Reply
Thu 16 Jun, 2005 02:16 pm
Lawmakers Urge Iraq PulloutSource
It's politics as usual. These congressmen know full well we cannot and will not pull out and must in good conscience finish what we started. WE broke it and we must repair it. However, with the mood of Americans turning against the war. It is politically expedient to climb on the bandwagon. After all 2006 is not to far off.
We shouldn't keep our guys there any longer than necessary to get Iraq's institutions to the point where they can take care of themselves. However, telling the enemy when you are leaving so he can wait you out is foolish.
I was thinking we would be bringing them out by that time.
They are training as hard as they can, but the insurgents murder them at a rate quicker than we can train them.
I do hope we can start leaving by then.
But, not because of any reason other than Iraqi self-sufficiency.
Lash
Hope springs eternal.
Republians, just like Democrats, are under the gun with their electors. Virtually all the polls show the majority now think the Iraq invasion was not a good idea. Had this president and his party (the sparks will fly back that it's the "oppostional democrats" (bullshit) but if indeed there was "I'm a uniter not divider" they (the pols) could have gotten together quietly sans media/public fanfare and made the same deal re withdrawal. The troops would have remained somewaht safer (as well as the Iraqi's) This statement by meself in no way retracts my original position that the invasion was illegal and stupid and a violation of american beliefs/traditions.
dyslexia wrote:Republians, just like Democrats, are under the gun with their electors. Virtually all the polls show the majority now think the Iraq invasion was not a good idea. Had this president and his party (the sparks will fly back that it's the "oppostional democrats" (bullshit) but if indeed there was "I'm a uniter not divider" they (the pols) could have gotten together quietly sans media/public fanfare and made the same deal re withdrawal. The troops would have remained somewaht safer (as well as the Iraqi's) This statement by meself in no way retracts my original position that the invasion was illegal and stupid and a violation of american beliefs/traditions.
The flip side is there are a lot of people who weren't polled that still support the war and their respective politicians who support it. Emotions will go up and down on this and the MSM keeps makes sure of that. These guys just need to come to their senses and realize their proposal does us more harm than good.
PS. I know you saw Kucinich name in the article and it got you fired up. :wink:
We've screwed the pooch so badly there, that a twenty year occupation wouldn't assure stability in Iraq after our departure. The English were there in the 1920's and had it just as bad as we do, and for the same reason--they arrogantly assumed it would be a quick and easy in and out again.
The only prospect for a reasonably stable government would be a Shi'ite government with strong support from the Kurds, who care very little for the religious distinctions. Even with that type of government, the insurgency will not end--this insurgency is a product of the "nothing more to lose" attitude of Sunni Arabs in general and former Ba'atist supporters in particular. The totally inept and screwed up manner in which Rummy's clueless team conducted the invasion, and particularly the total balls-up of the logistical corridor at An Nasiriyah assured the Ba'atists right from the start that they had a shot at continually disrupting the occupation and the formation of a government. We can't put the genie back in the bottle, we can't assure the survival of any puppet government (like the idiocy of having put the Sunni Allawi in charge of the interim government), and even in twenty years, a pull-out will reek of defeat at the hands of Muslim extremists.
Bush is an idiot who has screwed up many things, but this is the worst of his screw ups. Americans will likely be dying for this long after he is dead. The really sickening irony is the contention that this has been done to make us safer.
Such invasions will have to be done again more than once over the coming years. Whenever country X, which is, for instance, a dictatorship with ties to terrorism, begins a WMD development program and can't be talked out of it nicely, and can't be threatened out of it, we will have to go in again.
Or, on the other hand, we could just decide that particularly odious dictators may have all the WMD they want. But in the latter case, we'd better not make any long term plans.
The Coalition of the One - or Two - or Three - everyone else with half a brain will get out of there.
Brandon wrote
Quote:Such invasions will have to be done again more than once over the coming years. Whenever country X, which is, for instance, a dictatorship with ties to terrorism, begins a WMD development program and can't be talked out of it nicely, and can't be threatened out of it, we will have to go in again.
Hasn't the Iraq fiasco taught you anything?
Brandon9000 wrote:Such invasions will have to be done again more than once over the coming years. Whenever country X....a dictatorship with ties to terrorism, begins a WMD development program and can't be talked out of it nicely.....we will have to go in again.
This is surreal.
We have spent the last two years finding out that there were no WMD's in Iraq,and Brandon is talking as if there were.
The poles still show that 65% of Americans believe there are ties to 9/11 and Iraq.
1/5th of American's can't find America on an unnamed globe.
This suprises you Keltic?
TF
Brandon9000 wrote:Such invasions will have to be done again more than once over the coming years. Whenever country X, which is, for instance, a dictatorship with ties to terrorism, begins a WMD development program and can't be talked out of it nicely, and can't be threatened out of it, we will have to go in again.
Or, on the other hand, we could just decide that particularly odious dictators may have all the WMD they want. But in the latter case, we'd better not make any long term plans.
Whenever country X, pisses off the son of an ex president I guess we will be doing this all over.
Maybe we need to learn something from this experience. Perhaps sanity would be a good place to start.
kelticwizard wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Such invasions will have to be done again more than once over the coming years. Whenever country X....a dictatorship with ties to terrorism, begins a WMD development program and can't be talked out of it nicely.....we will have to go in again.
This is surreal.
We have spent the last two years finding out that there were no WMD's in Iraq,and Brandon is talking as if there were.
If we are repeatedly in situations where the probability that some mad dictator has WMD is, for example, 4/10, that means that four out of ten times we will be responding to a real, fatal threat. What part of that don't you understand? Your naive belief that the Iraq situation was unique is laughable. It is merely the tip of the iceberg caused by the advance of technology.
au1929 wrote:Brandon wrote
Quote:Such invasions will have to be done again more than once over the coming years. Whenever country X, which is, for instance, a dictatorship with ties to terrorism, begins a WMD development program and can't be talked out of it nicely, and can't be threatened out of it, we will have to go in again.
Hasn't the Iraq fiasco taught you anything?
If a policeman frisks a suspect and finds he doesn't have a gun
this time, how is that a fiasco? For all the cop knows, he had the gun 60 seconds before he saw the cop coming. And even if that isn't true, failure to frisk suspects being arrested will certainly cause the cop's death at some point. And please don't triumphantly point out parts of the metaphor that aren't parallel. The point, of course, relates to investigating lethal possibilities with some significant probability of being true.
Absolutely no part of your feeble analogy works, Brandon. The world is not a community in the sense of a discrete society with a police force. In such metaphorical terms, military action constitutes policing exactly to the same extent that a vigilante mob constitutes policing. We are not the world's cop. The world has not asked us to perform that function. When we act in that capacity without wide support, we are justifiably criticized. When we act in that capacity on the basis of what is in the kindest construction badly informed intelligence, and in the worst, outright lies, we are justifiably condemned.
Everyone here is by now familiar with your paranoia about terrorism which verges on the irrational. Don't expect us to buy a simplistic analogy to the police which does not anywhere parallel the realities of the Iraq War.
True. Even though we have nominated ourselves the police force of nations that have resources we want - we are not.
TF
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace