Our criminal attack on Iraq was a tremendous evil and a blunder of stupendous proportions. This war has done sever and perhaps irreparable damage to the United States. The cost for this war should be the extinction of the Republican party as a political force in America. No party has ever been so deeply destructive to our nation. It is no wonder they try to call everybody who thinks differently than they treasonous. They know who they are. The Republican party might as well be an Al Quaeda cell.
Shine ON!
To the OP's original question, what solution have Democrats offered?
1. Oust Rumsfeld. He and his are a major impediment to the inclusion of old european allies.
2. Murtha. He knows the military has been used to the capacity the military can be used in Iraq.
3. Recovering from this blunder of monumental porportions is probably beyond scope of even bipartisan cooperation and patriotism.
Exactly. The Republicans lose the war and then blame the Democrats. Typical underhanded garbage from the Bush cabal.
Solutions given my democrats:
1) Send more troops, I believe a good amount of prominent Dem military experts said from day 1 that the amount of troops sent was too low. And I agree.
2) Make Rummsfeld resign. He is probably the most unqualified person EVER to lead our military. He is a traitor to this country. This is the same man that shook hands with Sadam in the 1980s when we gave them tons of weapons to fight off Iran.
3) Draft a pull-out strategy. This one is probably the toughest to implement, because the state that Iraq is equivalent to our forces being the only thing holding things up there. If we pull out now things crumble and no one ends up on the winning side.
I personally think the ONLY way to do this right, is to focus 100% on rebuilding Iraq along with the Iraqi people, while at the same time try to get the U.N and NATO to start building up true peace-keeping forces. This would be a multi-year plan of course but we need to make the decision to do it in the first place.
1) Send more troops, I believe a good amount of prominent Dem military experts said from day 1 that the amount of troops sent was too low. And I agree.
2) Make Rummsfeld resign. He is probably the most unqualified person EVER to lead our military. He is a traitor to this country. This is the same man that shook hands with Sadam in the 1980s when we gave them tons of weapons to fight off Iran.
3) Draft a pull-out strategy. This one is probably the toughest to implement, because the state that Iraq is equivalent to our forces being the only thing holding things up there. If we pull out now things crumble and no one ends up on the winning side.
I personally think the ONLY way to do this right, is to focus 100% on rebuilding Iraq along with the Iraqi people, while at the same time try to get the U.N and NATO to start building up true peace-keeping forces. This would be a multi-year plan of course but we need to make the decision to do it in the first place.
I just finished reading this thread and I am amazed! I still se not one relevant answer........
What I do see is that everyone complains about not enough troops, and that removing Rumsfeld will solve something. Let me tell you that it won't fix what's wrong with Iraq.
There was not one possibility that this situation could be fixed by Republicans or Democrats from the day our troops set foot into the country. Hindsight is always clear though. What isn't clear is how the Democrats think that now we are there that there is a solution that the Coalition can force on them to stop hating themselves and the rest of the world.
I can tell you firsthand, bnot from a newspaper, that the problem is deep and not just a Sunni versus Shia issue. The Kurds are just as hateful, they just hate the Shia and Suni so much that they tolerate the Coalition as the enemy of their enemy. Throw the meddling Persians into the mix and you have a hate stew that is toxic.
Moonbeam may have a valid solution, but militarily the only one is to stay long enough to see education of the next generation change the attitudes and practices of the people as a whole. Moonie, are you out there!
What I do see is that everyone complains about not enough troops, and that removing Rumsfeld will solve something. Let me tell you that it won't fix what's wrong with Iraq.
There was not one possibility that this situation could be fixed by Republicans or Democrats from the day our troops set foot into the country. Hindsight is always clear though. What isn't clear is how the Democrats think that now we are there that there is a solution that the Coalition can force on them to stop hating themselves and the rest of the world.
I can tell you firsthand, bnot from a newspaper, that the problem is deep and not just a Sunni versus Shia issue. The Kurds are just as hateful, they just hate the Shia and Suni so much that they tolerate the Coalition as the enemy of their enemy. Throw the meddling Persians into the mix and you have a hate stew that is toxic.
Moonbeam may have a valid solution, but militarily the only one is to stay long enough to see education of the next generation change the attitudes and practices of the people as a whole. Moonie, are you out there!
So wait, are you saying that if I make poor financial decisions for the company I work for, I should be forgiven and allowed to continue to work unless my counter-part can provide a solution that will fix my mistake?
Staying there isn't a plan -- it's just staying there. The Republicans, as a whole, have offered zilch. They'll stay the course? They won't cut and run? They're in it to win? Great, and how will they "win" and what exactly constitutes winning?
This nonsense that the Democrats haven't offered anything, although a few have offered plans for a graduated withdrawal, and the Republicans have offered something is nothing but pure political drivel.
