jrockster21 Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 Anyone have the list of Senators and Congressman (on both sides) who have stated within the last couple of years that MORE troops were needed, that are now saying they dont support sending more? Here's a link to whatever your heart desires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 Agreed on both accounts. The problem is that there is no good solution, only to pull out or to be targets, not a good choice if you ask me. I think they should leave it to the Iraqis to figure out. But hey, who am I to judge Wow, how the story swings when the power shifts. Just two months ago the Rep were stating that there were only 2 possible ways to handle Iraq (don't flame me for the phrases, I use them to illustrate the point): 1) stay the course = win 2) cut and run= defeat Now that the Dems are in power it is the same argument, but with the emphasis flipped: 1) cut and run = win 2) stay the course = defeat Now, if this does not illustrate the problems with the two party, partisan hack system we have, nothing can. We, as a country, need to pull our heads out of our ***** and start running this country for the benefit of (are you ready for this?) the American people. Let's go back and examine the way this country was founded. And then we can right the ship and govern following the guidlines spelled out for us by the framers. Very simple. I don't ask for much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 Did any of the politicians who immediately came out and bashed the plan offer an alternative? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 Did any of the politicians who immediately came out and bashed the plan offer an alternative? I believe they said that if you have a choice between no plan, and a bad plan. It doesn't mean you have to go with the bad plan. seriously, I think everybody from the Dems to the Smiths and Brownbacks are asking "Why should we believe you this time?" and "What are 20K troops going to do when you need hundreds of thousands more?" If American lives are just buffers for the President to see if his plan "might" work. Then so be it. He;'s the President. He can choose to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 It's very easy to simply denounce any plan as bad without ever going out on a limb and offering an alternative. I dont know if this is a good plan or not, but I do know he's the only one offering a plan at all. Ignoring the cut and run idea of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 Its also ok to say that you HAVE to go with the only plan if its awful. eh? Well, we don't really have any good ideas, so we should just send more troops in there, so more can die. Hell, they're only numbers right? Why should we believe this will work when similiar things haven't? Raising by 20K is only bringing it back up to previous levels. Everybody knows that the minute we leave (which evenutally will have to happen) its all going to start back up. I guess our goals could be waiting 2 years so you can blame whoever is the next President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 "I guess our goals could be waiting 2 years so you can blame whoever is the next President." It worked for Clinton. Those saying they dont support this are basing that solely on their reading of polls. I dont think any of those opposed have any idea whether this is a good idea or not, or have any clue what WOULD be a good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 It's very easy to simply denounce any plan as bad without ever going out on a limb and offering an alternative. I dont know if this is a good plan or not, but I do know he's the only one offering a plan at all. Ignoring the cut and run idea of course. It makes it really easy to say he is the only one with a plan when you can ignore the other major option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 It makes it really easy to say he is the only one with a plan when you can ignore the other major option. What option? Leaving? I'd be pleased as punch to hear those opposing Bush to come out and say that. But they wont, they just continue saying "Bush is wrong". And why not, the press says it daily, and people believe it now. If there is a 3rd option, Id love to hear it from a politician. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 Even if you want to ignore the option of leaving (which at this point is the most cost effective option) Bush still has to be blamed, and be blamed continuously for this. So the next dumb ass that tries to take this country to a useless war will know that there are political consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted January 11, 2007 Author Share Posted January 11, 2007 They didn't think that far ahead? Or are you saying the Repub's outsmarted them? Either way, as an INDIVIDUAL, if they disagreed with the possibility of invasion, the individual representatives should've acted as such. Individuals. Lives were at stake. Another reason why I generally lose my mind and try to avoid political discussions (although I get enticed often ). I hate the "TEAM" mentality. The vote was what? 78-22 if I recall correctly. Yes, I do blame the democrats for not putting up a fight, but think back to that period, did they have a choice? If they were up for election they HAD to vote yes, otherwise they would have been voted out of power. That was the reality of the situation. The vote was put before the Senate three weeks before an election because they knew they could get it passed. They also knew how to frame the argument, to only invade as a "last resort" if Saddam didn't comply. Well, Saddam complied, he allowed out inspectors in, the UN didn't want us to go in and we went in anyways. That is what the reality of the situation was. The republicans in power used politics to create the Iraq war, because they knew they could. 9-11 gave them the vehicle they needed to promote their agenda, which was of course war in Iraq. To insinuate the Democrats had anything to do with Iraq is a joke, they were forced into a corner, and acted like a bunch of scared rabbits. At the time though, there was nothing they could have done, because voting against it would have been a political death nail. Kerry, Edwards, Clinton et all were all looking at the 04 race and they did not want to come off as soft on terrorism, so they voted for it. It was the wrong vote, and it cost them the election in 04, but it was also a vote which was forced by the repubs to get what they wanted, war with Iraq. My opinion at this point is on the opposite side of yours. Leave Iraq in disarray, you leave another possibility to allow the creation of another terrorist state that is more dangerous than when Saddam reigned (which I believe, at least as far as our country is concerned, WASN'T a terrorist state). P.S. My typing ablility, tonight at least, is weakened. What is Iraq right now? Is it not a terrorist state? Seriously, how worse can it be? If anything, we would allow them to group and take out their camps and infiltrate them that way. It is a lot easier then what we have now by a long shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 Did any of the politicians who immediately came out and bashed the plan offer an alternative? Phased withdraw, partition, immediate troop removal. Take your pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted January 11, 2007 Author Share Posted January 11, 2007 Now that the Dems are in power it is the same argument, but with the emphasis flipped:1) cut and run = win 2) stay the course = defeat You follow one liners and catch phrases very well I see :doh: What does staying there accomplish? What does 20K more troops accomplish? Heck, Abazaid just said that a troop increase would not change the situation. Why should I believe Bush instead of him? Lest face it, Bush's track record on predicting the future is piss poor at best, and everything he says the opposite happens. I have called him Sadim, the anti Midas. Instead of touching everything and turning it to gold, everything Bush touches turns to :pooh:. He has a history and a track record of doing this. Why should I believe him now? He has failed every step of the way, and his own pigheadedness got us into this mess, why the hell should we listen to him now? because he is the president??? I used this analogy before, but how many times does your 16 year old kid get to smash up your car before you take the keys away from him? 6 times? 10? When do you say you can not drive any more? All we are doing now is giving the keys back to the 16 year old, and giving him a bigger engine to drive, not a wise decision. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 You follow one liners and catch phrases very well I see :doh:What does staying there accomplish? What does 20K more troops accomplish? Heck, Abazaid just said that a troop increase would not change the situation. Why should I believe Bush instead of him? Lest face it, Bush's track record on predicting the future is piss poor at best, and everything he says the opposite happens. I have called him Sadim, the anti Midas. Instead of touching everything and turning it to gold, everything Bush touches turns to :pooh:. He has a history and a track record of doing this. Why should I believe him now? He has failed every step of the way, and his own pigheadedness got us into this mess, why the hell should we listen to him now? because he is the president??? I used this analogy before, but how many times does your 16 year old kid get to smash up your car before you take the keys away from him? 6 times? 10? When do you say you can not drive any more? All we are doing now is giving the keys back to the 16 year old, and giving him a bigger engine to drive, not a wise decision. :2cents: Chom, my post was simply attempting to open up a sane discourse for any that wished to chat on alternatives to the two party system. I neither promoted one view or derided the other. I simply pointed out the obvious: when one is in power the other witches and moans about how horrible the other is. When it changes, they do the same things only reversed. Not one person in the elected arena has offered a solution that will actually accomplish anything other than riling the other side up. I am sick and tired of the partisan hacks on both sides. Bush has angered me more in the last week than he has in the last six years. And I am simply to far off from the Dem lines that I find myself so far in the middle that I am conmsidered a nut job. Proof that this country has been polarized as far as it can be. The next logical step on the polarization scale is civil war..