difficult position that will eventually help their cause.

In the war, these people wont all of a sudden stop hating us. That die has been cast.

[Midnight Judges]

Politicians need to stay out of war. The only ones that understand when we can start pulling out are the join chiefs and the leaders of the military. It is easy for someone on the house to propose a plan when they are clueless on what is happening.

Last I checked Congress is just asked to approve going to war, but not the plans on the war, and they should never decide the actual plan of the war that is not their job.

Playing politics during war is just plain dumb, and the voters are aware of it.

I would suggest you read General Trainor's new book, "Cobra II." I did. This war has been planned by politicians from the start. The military plan that was formed from decades of Iraq war games (known internally as 1003-98) was shat upon by Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld despised what he viewed as Clintonian nation-building. He believed in a more streamlined military that used fewer troops and quicker deployments based on surprise-he honestly (foolishly) thought we would be in and out of Iraq, no problem bada bing bada boom. 10093-98 included a ground invasion that involved as many as 500,000 troops on the ground in Iraq to keep the peace in post war. As you know that part of the plan was scrapped in favor of, well, political fantasy. The Iraqi's were instead going to welcome us with open arms and their army was going to fight for us and everyone would cooperate.

The military planners had it right and the politicians changed the plan from the start so I see no shift here in letting the Dems have some input. It's not as if Carl Levin is uneducated on matters of defense.

[luckydevil]

Sorry man, that analogy is an apples to oranges comparison.

Sorry, but it's not. Nothing is above the law of unintended consequences.

In the war, these people wont all of a sudden stop hating us. That die has been cast.

But you are missing the point. How would you feel about foreign troop presence in this country? How would you feel if another government interfered with our elections? In fact, you are simply reinforcing many of the views that people in Arab world have about our government (oil). Some of the gripes against our government are frankly legitimate. The sooner our government accepts that, the better chance the Middle East can see true reform.

[nelms]

I bet blowback means nothing to you. And I thought Mass Skins fan was crazy. What exactly is conservative about this agenda?

Why don't you get off this "blowback" kick? It's freaking ridiculous. So-called Libertarians like you cannot see the world for what it is today. It isn't the 19th century anymore. Everything in the world is interrelated, economically, politically, socially. Ideals of isolationism look great on paper, but aren't practical in the real world. Maybe one day when you grow up and experience the real world, you'll understand.

[Redskins Diehard]

I would suggest you read General Trainor's new book, "Cobra II." I did. This war has been planned by politicians from the start. The military plan that was formed from decades of Iraq war games (known internally as 1003-98) was shat upon by Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld despised what he viewed as Clintonian nation-building. He believed in a more streamlined military that used fewer troops and quicker deployments based on surprise-he honestly (foolishly) thought we would be in and out of Iraq, no problem bada bing bada boom. 10093-98 included a ground invasion that involved as many as 500,000 troops on the ground in Iraq to keep the peace in post war. As you know that part of the plan was scrapped in favor of, well, political fantasy. The Iraqi's were instead going to welcome us with open arms and their army was going to fight for us and everyone would cooperate.

The military planners had it right and the politicians changed the plan from the start so I see no shift here in letting the Dems have some input. It's not as if Carl Levin is uneducated on matters of defense.

Did you read GEN Franks book? What are the origins of 1003V? How long has that document been around? The fact is GEN Franks paints a very different picture than GEN Trainor does. Is Franks a stool for the administration?

Did I miss when "blowback" became the phrase of the day around here? It doesn't appear that everyone throwing that phrase around even understands what it really means.

[nelms]

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.

You really need to COMPREHEND, not just READ. We have not given him any type of "informal amnesty". Please stop putting words in my mouth. My point was a logical one. Bin Laden has been hiding in the caves of Pakistan, which spans thousands of square miles of the roughest terrain in the world. We have not stopped looking for him, despite what Bush's enemies want to claim. But, it is practivally impossible to find someone in that terrain unless their is activity and intelligence pointing us to that activity. We have 2 choices: 1) continuing searching and hope he makes a mistake 2) Nuke the entire ****ing region. I'm sure you and your lib friends would be happy with #2.

[Redskins Diehard]

You really need to COMPREHEND, not just READ. We have not given him any type of "informal amnesty". Please stop putting words in my mouth. My point was a logical one. Bin Laden has been hiding in the caves of Pakistan, which spans thousands of square miles of the roughest terrain in the world. We have not stopped looking for him, despite what Bush's enemies want to claim. But, it is practivally impossible to find someone in that terrain unless their is activity and intelligence pointing us to that activity. We have 2 choices: 1) continuing searching and hope he makes a mistake 2) Nuke the entire ****ing region. I'm sure you and your lib friends would be happy with #2.

The funny thing is there are advocates, in this thread mind you, for a policy of containment that was "working" on Saddam but will accept nothing less than Bin Laden in our custody. Maybe he is in a country that does not want to allow us to operate overtly to kill/capture him. Then what do we do? Do we launch an invasion of I don't know say Pakistan to find out if he is really there? How long did it take 130k to find Saddam, how long did it take 130k to find AMZ? And we had them narrowed down to specific regions of specific countries.

The fact is Bin Laden appears to be neutralized, if not eliminated. That is a pretty good start

[nelms]

The funny thing is there are advocates, in this thread mind you, for a policy of containment that was "working" on Saddam but will accept nothing less than Bin Laden in our custody. Maybe he is in a country that does not want to allow us to operate overtly to kill/capture him. Then what do we do? Do we launch an invasion of I don't know say Pakistan to find out if he is really there? How long did it take 130k to find Saddam, how long did it take 130k to find AMZ? And we had them narrowed down to specific regions of specific countries.

The fact is Bin Laden appears to be neutralized, if not eliminated. That is a pretty good start

Can you imagine today's lib living during WWII? They would be like: "Why are we fighting Germany. They didn't attack us, Japan did. Impeach Roosevelt!"

[Midnight Judges]

Did you read GEN Franks book? What are the origins of 1003V? How long has that document been around? The fact is GEN Franks paints a very different picture than GEN Trainor does. Is Franks a stool for the administration?

Did I miss when "blowback" became the phrase of the day around here? It doesn't appear that everyone throwing that phrase around even understands what it really means.

General Franks got on board with the Rumsfeld philosophy. I'm not calling anyone a stool.

The term "blowback" was used all of two times.

[Midnight Judges]

The funny thing is there are advocates, in this thread mind you, for a policy of containment that was "working" on Saddam but will accept nothing less than Bin Laden in our custody. Maybe he is in a country that does not want to allow us to operate overtly to kill/capture him. Then what do we do? Do we launch an invasion of I don't know say Pakistan to find out if he is really there? How long did it take 130k to find Saddam, how long did it take 130k to find AMZ? And we had them narrowed down to specific regions of specific countries.

The fact is Bin Laden appears to be neutralized, if not eliminated. That is a pretty good start

Who said I would accept nothing less than Bin Laden in our custody? I would be perfectly happy if we simply blowed his arse up like we did Abu Musab. You try to put words in my mouth (again) but don't have the conviction to mention me by name...and I don't see how you can say with any certainty that Bin Laden is neutralized seeing as how you don't don't know where he is or who he is meeting with.

[Midnight Judges]

Can you imagine today's lib living during WWII? They would be like: "Why are we fighting Germany. They didn't attack us, Japan did. Impeach Roosevelt!"

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Quoting this for emphasis. You love you some straw man.