I like how Al Franken put that idea. von Clausewitz said that war is a continuation of politics by different means, Franken said that for Bush, war is a continuation of politics by the SAME means...politics.
Not quite right, you haven't heard one answer that you agree with...which isn't really our fault. If you don't understand our position on the issue, the problem might be on YOUR side of things...not ours. You pro-Bush folks keep complaining that the lefties have no solutions. When we present our solutions, don't complain because you can't understand them.
Look what I found... and 7 wholes pages of it.
I doubt ProfJohn or any of the other blowhards will read it though. They'll just keep saying "the Dems offer no solutions."
Pathetic.
EDIT:
Here's some more
5 ways to win back Iraq
How to win in Iraq
How to win in Iraq v2
So if anyone says "no solutions have been offered" one more time, then they are nothing but a shill.
I doubt ProfJohn or any of the other blowhards will read it though. They'll just keep saying "the Dems offer no solutions."
Pathetic.
EDIT:
Here's some more
5 ways to win back Iraq
How to win in Iraq
How to win in Iraq v2
So if anyone says "no solutions have been offered" one more time, then they are nothing but a shill.
senseamp
Lifer
- Feb 5, 2006
- 35,787
- 6,195
- 126
That's not a solution. What they've been doing now has not solved the problem, and there is no indication it will.
GOP has no plan to win in Iraq, they just want to stick around and see what happens, and if thousands more Americans die with no progress to show for it, then so be it.
The Democrats want to do the same thing minus the American troops getting blown up while we see what happens.
Ultimately, either Iraqi state will survive on its own or it won't. Us staying there 5 more years is not going to make the internal divisions and problems go away.
Uh, didn't Bush invade Iraq? Isn't the war plan(s) a product of the Bush administration? Isn't the peace plan(s) a product of the Bush administration?
Who should be responsible aside from the 'decider'?
"Stay the course" is a plan?!? Ha! I'm no Democrat, but I've offered plenty of potential alternatives to smashing your head against the brick wall "plan" that the GOP seems so fond of. You know what I get in response when I post them in threads like this?
*crickets*
So the GOP and the "righties" aren't so much outraged by the lack of alternative plans being floated, rather they're using this artificially-generated outrage to bash the Dems over the head. The exact thing you're complaining about.
Good luck in Iraq!
I think the right should say what answer they'd praise from the left. They say that all the options the left can offer are bad - and therefore republicans are right.
If the left says 'pull the troops out now', they make the case no ME nations want that and it'd have terrible consequences.
If the left says 'pull the troops out asap, but make things somewhat stable first', they say 'but that's the same plan as Bush!'
If the left says 'stay fully committed as long as it takes to make sure Iraq is stable', they also say 'see, Bush was right all along, in spreading democracy there'.
If the democrats come up with some creative approaches, anything from negotations with Iran to UN efforts or other things, they say 'that won't work, see, you can't trust the democrats not to do horrible things, you need the republicans'.
So, there's no answer to this question for the right; it's only asked to let them say 'see, we need the republicans in charge'.
Well, where's the accountability for the bad policy - if the republicans pay no political price for getting things so wrong, then what's to stop them from doing it again and getting rewarded with continued political power again?
The attack may be the solution. It's called accountability. Attack the republicans for their mistakes, and get rid of the incompetent, corrupt people now in power, and replace them with democrats who will return America to the nation of freedom, representing the broader public, with responsible policies, and punish the wrongdoing by republicans.
It could be said that whatever the democrats do, withdraw or stay or whatever else, it's better that the policies are done by democrats who at least have the right interests, and that the mistakes are punished to discourage their being repeated.
But right-wingers are not driven by what's good for the world or the nation, they're driven by their self-identification as right-wingers, and they simply want to keep power. This is why if democrats ran on a platform of something wonderful, the right-wingers would simply find something to criticize about it.
Good example - one of the best government policies in the last decades was funding the development of the internet; the leading politician fighting to do so was Al Gor, and the republicans could not find a single good word to say about him, instead only criticizing Gore for something he didn't say.
That's why it's up to the American people to choose between rational, good politicians in the democratic party, and the crazy, irresponsible, harmful policies of the right who are very good at representing the few ultra wealthy/corporate interests, and lying to and harming everyone else.
If the left says 'pull the troops out now', they make the case no ME nations want that and it'd have terrible consequences.
If the left says 'pull the troops out asap, but make things somewhat stable first', they say 'but that's the same plan as Bush!'
If the left says 'stay fully committed as long as it takes to make sure Iraq is stable', they also say 'see, Bush was right all along, in spreading democracy there'.
If the democrats come up with some creative approaches, anything from negotations with Iran to UN efforts or other things, they say 'that won't work, see, you can't trust the democrats not to do horrible things, you need the republicans'.
