Who has the best plan for how to deal with Iraq?

"Our message to the president is clear. It is time to begin ending this war -- not next year, not next month -- but today.

"We have heard for years now that as the Iraqis stand up, our troops will stand down. Every year, we hear about how next year they may start coming home. Now we are hearing a new version of that yet again from the president as he has more troops in Iraq than ever and the Iraqi government is more fractured and ineffective than ever.

"Well, the right strategy before the surge and post-escalation is the same: start bringing home America's troops now."

Foofie- Reagan did not get the hostages back from Iran unless someone knows of some of some work that he did before he took office to produce them. They were released on his Inauguration Day, mostly as a rebuke to Carter, but you are right, everybody felt good about them being released.

I am against any plan that leaves us with permanent military bases in Iraq indefinitely.

Joe Nation wrote:

Foofie- Reagan did not get the hostages back from Iran unless someone knows of some of some work that he did before he took office to produce them. They were released on his Inauguration Day, mostly as a rebuke to Carter, but you are right, everybody felt good about them being released.

I was listening to the pundits then. The common belief was that Reagan was going to utilize our military if the hostages were not released. So, for self-preservation, the hostages were released as soon as Reagan became Commander In Chief. In effect, his reputation, of not being adverse to using the military, preceeded him. Yes, he did get the hostages back.

In my opinion, John McCain has the only approach that is likely to serve this nation's best interests, the interests of the Iraqi People, and have any chance at achieving stability in that troubled region. Romney has the tune right, but doesn't know the lyrics. Of the Democratic candidates, Hillery Clinton's unwillingness to take a stand may mean she has some clue about what is best for the U.S. in Iraq, but is afraid to offend her left-wing. Obama doesn't make much effort to conceal that he is at heart a "surrender monkey" willing to hand over the region to Iran and Radical Islamic Terrorism.

Of course, I'm a conservative Republican... One of those war-mongering conspirators out to seize the world's oil supplies so Texans can become even wealthier and more powerful.

One small quibble, okay, two small quibbles:
Foofie- Reagan did not get the hostages back from Iran unless someone knows of some of some work that he did before he took office to produce them. They were released on his Inauguration Day, mostly as a rebuke to Carter, but you are right, everybody felt good about them being released.

Hillary has said repeatedly :

Quote:

"Our message to the president is clear. It is time to begin ending this war -- not next year, not next month -- but today.

"We have heard for years now that as the Iraqis stand up, our troops will stand down. Every year, we hear about how next year they may start coming home. Now we are hearing a new version of that yet again from the president as he has more troops in Iraq than ever and the Iraqi government is more fractured and ineffective than ever.

"Well, the right strategy before the surge and post-escalation is the same: start bringing home America's troops now."

and she's coupled that statement with having a plan to provide healthcare for the vets and their families. Pretty important to me.

Except for McCain, who wants to INCREASE and who apparently sees no reason not to have American troops in country for the next hundred years equating our future in Iraq with our presence on Okinawa and in South Korea, everybody (even George W. Bush) is for reducing our forces in Iraq. (Though he did backpedal two days ago on his reduction plan)

The task is larger than just Iraq. It's larger than the Middle East. It's about this nation's ability to sustain it's huge military presence around the world. McCain intends to continue Bush's policy in Iraq and provide combat readiness in the rest of the world. How? Beats me.

Joe(I bet it beats him too)Nation[/quot


agreed....

Me too, Kicky, but I think we are going to watching over their oilfields for a long time, until the oil runs out at least.

Um..

Foofie wrote:

Joe Nation wrote:

Foofie- Reagan did not get the hostages back from Iran unless someone knows of some of some work that he did before he took office to produce them. They were released on his Inauguration Day, mostly as a rebuke to Carter, but you are right, everybody felt good about them being released.

I was listening to the pundits then. The common belief was that Reagan was going to utilize our military if the hostages were not released. So, for self-preservation, the hostages were released as soon as Reagan became Commander In Chief. In effect, his reputation, of not being adverse to using the military, preceeded him. Yes, he did get the hostages back.

Oh yeah? They and you must have been thinking about the Ronald Reagan in the movies or are you talking about how he smacked down those protesters in Berkley Park as Governor of California?? No military involved, but still.... .

The "tough guy" who was actually IN the White House proved later not so cowboy.

Headline :Iran responsible via Hezbollah for blowing up the Marine barracks in Beirut. Golly, Nancy, what's for lunch?
(he did whip up on those tough tough guys in Grenada TWO days after the Beirut bombing. Wow. Talk about off target)

Headline: Terry Anderson and others held hostage in Lebanon....gee whiz, ,,, I guess instead of the Marines, I'll send Bob McFarlane to Teheran with a cake and some money for the terrorists. That'll show'em.
Who says we don't negotiate with terrorists? Not me, said the Gipper.

The Iranians, just like now, were not exactly shaking in their boots.

Joe(and now back to the actual thread discussion)Nation