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted January 11, 2007 Author Share Posted January 11, 2007 Chom, my post was simply attempting to open up a sane discourse for any that wished to chat on alternatives to the two party system. I neither promoted one view or derided the other. I simply pointed out the obvious: when one is in power the other witches and moans about how horrible the other is. When it changes, they do the same things only reversed. Not one person in the elected arena has offered a solution that will actually accomplish anything other than riling the other side up. I am sick and tired of the partisan hacks on both sides. Bush has angered me more in the last week than he has in the last six years. And I am simply to far off from the Dem lines that I find myself so far in the middle that I am conmsidered a nut job. Proof that this country has been polarized as far as it can be. The next logical step on the polarization scale is civil war..... If you automatically dismiss an idea because it comes from the left, OR the right then you are being partisan. I TRY not to be, as well as I know you do too. I understand the trepidation you have about the political landscape right now, but I also know why it is so polarized. I look to nobody but our leader, and what he has done to divide this country to promote his agenda. At some point, people became republicans and democrats, and not Americans, and that comes from the leadership. When you have the president of our country misrepresenting the other side and telling people that siding with the democrats is siding with the enemy it hurts our country. When you have a broadcaster on Fox News calling Kennedy a "hostile enemy" it hurts our country. When you have the VP telling people that we will be attacked if the dems gain power, it hurts our country. Are the democrats the end all to beat all? Heck no, but they are light years ahead of the republicans in terms of doing what is right for our country. You mention civil war, yes, that is what it has come to. We have a leader that would rather delve this country into a civil war then lose power, and his grip on DC. That is a scary thought, and it should make you re-examine your position and who actually represents the values you believe in. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 Phased withdraw, partition, immediate troop removal. Take your pick. All of which fall under the "cut and run" choice. Which of these does Hillary support? Or Hagel? Or Brownback? Or any of the others that came out immediately last night? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 If you automatically dismiss an idea because it comes from the left, OR the right then you are being partisan. I TRY not to be, as well as I know you do too. I understand the trepidation you have about the political landscape right now, but I also know why it is so polarized. I look to nobody but our leader, and what he has done to divide this country to promote his agenda. At some point, people became republicans and democrats, and not Americans, and that comes from the leadership. I don't automatically dismiss anything. But the way I see it, the Rep have become the Dems of 30 years ago, and the Dems have become socialists (generally speaking, and please do not read a bias into this). Look at the amount of money and government the Reps have invested in the last 6 years. Disgusting. But the Dems have only responded with initiatives that look a lot like what is offered in France. Guarenteed living wages, healthcare, aged care, and moral relativism. These are things that I do not stand for or believe in. The dividing started long before W took office. To place the polarization at his feet is to absolve the institution of the fault. If W had never run for office, the same polarization would have taken place because you and I both know the highest ranking D/R is just a figurehead for the party. You mention civil war, yes, that is what it has come to. We have a leader that would rather delve this country into a civil war then lose power, and his grip on DC. That is a scary thought, and it should make you re-examine your position and who actually represents the values you believe in. :2cents: Chom, the President leaves office after his term. He just happened to get 2 terms. I think Bush is counting down the days till he is out of office. Look at how he has aged in 6 years! To say that he refuses to lose power is a little too fanatical for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted January 11, 2007 Author Share Posted January 11, 2007 Chom, the President leaves office after his term. He just happened to get 2 terms. I think Bush is counting down the days till he is out of office. Look at how he has aged in 6 years! To say that he refuses to lose power is a little too fanatical for me. You missed the point pope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Posted January 11, 2007 Share Posted January 11, 2007 Wow, how the story swings when the power shifts. Just two months ago the Rep were stating that there were only 2 possible ways to handle Iraq (don't flame me for the phrases, I use them to illustrate the point): 1) stay the course = win 2) cut and run= defeat Now that the Dems are in power it is the same argument, but with the emphasis flipped: 1) cut and run = win 2) stay the course = defeat Now, if this does not illustrate the problems with the two party, partisan hack system we have, nothing can. We, as a country, need to pull our heads out of our ***** and start running this country for the benefit of (are you ready for this?) the American people. Let's go back and examine the way this country was founded. And then we can right the ship and govern following the guidlines spelled out for us by the framers. Very simple. I don't ask for much Someone who gets it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.