So, there's no answer to this question for the right; it's only asked to let them say 'see, we need the republicans in charge'.
Well, where's the accountability for the bad policy - if the republicans pay no political price for getting things so wrong, then what's to stop them from doing it again and getting rewarded with continued political power again?
The attack may be the solution. It's called accountability. Attack the republicans for their mistakes, and get rid of the incompetent, corrupt people now in power, and replace them with democrats who will return America to the nation of freedom, representing the broader public, with responsible policies, and punish the wrongdoing by republicans.
It could be said that whatever the democrats do, withdraw or stay or whatever else, it's better that the policies are done by democrats who at least have the right interests, and that the mistakes are punished to discourage their being repeated.
But right-wingers are not driven by what's good for the world or the nation, they're driven by their self-identification as right-wingers, and they simply want to keep power. This is why if democrats ran on a platform of something wonderful, the right-wingers would simply find something to criticize about it.
Good example - one of the best government policies in the last decades was funding the development of the internet; the leading politician fighting to do so was Al Gor, and the republicans could not find a single good word to say about him, instead only criticizing Gore for something he didn't say.
That's why it's up to the American people to choose between rational, good politicians in the democratic party, and the crazy, irresponsible, harmful policies of the right who are very good at representing the few ultra wealthy/corporate interests, and lying to and harming everyone else.
I also blame "righties" like ProfJohn here for supporting the idiocy of invading Iraq to begin with and supporting the notion that "staying the course" is somehow a "solution." It's not. If your pants were engulfed in flames, would you suggest "continue wearing them" as a valid solution to the problem? Of course not!
I'm a liberal and democrat but I'm not sure if you really want to hear my ideas on this...
First though... I support our troops and I think an immediate pullout would be disasterous but do not think for a second that I "support the war" in Iraq. This crap may turn out to be the stupidest thing America has ever done.
1. Vastly increase the number of troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan. It's starting to get that half-assed feeling like vietnam had. Force=results.
2. If we have to implement the draft to do it, so be it (more on this in a sec).
3. Get rid of the stupid tax cut. What jackass does a tax cut in wartime? Sorry folks you wanted war and war costs money. Stop putting it on the credit card for your kids to pay. Put a warbonds project back in place for those that really support the war (and not just give it lipservice).
4. Let our Generals decide a timeline for withdrawl.
5. Be clear ahead of time that the date may shift - "Make the plan fit the situation. Don't try to make the situation fit the plan." so there will be no backlash if it does. This is war, not a schoolyear.
6. Pull Iraqi army and police OUT of Iraq to complete training then send them in when they are ready and *well equiped*. Force=results, half trained clowns=casualties.
7. Suck up a bit of pride and get some help from the UN, NATO or our allies. If this mess isn't sorted out we won't be the only ones to feel it. Since our cred with them is shot right now, lopping some responsible heads off on our side as a measure of recommitment may be helpful (Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice you suck)
(now about that draft...)
In the future if Congress wants to authorize war they should also authorize the draft. It may or may not actually be used but the two must go hand in hand. They should also fund the war so we don't go in debt (within reason).
This is a gut-check people. You leaders are going to have to face the voters on this. If war is really needed the people will support you. If it is not needed you're going to be looking for a new job and fast.
You voters need a gut-check too. Think long and hard when you decide to bring the power of the US military to bear on another sovereign nation. The potential draft and tax increases that should be *required* will help you consider carfully.
First though... I support our troops and I think an immediate pullout would be disasterous but do not think for a second that I "support the war" in Iraq. This crap may turn out to be the stupidest thing America has ever done.
1. Vastly increase the number of troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan. It's starting to get that half-assed feeling like vietnam had. Force=results.
2. If we have to implement the draft to do it, so be it (more on this in a sec).
3. Get rid of the stupid tax cut. What jackass does a tax cut in wartime? Sorry folks you wanted war and war costs money. Stop putting it on the credit card for your kids to pay. Put a warbonds project back in place for those that really support the war (and not just give it lipservice).
4. Let our Generals decide a timeline for withdrawl.
5. Be clear ahead of time that the date may shift - "Make the plan fit the situation. Don't try to make the situation fit the plan." so there will be no backlash if it does. This is war, not a schoolyear.
6. Pull Iraqi army and police OUT of Iraq to complete training then send them in when they are ready and *well equiped*. Force=results, half trained clowns=casualties.
7. Suck up a bit of pride and get some help from the UN, NATO or our allies. If this mess isn't sorted out we won't be the only ones to feel it. Since our cred with them is shot right now, lopping some responsible heads off on our side as a measure of recommitment may be helpful (Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice you suck)
(now about that draft...)
In the future if Congress wants to authorize war they should also authorize the draft. It may or may not actually be used but the two must go hand in hand. They should also fund the war so we don't go in debt (within reason).
This is a gut-check people. You leaders are going to have to face the voters on this. If war is really needed the people will support you. If it is not needed you're going to be looking for a new job and fast.
You voters need a gut-check too. Think long and hard when you decide to bring the power of the US military to bear on another sovereign nation. The potential draft and tax increases that should be *required* will help you consider carfully.
Oh one more thing...
You are more than welcome to bash my plan. Heck it *may* be a stupid plan but "stay the course" *IS* a stupid plan so anything is an improvement.
Just don't say liberals and democrats have no plan.
Also, please do not forget... You got us in to this, you own both the executive and legislative branch. This is your damn mess. We are under no F'n obligation to provide you a plan at all!!
Don't try that "we are all in this together" crap either. Sure we are all in the same boat but we said to use a bucket to get the water out. You idiots said poke a hole in the boat bottom to let it drain out. Just because we are all in this together doesn't mean we have to bow down and support the terrible decisions YOU have made. Dissent is NOT unpatriotic.
You are more than welcome to bash my plan. Heck it *may* be a stupid plan but "stay the course" *IS* a stupid plan so anything is an improvement.
Just don't say liberals and democrats have no plan.
Also, please do not forget... You got us in to this, you own both the executive and legislative branch. This is your damn mess. We are under no F'n obligation to provide you a plan at all!!
Don't try that "we are all in this together" crap either. Sure we are all in the same boat but we said to use a bucket to get the water out. You idiots said poke a hole in the boat bottom to let it drain out. Just because we are all in this together doesn't mean we have to bow down and support the terrible decisions YOU have made. Dissent is NOT unpatriotic.
Reality check for the right-wingers:
The most recent poll of Iraqis shows that 80% say more violence is caused than prevented by US forces. If the right wants to argue that the US forces are keeping violence from exploding, they should address why the Iraqis disagree so much.
So, are the Iraqis just a bunch of Al Queda supporters? No, the same poll shows they are very opposed to him. They're at least supporters of the regime in Iran, though, with the Shiite majority in Iraq, right? No, 56% disapprove of Iran's elected leader.
About 75% think the US plans permanent military bases in their country, rather than getting out after liberating them from Saddam.
Whatever else the 'solution to Iraq', I'd like to see no military bases there, to at least send that message.
Poll
The most recent poll of Iraqis shows that 80% say more violence is caused than prevented by US forces. If the right wants to argue that the US forces are keeping violence from exploding, they should address why the Iraqis disagree so much.
So, are the Iraqis just a bunch of Al Queda supporters? No, the same poll shows they are very opposed to him. They're at least supporters of the regime in Iran, though, with the Shiite majority in Iraq, right? No, 56% disapprove of Iran's elected leader.
About 75% think the US plans permanent military bases in their country, rather than getting out after liberating them from Saddam.
Whatever else the 'solution to Iraq', I'd like to see no military bases there, to at least send that message.
Poll
I voted Republican and getting out is always an option.
Since I think we should have just leveled the entire country and killed everyone but the kurds and let them have what is left, I see not big loss to letting the terrorists take over. Personally killing everyone in Baghdad is a viable optoin.
I realize that there are some who think I have the thoughts of a Madman. I see nothing the muslims do as a good thing. You can have one brand of thugs or another. The alternative is Civil War or Genocide.
How many Americans have to die?
A friend of mine says that Iraq is safer than the USA after coming back home from there. I dont see how we can let women cut a baby out of another woman and then just let them get off on an insanity plea. If a woman steals a baby at Knife Point then she deserves the death penalty.
Back to Iraq. The Iraqi's are unwilling to just kill all the terrorists. They live in constant fear.
I say just get our of Iraq now and let them destroy themselves.
Since I think we should have just leveled the entire country and killed everyone but the kurds and let them have what is left, I see not big loss to letting the terrorists take over. Personally killing everyone in Baghdad is a viable optoin.
I realize that there are some who think I have the thoughts of a Madman. I see nothing the muslims do as a good thing. You can have one brand of thugs or another. The alternative is Civil War or Genocide.
How many Americans have to die?
A friend of mine says that Iraq is safer than the USA after coming back home from there. I dont see how we can let women cut a baby out of another woman and then just let them get off on an insanity plea. If a woman steals a baby at Knife Point then she deserves the death penalty.
Back to Iraq. The Iraqi's are unwilling to just kill all the terrorists. They live in constant fear.
I say just get our of Iraq now and let them destroy themselves.
There probably are some who think you are a madman? Perhaps you could explain why you think that. I have never met a madman who thought he was anything other than sane.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 9K
-
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter