• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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.

Democrats oppose the president's plan to add troops to Iraq

Iriemon said:
I think a repetition of the same old "we're winning, everythings fine, last throes" kind of statements isn't the way to establish any credibility.
Click to expand...
The President agrees with you. That's why he didn't say of of that.
 
Iriemon said:
I think a repetition of the same old "we're winning, everythings fine, last throes" kind of statements isn't the way to establish any credibility with the so-called new plan. Increasing deployment by 15% is better than doing nothing, but IMO is a token action for political purposes more than something that is likely to dramatically change the security situation in Iraq.
Click to expand...

True, but I think he could have been frank about the situation without apologizing and taking the blame. There's a reason why president's rarely admit they are wrong.
 
Goobieman said:
OMFG.
I thought you people had finally given up on the "selected, not elected' BS.
You havent scarped the Gore/Lieberman sticker off your car yet, have you?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-elections/16447-election-2000-a.html
Click to expand...

It started before Gore when Dubya and his smear masters destroyed John McCain in the Repub primaries. Any self respecting Repub should have turned their backs on those dishonest pieces of crap right then. Now poor McCain has been assimilated and is now but a shell of the once great statesman he once was. At this point, anyone that still thinks that Bush being "appointed" President by the Supreme Court was a good thing is obviously in need of professional psychiatric help.
 
The_Real_ElRoi said:
It started before Gore when Dubya and his smear masters destroyed John McCain in the Republican primaries. Any self respecting Repub should have turned their backs on those dishonest pieces of crap right then. Now poor McCain has been assimilated and is now but a shell of the once great statesman he once was.
Click to expand...
You say this like its meaningful and as if the Dems don't/haven't done this to each other. :roll:

At this point, anyone that still thinks that Bush was "appointed" President by the Supreme Court is obviously in need of professional psychiatric help.
 
How exactly is this plan different than the previous plan? Bush has always said the role of the military is to help the Iraqis train their own soldiers so that they can take care of their own problems. Essentially, he's basically said he wants more troops for the same plan.

I'm not against a troop surge, but if you want to secure Iraq and try to win it militarily, how does 20,000 troops achieve that goal? I've always said that he needs to make the commitment to a military victory or not. If doubling the number of troops is what it takes, then double it and call for a draft if necessary to raise the troops. It seems strange that you would play the game of trying to figure out the absolute minimum number of troops you need to send. Isn't it better to go to a war and find out you sent too many troops than too few? Seems to me the consequences of sending too few are far greater than sending too many.
 
The_Real_ElRoi said:
It started before Gore when Dubya and his smear masters destroyed John McCain in the Republican primaries. Any self respecting Repub should have turned their backs on those dishonest pieces of crap right then. Now poor McCain has been assimilated and is now but a shell of the once great statesman he once was. At this point, anyone that still thinks that Bush being "appointed" President by the Supreme Court was a good thing is obviously in need of professional psychiatric help.
Click to expand...

And then the Reverend said:

"Drink the Kool-Aid. children. Drink. Drink and the thruth shall set you free."

:beer:

:allhail
 
Get this thread back on track, folks. Cut out the petty bickering, knock off the insults, and debate the topic, not each other.
 
Goobieman said:
You say this like its meaningful and as if the Democrats don't/haven't done this to each other. :roll:

At this point, anyone that still thinks that Bush was "appointed" President by the Supreme Court is obviously in need of professional psychiatric help.
Click to expand...

What has been done is the expediting of the further decline of the United States by the Repubs moronic, self-serving actions.
 
The_Real_ElRoi said:
What has been done is the expediting of the further decline of the United States by the Repubs moronic, self-serving actions.
Click to expand...
I think the moderators exact words were: "knock off the insults."
 
Cremaster77 said:
How exactly is this plan different than the previous plan? Bush has always said the role of the military is to help the Iraqis train their own soldiers so that they can take care of their own problems. Essentially, he's basically said he wants more troops for the same plan.

I'm not against a troop surge, but if you want to secure Iraq and try to win it militarily, how does 20,000 troops achieve that goal? I've always said that he needs to make the commitment to a military victory or not. If doubling the number of troops is what it takes, then double it and call for a draft if necessary to raise the troops. It seems strange that you would play the game of trying to figure out the absolute minimum number of troops you need to send. Isn't it better to go to a war and find out you sent too many troops than too few? Seems to me the consequences of sending too few are far greater than sending too many.
Click to expand...

Here is the real reason for the war in Iraq and the real reason Bush wants to send in more troops. But, of course anyone with half a brain has known this all along, right?:

Blood and oil: How the West will profit from Iraq's most precious commodity

The 'IoS' today reveals a draft for a new law that would give Western oil companies a massive share in the third largest reserves in the world. To the victors, the oil? That is how some experts view this unprecedented arrangement with a major Middle East oil producer that guarantees investors huge profits for the next 30 years

Published: 07 January 2007

So was this what the Iraq war was fought for, after all? As the number of US soldiers killed since the invasion rises past the 3,000 mark, and President George Bush gambles on sending in up to 30,000 more troops, The Independent on Sunday has learned that the Iraqi government is about to push through a law giving Western oil companies the right to exploit the country's massive oil reserves.

Independent Online Edition > Middle East
 
The_Real_ElRoi said:
What has been done is the expediting of the further decline of the United States by the Repubs moronic, self-serving actions.
Click to expand...
Yawn.
Wake me when you have something to say.
 
The_Real_ElRoi said:
Here is the real reason for the war in Iraq and the real reason Bush wants to send in more troops. But, of course anyone with half a brain has known this all along, right?:

Blood and oil: How the West will profit from Iraq's most precious commodity

The 'IoS' today reveals a draft for a new law that would give Western oil companies a massive share in the third largest reserves in the world. To the victors, the oil? That is how some experts view this unprecedented arrangement with a major Middle East oil producer that guarantees investors huge profits for the next 30 years

Published: 07 January 2007

So was this what the Iraq war was fought for, after all? As the number of US soldiers killed since the invasion rises past the 3,000 mark, and President George Bush gambles on sending in up to 30,000 more troops, The Independent on Sunday has learned that the Iraqi government is about to push through a law giving Western oil companies the right to exploit the country's massive oil reserves.

Independent Online Edition > Middle East
Click to expand...

:roll:

Goobieman <-- wondering why the tankers arent lined up 20 deeop off Galveston, with all that free Iraqi oil.
 
The_Real_ElRoi said:
Here is the real reason for the war in Iraq and the real reason Bush wants to send in more troops. But, of course anyone with half a brain has known this all along, right?:

Blood and oil: How the West will profit from Iraq's most precious commodity

The 'IoS' today reveals a draft for a new law that would give Western oil companies a massive share in the third largest reserves in the world. To the victors, the oil? That is how some experts view this unprecedented arrangement with a major Middle East oil producer that guarantees investors huge profits for the next 30 years

Published: 07 January 2007

So was this what the Iraq war was fought for, after all? As the number of US soldiers killed since the invasion rises past the 3,000 mark, and President George Bush gambles on sending in up to 30,000 more troops, The Independent on Sunday has learned that the Iraqi government is about to push through a law giving Western oil companies the right to exploit the country's massive oil reserves.

Independent Online Edition > Middle East
Click to expand...
There are threads available to post your editorials and discuss all of the conspiracy theories of why we went to war. This thread however, centers on the President's latest adjustments and the speech he gave last night defining the changes. Once again, I think the moderator made it very clear how she wants the thread to get back on topic.
 
Goobieman said:
:roll:

Goobieman <-- wondering why the tankers arent lined up 20 deeop off Galveston, with all that free Iraqi oil.
Click to expand...

If you actually read the article before you typed, you might have seen that these deals were just recently struck. And as I have postulated, the reason for the troop increase is to secure the oil fields so that Dubya and Dr. Evil's (aka VP Tricky Dick) oil buddies can start pumping it out.
 
CurrentAffairs said:
There are threads available to post your editorials and discuss all of the conspiracy theories of why we went to war. This thread however, centers on the President's latest adjustments and the speech he gave last night defining the changes. Once again, I think the moderator made it very clear how she wants the thread to get back on topic.
Click to expand...

No conspiracy theories in that article my friend. The oil deals are fact and you should get back to your hallway now before the teacher catches you away from your post.
 
The_Real_ElRoi said:
If you actually read the article before you typed, you might have seen that these deals were just recently struck. And as I have postulated, the reason for the troop increase is to secure the oil fields so that Dubya and Dr. Evil's (aka VP Tricky Dick) oil buddies can start pumping it out.
Click to expand...

Wake me up then the tankers arent lined up 20 deep off Galveston, with all that free Iraqi oil. :roll:
 
The_Real_ElRoi said:
Here is the real reason for the war in Iraq and the real reason Bush wants to send in more troops. But, of course anyone with half a brain has known this all along, right?
Click to expand...

Get over it. The War for Oil angle is played out. Was the oil in Iraq one of the reasons for going? Absolutely. So was the thought that there were WMDs. That Saddam had been a thorn in our sides for a decade leading up to the war. That Iraq could serve as a shining example from which to spread Democracy over through the ME. That the US needed additional military presence in the ME to combat increasing attacks on US interests both domestically and overseas...

Is oil in Iraq one of the reasons for staying? Absolutely. But so is the clear evidence that Iraq is becoming a breeding ground for terrorists. That chaos has the potential to spread across the ME. That leaving Iraq increases the potential of more domestic terrorist acts. That the US has a moral obligation to try to remedy a situation that we created...

Pointing to one thing and saying that is THE reason why the war started and is ongoing is simplistic and demonstrates a failure to examine anything about what has been happening over the past 4 years with a critical eye.
 
Cremaster77 said:
Is oil in Iraq one of the reasons for staying? Absolutely. But so is the clear evidence that Iraq is becoming a breeding ground for terrorists. That chaos has the potential to spread across the ME. That leaving Iraq increases the potential of more domestic terrorist acts. That the US has a moral obligation to try to remedy a situation that we created...
Click to expand...
It shoud be noted that the US was attacked and under threat of attacks from terrorists born and bred in the Middle East well before we invaded Iraq.

One has to wonder where these terrorists would be if they werent fighting us there.
 
Cremaster77 said:
But so is the clear evidence that Iraq is becoming a breeding ground for terrorists.
Click to expand...
Fact: Al Quida (or "Al Qaeda" depending on whose spelling it) did not exist is Iraq prior to US invasion. So, yes "Iraq is becoming a breeding ground for terrorists" thank's to the current administrations misguided and self-serving interests.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom