THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

I have some questions for all of you that are saying we should pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

First of all,HOW do we do that?

We make plans to mothball our equipment, pack it up, and leave. Not a difficult idea to understand.

Do we just stop fighting the insurgents and pack up and leave?

Yes.

What happens if the insurgents attack us while we are leaving?
Can we fight back then?

Sure, why not?

What do we do with all of our equipment we took over there?
Do we destroy it or bring it back with us?

We bring back everything we can manage, give to the Iraqi Army and the Kurds the stuff we can't manage, and destroy anything that's too dangerous to leave behind.

Where do we redeploy to?
Do we bring all of the US troops home,or do we return to the bases we came from,Europe,Asia,etc.

We redeploy to Afghanistan, Kuwait, and European bases. Bring soldiers home when it is possible to do so.

Also,if we totally pull out of Iraq,Afghanistan and the entire middle east,will that make us any safer?

Well, nobody said anything about leaving Afghanistan. But, it will make both American troops and our civilians safer to focus our energies on defense and diplomacy for a while.

Will that make our allies any safer?

Probably not, but they have little choice but to remain allied with us anyways, so who cares. They are responsible for their own self defense as much as we are.

Will that guarantee that the terrorists NEVER attack us or our territories or citizens again?

There are no guarantees in life. The current war does not guarantee this either.

And if the terrorists do attack us,will we be allowed to retaliate or will we have to do nothing?

Where is the democrat DETAILED plan that answers all of these questions?
I havent seen it,and neither has anyone else that I know of.

Glad I could be of service.

Cyclo,
Where is the detailed dem plan?
You gave me your answers,but not the official dem line.

What is the official dem plan that answers the questions I asked?

mysteryman wrote:

Cyclo,
Where is the detailed dem plan?
You gave me your answers,but not the official dem line.

What is the official dem plan that answers the questions I asked?

They don't have an official plan - why would they have one? They can't do anything with the plan even if they did have it, Bush would just ignore it.

Where's the Republican plan for leaving? They should have one as well.

I can see what you are trying to do, and it's f*cking stupid. Why do you insist on playing these little games?

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Cyclo,
Where is the detailed dem plan?
You gave me your answers,but not the official dem line.

What is the official dem plan that answers the questions I asked?

They don't have an official plan - why would they have one? They can't do anything with the plan even if they did have it, Bush would just ignore it.

Where's the Republican plan for leaving? They should have one as well.

I can see what you are trying to do, and it's f*cking stupid. Why do you insist on playing these little games?

Cycloptichorn

What am I trying to do?
I asked some reasonable questions.
Since the dems seem to want us out NOW,then they should have a detailed plan for accomplishing that.
The questions I asked are part of that detailed plan.

The repub plan,as far as I know,is to leave when the job is done,not before.

But the 'critter' you trap keeps coming back with more stupid Q's. I find the pursuit nonsensical.

It isn't, though. When you point out problems with people's arguments, it does have an effect on them whether they admit it or not.

I consider challenging those ideas which I find to be nonsensical to be of the utmost importance. The benefits are not necessarily immediate, or even based upon changing attitudes; there is a certain gain incurred myself when challenged to overcome difficult positions. In the end I am better for having done so, and hopefully the other person is better for having read what I wrote.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It isn't, though. When you point out problems with people's arguments, it does have an effect on them whether they admit it or not.

I consider challenging those ideas which I find to be nonsensical to be of the utmost importance. The benefits are not necessarily immediate, or even based upon changing attitudes; there is a certain gain incurred myself when challenged to overcome difficult positions. In the end I am better for having done so, and hopefully the other person is better for having read what I wrote.

Cycloptichorn

You are saying that the questions I asked are "nonsensical",but they are all questions that will have to be addressed with any plan to pull out of Iraq.

I am curious what the dems plan to address those questions is.

mysteryman wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It isn't, though. When you point out problems with people's arguments, it does have an effect on them whether they admit it or not.

I consider challenging those ideas which I find to be nonsensical to be of the utmost importance. The benefits are not necessarily immediate, or even based upon changing attitudes; there is a certain gain incurred myself when challenged to overcome difficult positions. In the end I am better for having done so, and hopefully the other person is better for having read what I wrote.

Cycloptichorn

You are saying that the questions I asked are "nonsensical",but they are all questions that will have to be addressed with any plan to pull out of Iraq.

I am curious what the dems plan to address those questions is.

The questions aren't nonsensical, it's nonsense to expect the Dems to have a working, universal plan for leaving when they don't have the resources to make such a plan.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It isn't, though. When you point out problems with people's arguments, it does have an effect on them whether they admit it or not.

I consider challenging those ideas which I find to be nonsensical to be of the utmost importance. The benefits are not necessarily immediate, or even based upon changing attitudes; there is a certain gain incurred myself when challenged to overcome difficult positions. In the end I am better for having done so, and hopefully the other person is better for having read what I wrote.

Cycloptichorn

You are saying that the questions I asked are "nonsensical",but they are all questions that will have to be addressed with any plan to pull out of Iraq.

I am curious what the dems plan to address those questions is.

The questions aren't nonsensical, it's nonsense to expect the Dems to have a working, universal plan for leaving when they don't have the resources to make such a plan.

Cycloptichorn

But they dont even have a rough outline of a plan,except to say "get out now".

mysteryman wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It isn't, though. When you point out problems with people's arguments, it does have an effect on them whether they admit it or not.

I consider challenging those ideas which I find to be nonsensical to be of the utmost importance. The benefits are not necessarily immediate, or even based upon changing attitudes; there is a certain gain incurred myself when challenged to overcome difficult positions. In the end I am better for having done so, and hopefully the other person is better for having read what I wrote.

Cycloptichorn

You are saying that the questions I asked are "nonsensical",but they are all questions that will have to be addressed with any plan to pull out of Iraq.

I am curious what the dems plan to address those questions is.

The questions aren't nonsensical, it's nonsense to expect the Dems to have a working, universal plan for leaving when they don't have the resources to make such a plan.

Cycloptichorn

But they dont even have a rough outline of a plan,except to say "get out now".

Sure they do. They have a plan which calls for a phased withdrawl, based upon a timetable. That's a plan whether you agree with it or not.

Their plan is exactly as robust as the Republican plan for winning the war, I might add.

Cycloptichorn

I have some questions for all of you that are saying we should pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

First of all,HOW do we do that?
Do we just stop fighting the insurgents and pack up and leave?
What happens if the insurgents attack us while we are leaving?
Can we fight back then?

What do we do with all of our equipment we took over there?
Do we destroy it or bring it back with us?

Where do we redeploy to?
Do we bring all of the US troops home,or do we return to the bases we came from,Europe,Asia,etc.

Also,if we totally pull out of Iraq,Afghanistan and the entire middle east,will that make us any safer?

Will that make our allies any safer?
Will that guarantee that the terrorists NEVER attack us or our territories or citizens again?

And if the terrorists do attack us,will we be allowed to retaliate or will we have to do nothing?

Where is the democrat DETAILED plan that answers all of these questions?
I havent seen it,and neither has anyone else that I know of.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It isn't, though. When you point out problems with people's arguments, it does have an effect on them whether they admit it or not.

I consider challenging those ideas which I find to be nonsensical to be of the utmost importance. The benefits are not necessarily immediate, or even based upon changing attitudes; there is a certain gain incurred myself when challenged to overcome difficult positions. In the end I am better for having done so, and hopefully the other person is better for having read what I wrote.

Cycloptichorn

You are saying that the questions I asked are "nonsensical",but they are all questions that will have to be addressed with any plan to pull out of Iraq.

I am curious what the dems plan to address those questions is.

The questions aren't nonsensical, it's nonsense to expect the Dems to have a working, universal plan for leaving when they don't have the resources to make such a plan.

Cycloptichorn

But they dont even have a rough outline of a plan,except to say "get out now".

Sure they do. They have a plan which calls for a phased withdrawl, based upon a timetable. That's a plan whether you agree with it or not.

Their plan is exactly as robust as the Republican plan for winning the war, I might add.

Cycloptichorn

"phased withdrawal"??
Define that for us.
Does it mean that we pull out only a few troops?
Does it mean that only certain units will be allowed to leave?
Does it mean we take 20 years to leave,as long as we leave?

What exactly is a "phased withdrawal"?

http://www.hoover.org/bios/dsouza.html

Dinesh D'Souza
Research Fellow
Expertise: Social and individual responsibility, civil rights and affirmative action, economics and society, higher education

RECENT COMMENTARY
• Hoover Op-Ed Archive

LINKS
• Guide to Scholars 2003

Dinesh D'Souza is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution.
D'Souza has been called one of the "top young public-policy makers in the country" by Investor's Business Daily. His areas of research include the economy and society, civil rights and affirmative action, cultural issues and politics, and higher education.

D'Souza's books have had a major influence on public policy, including the New York Times best-seller Illiberal Education (1991) and The End of Racism (1995). His recent works include What's So Great about America (Regnery, 2002), The Virtue of Prosperity: Finding Values in an Age of Techno Affluence (Free Press, 2000), and Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader (1997). His writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Vanity Fair, Forbes, Harper's, and the Atlantic Monthly. D'Souza is presently editing a forthcoming book, titled The Best That Has Been Thought and Said: A Multicultural Reader.

D'Souza has appeared on numerous programs, including ABC's This Week, Nightline, CNN's Crossfire, the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, Firing Line, ABC News, and Good Morning America. He has spoken at top universities around the nation including Harvard University, Stanford University, the University of California at Berkeley, and Duke University. He has also been a guest lecturer at the World Economic Forum.

From 1987 to 1988, D'Souza was senior domestic policy analyst at the White House during the Reagan administration. From 1985 to 1986, he was the managing editor of Policy Review.

D'Souza earned a B.A. in English from Dartmouth College in 1983.