• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Bush is fighting Iraq as if Kerry won the election

craigfarmer

Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2004
Messages
175
Reaction score
6
The Iraq War is a prime example why both parties need independent and diverse thinkers. It is not in the best interest of our country to have the two major political parties so ideologically pristine. Though there may be certain maverick individuals such as a Lieberman for the Democrats or a McCain or Hagel for the Republicans; there aren't any serious factions within the parties that promote principles over the party line. The detrimental effect of this is evident concerning our so-called "War on Terror". Though the Bush administration periodically has talked a tough and aggressive strategy, they have often failed. Their lack of diplomatic success has been chronicled and exposed clearly by those on the left. But equally troubling has been our inability to follow through on our stern rhetoric. We have threatened Bin Laden's capture dead or alive, we have warned of "Shock and Awe" in the early days of the military campaign. We have elevated our troop levels and repeatedly have signaled a determination to crush the terrorists in Iraq. Yet, we still are in a weak position there and world-wide in many places because of political correctness, and bad political judgement. We haven't been tough enough in many cases. There have been terrorist clerics such as Al Sadr who have negotiated his way out of sure defeat and/or death. We have tried to appease people and groups who aren't clearly with us, so according to the President, they must be "with the terrorists".

Were there a President Gore or President Kerry, first we wouldn't be in this war, but assuming we were, they would probably have fought it similarly wrong. This being due to the propensity to listen to peace activists, and human rights types who are clearly out of their discipline when talking of war and national security.

However the Right would be using facts, logic, and time-tested ideas to correctly criticize and encourage a better war plan and execution. In addition the military leadership would not be so loyal to a Democrat. Our country, troops, and future are being penalized because Conservatives won't truly criticize their own and put the nation ahead of politics, and Democrats only criticize when it's in their interests, which won't be from a hawkish position.

Now that we're in a war, we need to develop a plan to win forcefully as quickly as possible. We need to assume the burden of bad press reports, and millions of people believing the worse of our intentions. Ultimately the path toward victory and the world understanding our overall goodness is success and proof of a positive agenda. Even then, there will be those searching for the downside. Right now, we have the Bush administration trying to appease left wing governments, left-leaning press members, and the world elite by being culturally sensitive, working within certain constraints, and in general not aggressively rooting out the terrorists and their protectors in Iraq. Perhaps this route has re-elected Bush, Blair, and others, but it is not in our nation's best interest. This is not a conincidence. Oh, how I wish the President was really a person who "said what he means, means what he say" because he's a "straight shooter". The list of statements no longer referred to nor claimed by the President is growing.

More innocent people will be harmed if we continue a weak war in Iraq, than if we got serious, cleaned the place out, and came home.

If President Bush won't commit our troops to win, pay the the UN to rebuild, and leave. We should just leave now, without further damage to our troops and prestige.

Craig Farmer

making the word "liberal" safe again!
 

stsburns

American Infidel
DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
46
Location
Pergatory
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I have a question?

More innocent people will be harmed if we continue a weak war in Iraq, than if we got serious, cleaned the place out, and came home.
What do you mean by "clean the place out?" I thought we were there to help them secure a government in Iraq, and keep extremists from taking power of the country? But hey I could be wrong?
 

craigfarmer

Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2004
Messages
175
Reaction score
6
Right now during the day, the terrorists blend in with the population, and receive aid and comfort from the citizens. All the while, they are planning, and planting roadside bombs and worse.

As a military tactic, we should "clean the place out of terrorists" by shutting the city down, and searching block by block and getting them by any means. This will save lives ultimately and hastening our departure.

Instead we are trying to balance good will, and good press, and be sensitive to local customs etc. All the while the terrorists are using this against us.

We are fighting this war the way a left wing Democrat would.

Though I'm a liberal:

https://www.newliberals.org

I support what's best for America at all times. What's best now is truly a shock and awe campaign that makes the people of Iraq choose us or the terrorists. Then we should leave, and pay the U.N. to help the country build up.

Craig Farmer

making the word "liberal" safe again!
 

stsburns

American Infidel
DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
46
Location
Pergatory
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Yea, its going to be tough for the US to balance safety and still get approval from the citizens in Iraq. But its worth a try?
 
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
1,670
Reaction score
17
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
craigfarmer said:
The Iraq War is a prime example why both parties need independent and diverse thinkers. It is not in the best interest of our country to have the two major political parties so ideologically pristine. Though there may be certain maverick individuals such as a Lieberman for the Democrats or a McCain or Hagel for the Republicans; there aren't any serious factions within the parties that promote principles over the party line. The detrimental effect of this is evident concerning our so-called "War on Terror". Though the Bush administration periodically has talked a tough and aggressive strategy, they have often failed. Their lack of diplomatic success has been chronicled and exposed clearly by those on the left. But equally troubling has been our inability to follow through on our stern rhetoric. We have threatened Bin Laden's capture dead or alive, we have warned of "Shock and Awe" in the early days of the military campaign. We have elevated our troop levels and repeatedly have signaled a determination to crush the terrorists in Iraq. Yet, we still are in a weak position there and world-wide in many places because of political correctness, and bad political judgement. We haven't been tough enough in many cases. There have been terrorist clerics such as Al Sadr who have negotiated his way out of sure defeat and/or death. We have tried to appease people and groups who aren't clearly with us, so according to the President, they must be "with the terrorists".

Were there a President Gore or President Kerry, first we wouldn't be in this war, but assuming we were, they would probably have fought it similarly wrong. This being due to the propensity to listen to peace activists, and human rights types who are clearly out of their discipline when talking of war and national security.

However the Right would be using facts, logic, and time-tested ideas to correctly criticize and encourage a better war plan and execution. In addition the military leadership would not be so loyal to a Democrat. Our country, troops, and future are being penalized because Conservatives won't truly criticize their own and put the nation ahead of politics, and Democrats only criticize when it's in their interests, which won't be from a hawkish position.

Now that we're in a war, we need to develop a plan to win forcefully as quickly as possible. We need to assume the burden of bad press reports, and millions of people believing the worse of our intentions. Ultimately the path toward victory and the world understanding our overall goodness is success and proof of a positive agenda. Even then, there will be those searching for the downside. Right now, we have the Bush administration trying to appease left wing governments, left-leaning press members, and the world elite by being culturally sensitive, working within certain constraints, and in general not aggressively rooting out the terrorists and their protectors in Iraq. Perhaps this route has re-elected Bush, Blair, and others, but it is not in our nation's best interest. This is not a conincidence. Oh, how I wish the President was really a person who "said what he means, means what he say" because he's a "straight shooter". The list of statements no longer referred to nor claimed by the President is growing.

More innocent people will be harmed if we continue a weak war in Iraq, than if we got serious, cleaned the place out, and came home.

If President Bush won't commit our troops to win, pay the the UN to rebuild, and leave. We should just leave now, without further damage to our troops and prestige.

Craig Farmer

making the word "liberal" safe again!

The problem is that all of the other parties can't participate in the debates. You call it democracy I call it bs.
 
Top Bottom