Siddhartha
Lifer
- Oct 17, 1999
- 12,505
- 3
- 81
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
And there is lies the problem of this resolution. Who ever is fighting with Al qaeda, we need to be providing support to.
The myth that the Iraq war is about terrorism is a total and complete crock-----Saddam Hussein was not about share power with Al-Quida---but once we removed Saddam---then some limited AL-Quida types moved into Iraq. Maybe for a limited time the ex-Baathists were aided by AL-Quida---but now almost 100% of the Iraqi insurgency is driven by local home grown thugs who are simply setting up local fiefdoms. And the local thugs are the defacto government on the street---and the freely and democratically elected government of Iraq is just a figment of the imagination that only exists inside of the green zone.
How do you fight a war when your commander and thief does not even understand who he is fighting?
And yes Virginia---its possible to support our troops who are America's sons and daughters--and at the time oppose the the warmongers who have totally mismanaged and bungled Iraq---in fact its the patriotic thing to do for the safety of our troops.
Our troops are not the problem---the problem is GWB&co.---and the sooner the American people understand that Iraq is not about terrorism---the better.
The myth that the Iraq war is about terrorism is a total and complete crock-----Saddam Hussein was not about share power with Al-Quida---but once we removed Saddam---then some limited AL-Quida types moved into Iraq. Maybe for a limited time the ex-Baathists were aided by AL-Quida---but now almost 100% of the Iraqi insurgency is driven by local home grown thugs who are simply setting up local fiefdoms. And the local thugs are the defacto government on the street---and the freely and democratically elected government of Iraq is just a figment of the imagination that only exists inside of the green zone.
How do you fight a war when your commander and thief does not even understand who he is fighting?
And yes Virginia---its possible to support our troops who are America's sons and daughters--and at the time oppose the the warmongers who have totally mismanaged and bungled Iraq---in fact its the patriotic thing to do for the safety of our troops.
Our troops are not the problem---the problem is GWB&co.---and the sooner the American people understand that Iraq is not about terrorism---the better.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
Sure, whatever. If you're really concerned about appearing weak to al Qaeda, why aren't you crying about Bush caving to bin Laden by withdrawing our forces from Saudi Arabia? Better yet, give your ego a rest and concentrate on things that really help and hurt America instead of fretting about things you think make us "look" weak. If the Bush faithful really cared about al Qaeda, they would have raised holy hell when BushCo diverted critical resources from Afghanistan (you know, where al Qaeda was) and blundered off into his most excellent imperial adventure in Iraq (where al Qaeda wasn't in any material way).
In case anyone is still operating under the delusional impression that W knows WTF he's doing in Iraq, that we had any kind of cohesive plan or that there was any chance that the situation in Iraq (FUBAR'd, natch) could be reversed, I'd like to advise you that there's no hope.
W has had 4 long years to get Iraq's security under control, to initiate a dialog with Iraq's neighbors, to rebuild the country's infrastructure, to think outside the box and come up with a political solution to match the military one. How long do you allow someone to utterly fail in their mission before you pull the plug?
W has had 4 long years to get Iraq's security under control, to initiate a dialog with Iraq's neighbors, to rebuild the country's infrastructure, to think outside the box and come up with a political solution to match the military one. How long do you allow someone to utterly fail in their mission before you pull the plug?
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
The GWB problem is that there is no face saving way out---in terms of working for an international political solution---GWB totally alienated our allies going into Iraq---and now must live down his "bring it on" and my way or the highway rhetoric---and being the little boy who lied wolf on WMD really puts him behind the eight ball.
And GWB&co. continues to actively reduce any hope of an international political solution by demonizing Iran and Syria.
Unless there is an almost 180 course change by GWB&co.---Iraq can only have two outcomes (1) The whole country and probably the entire mid-east as well will erupt into a long and bloody war.---the resultant oil flow reduction will plunge all economies into a depression. (2) Congress will finally be forced to cut funding which will probably result in scenario #1.
Either outcome will give political cover for GWB to evade blame.
And GWB&co. continues to actively reduce any hope of an international political solution by demonizing Iran and Syria.
Unless there is an almost 180 course change by GWB&co.---Iraq can only have two outcomes (1) The whole country and probably the entire mid-east as well will erupt into a long and bloody war.---the resultant oil flow reduction will plunge all economies into a depression. (2) Congress will finally be forced to cut funding which will probably result in scenario #1.
Either outcome will give political cover for GWB to evade blame.
Hehehe, the democrats are political hacks while the Republicans are lining up to say that any failure in Iraq will be a Democratic failure of will and not the fact that the Pres is brain dead.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
nobody seems to be able to answer this one simple question: What if pulling out of Iraq DOES create a situation that is worse than the situation we have today? What if doing so DOES put us, or our allies throughout the region, in more danger?
Unless you're under the impression that it cannot possibly get any worse, then you have to answer this question honestly and debate the pro's and con's rationally; because, it most certainly CAN get worse... much worse!
Yes, it DOES suck that Iraq turned into a total mess, and yes, you can blame GWB&Co all day long for said mess; however, is bailing out really in our nation's best interests? If doing so leads to an Iraq that is even worse than it is today, and perhaps also leads to extended conflicts beyond Iraq's borders, what then?
These are the trillion dollar questions that I do not see anyone on the Left answering honestly. The Left is too busy pointing fingers and placing blame to think this through properly...
Unless you're under the impression that it cannot possibly get any worse, then you have to answer this question honestly and debate the pro's and con's rationally; because, it most certainly CAN get worse... much worse!
Yes, it DOES suck that Iraq turned into a total mess, and yes, you can blame GWB&Co all day long for said mess; however, is bailing out really in our nation's best interests? If doing so leads to an Iraq that is even worse than it is today, and perhaps also leads to extended conflicts beyond Iraq's borders, what then?
These are the trillion dollar questions that I do not see anyone on the Left answering honestly. The Left is too busy pointing fingers and placing blame to think this through properly...
Dems are invested in our defeat, just like in vietnam. this will hurt their party in the years to come, and its hurting our national security in the present.
- Aug 23, 2003
- 25,375
- 142
- 116
Nope, sorry, I just don't buy your baseless argument.
There is no proof that the civil strife in Iraq will extend beyond their country. And it looks like it is an issue they need to resolve internally.
Stop trying to make Iraq a boogeyman. The Dems will get HUGE amounts of support and praise for finally bringing the troops back. People here can care less if the Iraqis need a few years of killing each other to figure out who is the top dog.
If troops start coming back home, 2008 is a lock for the Dems.
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
The Democrats are now the party inpower. Will they start acting like it? We all know Congress has the power (thru bugeting/funding) to force the troop withdrawl they talk so much about.
"......the Democrats to take the bigger political risk" Isn't taking taking "political risk" what happens when you take a decision (to vote for a bill such as this)? Decision = risk. Yes, maybe it's time for the Dems to actually do something now that they're in power.
Isn't that what they are trying to do now? (I.e., continue the same path as when they were the minority party).
They've talked about the need for withdrawl now for a long time. Are they afraid to actually do it now they are in power? I think so.
After being elected to power in '06 on the Iraqi was issue, can they dither and do nothing for two long years and still expect to sell their '08 Pres candidiates as the one to resolve Iraq?
Please elect a Dem as President, so he/she can take the pressure off (Dem) Congress to actually make a decision. Is that what it boils down to?
Someone above posted that they (Dems in Congress) "actually grew a pair". A pair of what? Tits? IMHO, they are long ways yet from showing any cajones.
Fern
See this is the problem. Will we ever just do the right thing and quit playing politics? Politians are playing with people's lives here. I believe the Dems were elected to get us out of Iraq. They need to cut the money and force GWB to bring the troops home. If some people want to claim they didn't support the troops or they lose their next election so be it, they need to do the right thing (but they probably won't). I think it is clear by now that military action is not going to fix this and definately not 21,000.
Added a little bold for emphasis of your statement.
You can disagree with the reason we went to iraq, however we are there now
and it stands to become a Al qaeda haven like Afghanistan was if we withdraw to early. This is a realistic and likely consequence that the left seems to want to ignore.
The Republicans start a disastrous war and then try to blame the Democrats trying to get us out as the cause of the disaster. I guess anybody sucker punchable to buy into the first might also fall for the second. Hehe.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
Think of it like blowing up some huge dam. Nobody dies at first, but millions will soon be washed away. A few more troops can't stop the flood. It is too late. Bush needed to be stopped in the 2000 election. All Americans now carry the debt of millions of voting fools. That is why I ask you right winged blind ones to cease to trust in yourselves. You have done all the damage to America is spades you could ever fear from the left. You fold have actually f@cked us royal. It is not a hypothetical. And I doubt we have begun to pay the price. So please stop having opinions and say mea culpa till it soaks into your bones.
I've answered several times, who gives a rat's ass?
We don't belong there to begin with.
I've asked this several times and get no answer.
Show me in our Constitution where it says Iraq is our problem.
Have you ever considered that the Iraqis will have to stand up when the U.S. stands down? And if the U.S. initiates an orderly and gradual withdrawal of troops, the Iraqis will be forced to deal with their own issues for once. And if, after all we've done, they still can't assume responsibility for their own country, that will pretty much prove that they never will. And if that's the case, F 'em.
I have considered that and that by in large is happening now and I have noproblem with such a plan. However we cannot leave before they are ready to take everything on by itself. This is why the surge is important, so we can expedite the iraqis taking control of the Baghdad area. The iraqis are taking large, if not lead roles in much of the rest of the country. However, it appears the dem are more interested in retreat, and making the militarys job more difficult, than finishing the job.
Ok fine, 6 months from now if things haven't improved, are you going to be ready to say that it's time to leave? Is this the last chance we are going to give them?
The current leadership in Iraq seems more concerned with lining their own pockets and sucking Iran's male appendage more than getting themselves a stable country.
I see this as extreme foot-dragging as a way to keep us there, for one thing our presence there gives them someone to pin the blame on and secondly, we are paying a lot of the bills.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
I certainly "give a rat's ass" if pulling out puts us, and our allies, in even more danger than we are now.
In other words, what if pulling out of Iraq leads to more US casualties, perhaps civilian, down the road? What if the entire region explodes into conflict and it spreads to Europe, Africa, and possibly even the US?
These are the questions we must answer before we pull out of Iraq. If the answer is that the threat would be smaller to the US if we pull out, then do it. If the answers to those questions mean that the US would be in even more danger, then we had better come up with a different solution than pulling out.
get it?
What makes you think any of that is going to happen? How are dangers to us increased in any way? If Al-Qaeda wanted to attack us today they could, when we leave Iraq, the situation will remain the same.
As far as a regional conflict goes, I don't think the OPEC nations will tolerate it honestly, the worst thing that would happen is that the various factions in Iraq split the country into three or more smaller states, each backed by their perspective religious homeboys. Then if they want to fight it out, more power to them. Let them get it over with.
Not going to spread to Africa or Europe, not sure where that idea even comes from.
If you have been paying attention there has been progress, it has just not been as fast as everyone wants. The Iraqi army has been stepping and taking the lead in most of the country over the past year. Most of iraq is reasonabley stable at this point and there is little reason to think that the same cannot be done in baghdad.
The only people not even wanting to try is the left. They would rather leave and let the conditions in iraq completely fall apart. this is a defeatist attitude that will come back to bite us worse than staying and finishing the job.
Hmm I pay attention every day and things have in fact not improved much at all in the last 12 months. Anbar is worse than ever, Baghdad is worse than ever, even Basra has taken a turn for the worse despite Cheney trying to change the facts. The Brits are calling it quits because they aren't wanted there and the situation is getting worse for them.
There's a very big difference between being a defeatist and coming to grips with reality. It is what it is - a complete and utter failure.
I have to agree with Moonbeam here. It feels like there is a huge tsunami of consequences headed our way. It's still out in the "deep water" where we can't see it yet, but it's building. And when it hits its going to be a big one. My friends, we are all fvcked. Enjoy life as you know it while you can.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter