Do the Dems have a plan? (1 Viewer)

[Goobieman]

It appears that the Democrats and the anti-war liberal lieft will, at least, eventually, get their wish -- we will pull out of Iraq regardless of the situation on the ground.

So:
Do the Democrats/Liberals have a plan to handle the consequences of defeat in Iraq?
What is it?

 

[Kandahar]

It appears that the Democrats and the anti-war liberal lieft will, at least, eventually, get their wish -- we will pull out of Iraq regardless of the situation on the ground.

So:
Do the Democrats/Liberals have a plan to handle the consequences of defeat in Iraq?
What is it?

Here's MY plan:

1. Start moving all of our troops in Iraq to Kurdistan, Kuwait, or Afghanistan.

2. Tell the Kurds that we will support them if they declare independence. And let them take whatever Sunni Arab cities they want with them, leaving the Sunni Arabs without a state.

3. If Southern Iraq descends into full-blown multinational war, as seems likely, support the Saudis against the Iranians.

4. Aggressively fund opposition groups in Iran. I'm talking billions of dollars. Regime change in Iran should be our #1 foreign priority.

5. Do anything possible to drive a wedge between Syria and Iran. Avoid talk of regime change in Syria, and be willing to consider Bashar Assad a friend if he is willing to change his tune.

6. Send as much of the US Navy to the Persian Gulf as is logistically possible, to prevent Iran from cutting off Saudi oil exports in the Strait of Hormuz.

7. Be prepared to go to war with Iran if they choose to escalate the situation.



Alternatively, we could consider rapprochement with Iran. It's not as good as my first idea, but it's better than our status quo relationship. Bush could do a Nixon-goes-to-China type thing. I have no illusions that Iran is interested in genuine compromise at this point in time, but the mere act of talking to them encourages moderation. We can't base a foreign policy off of who we WON'T talk to. That's just nuts.

 

[Goobieman]

Was that a yes or a no? :2razz:

 

[Stinger]

Here's MY plan:

1. Start moving all of our troops in Iraq to Kurdistan, Kuwait, or Afghanistan.

And those countries have said OK? Or do we just invade? If it is our presence in Iraq that is drawing the terrorist there why would those countries want that in thier countries? How long do we leave all those troops there?

2. Tell the Kurds that we will support them if they declare independence. And let them take whatever Sunni Arab cities they want with them, leaving the Sunni Arabs without a state.

So tell Turkey to kiss off? What about Incirlik?

3. If Southern Iraq descends into full-blown multinational war, as seems likely, support the Saudis against the Iranians.

Support how, send our troops BACK in? And do you have anything to support your contention that the Saudi's would send troops into Iraq?

4. Aggressively fund opposition groups in Iran. I'm talking billions of dollars. Regime change in Iran should be our #1 priority.

You know that would be an act of war and it didn't work in Iraq.

5. Do anything possible to drive a wedge between Syria and Iran. Avoid talk of regime change in Syria, and be willing to consider Bashar Assad a friend if he is willing to change his tune.

Why would any of those countries want anything to do with the evil United States that is only there to take over the oil and will leave them high and dry when the going gets rough?

6. Send as much of the US Navy to the Persian Gulf as is logistically possible, to prevent Iran from cutting off Saudi oil exports in the Strait of Hormuz.

We could do that now if we want to declare war on Iran.

7. Be prepared to go to war with Iran if they choose to escalate the situation.

Why do you support a war in Iran but oppose the war in Iraq? Who would go to war with us when we are the immoral evil United States and our leadership is so incompetent according the Dems and the left?

Alternatively, we could consider rapprochement with Iran. It's not as good as my first idea, but it's better than our status quo relationship. Bush could do a Nixon-goes-to-China type thing. I have no illusions that Iran is interested in genuine compromise at this point in time, but the mere act of talking to them encourages moderation. We can't base a foreign policy off of who we WON'T talk to. That's just nuts.

And what are we willing to give Iran in return for what are we suppose to get?

 

[Stinger]

Here's MY plan:

1. Start moving all of our troops in Iraq to Kurdistan, Kuwait, or Afghanistan.

And those countries have said OK? Or do we just invade? If it is our presence in Iraq that is drawing the terrorist there why would those countries want that in thier countries? How long do we leave all those troops there?

2. Tell the Kurds that we will support them if they declare independence. And let them take whatever Sunni Arab cities they want with them, leaving the Sunni Arabs without a state.

So tell Turkey to kiss off? What about Incirlik?

3. If Southern Iraq descends into full-blown multinational war, as seems likely, support the Saudis against the Iranians.

Support how, send our troops BACK in? And do you have anything to support your contention that the Saudi's would send troops into Iraq?

4. Aggressively fund opposition groups in Iran. I'm talking billions of dollars. Regime change in Iran should be our #1 priority.

You know that would be an act of war and it didn't work in Iraq.

5. Do anything possible to drive a wedge between Syria and Iran. Avoid talk of regime change in Syria, and be willing to consider Bashar Assad a friend if he is willing to change his tune.

Why would any of those countries want anything to do with the evil United States that is only there to take over the oil and will leave them high and dry when the going gets rough?

6. Send as much of the US Navy to the Persian Gulf as is logistically possible, to prevent Iran from cutting off Saudi oil exports in the Strait of Hormuz.

We could do that now if we want to declare war on Iran.

7. Be prepared to go to war with Iran if they choose to escalate the situation.

Why do you support a war in Iran but oppose the war in Iraq? Who would go to war with us when we are the immoral evil United States and our leadership is so incompetent according the Dems and the left?

Alternatively, we could consider rapprochement with Iran. It's not as good as my first idea, but it's better than our status quo relationship. Bush could do a Nixon-goes-to-China type thing. I have no illusions that Iran is interested in genuine compromise at this point in time, but the mere act of talking to them encourages moderation. We can't base a foreign policy off of who we WON'T talk to. That's just nuts.

And what are we willing to give Iran in return for what are we suppose to get?

 

[Kandahar]

Was that a yes or a no? :2razz:

It was a yes, THIS Democrat has a plan. As for "the Democrats," the question is meaningless because political parties are not monolithic entities that have exactly one viewpoint on every issue.

 

[Kandahar]

And those countries have said OK? Or do we just invade?

Afghanistan wants more troops. Most Kurds support having American troops in their region of Iraq. I don't know about Kuwait. Of course it's all contingent on the approval of those governments.

If it is our presence in Iraq that is drawing the terrorist there why would those countries want that in thier countries?

Because we already have troops in all three, and none have a widespread insurgency against American troops (except arguably Afghanistan). Kuwait and Kurdistan are different than Iraq, because there are strong governments to prevent those sort of things. Afghanistan is different because it is rural and therefore not prone to insurgency. What Afghanistan faces is a more traditional civil war, which can easily be squashed if we send more troops.

How long do we leave all those troops there?

As long as they're safe in Kuwait and Kurdistan, it doesn't really matter. In Afghanistan, probably for a few more years or until the government asks us to leave.

So tell Turkey to kiss off?

Essentially yes, although we can be more diplomatic about it. I doubt Turkey will invade, especially if we have troops there. What are they going to do, occupy the country forever and piss off the entire world?

Turkey is already learning to live with a de facto independent Kurdistan. The Kurds in Iraq do a lot more trade with Turkey than with the rest of Iraq.

What about Incirlik?

What about it? Do you think Turkey would ask us to leave? Even if they did, it's not really a problem if Kurdistan is willing to accommodate us.

Support how, send our troops BACK in?

No, there are other ways of supporting them besides sending our own troops in. You know that fully well, so stop wasting my time.

And do you have anything to support your contention that the Saudi's would send troops into Iraq?

They aren't going to let Iran dominate Iraq. Their prestige in the Sunni world would be diminished considerably if they didn't step in.

You know that would be an act of war and it didn't work in Iraq.

If we went to war with Iran we wouldn't have to occupy the country for an extended period of time.

Why would any of those countries want anything to do with the evil United States that is only there to take over the oil and will leave them high and dry when the going gets rough?

You're referring to Syria? Syria doesn't have much oil.

We could do that now if we want to declare war on Iran.

We don't need to escalate the situation with Iran unless they choose to escalate it. Iran doesn't own the Persian Gulf; we don't need to declare war to send our navy ships there.

Why do you support a war in Iran but oppose the war in Iraq?

Because they are two entirely different situations. Are you such an ideologue that you can't recognize any nuance in foreign policy beyond "negotiate with all our enemies" or "fight all our enemies"?

Who would go to war with us when we are the immoral evil United States and our leadership is so incompetent according the Democrats and the left?

What?

And what are we willing to give Iran in return for what are we suppose to get?

If we aren't going to go to war, then that means that they'll get nuclear weapons. So if we choose the rapprochement route, we can offer to stop being such a pain in the *** about it in exchange for their cooperation in Iraq. We should also negotiate the lifting of most non-weapons sanctions, to encourage free trade.

 

[Stinger]

Afghanistan wants more troops. Most Kurds support having American troops in their region of Iraq. I don't know about Kuwait. Of course it's all contingent on the approval of those governments.

Just a little thing to consider. I have no reason to believe any country in the region would be willing to let us do anything. Why should they when we are protrayed as the evil satan, only there for the oil, in compitent, imperialistic, and led by a liar? And the people who want to run our foriegn policy cut and run when the going gets rough.

Because we already have troops in all three, and none have a widespread insurgency against American troops (except arguably Afghanistan). Kuwait and Kurdistan are different than Iraq, because there are strong governments to prevent those sort of things.

Stop suicide bombers? Again, there is no evidence that any of these country's have any desire at all to help and no wonder after the rhetoric and propaganda that has been laid against us.

Afghanistan is different because it is rural and therefore not prone to insurgency.

No more or less than Iraq.

As long as they're safe in Kuwait and Kurdistan, it doesn't really matter. In Afghanistan, probably for a few more years or until the government asks us to leave.

Yes it does matter, the MAIN issue with Al qaeda is our presence in the Middle East. To think we are just going to keep or troop in temporary camps indiffinentaly is no different than what we are doing now. Even if we could get the permission of those countries. Why do you think Murtha was saying Okinawa? Because it is the closest place we could put that many troops.

Essentially yes, although we can be more diplomatic about it. I doubt Turkey will invade, especially if we have troops there. What are they going to do, occupy the country forever and piss off the entire world?

I don't think you understand the strategic importance of Turkey. It was bad enough when they didn't let the 4th Armoured Division deploy from there which would have helped us in the initial war with Saddam and they have made it crystal clear they will not accept a Kurdish country created on their southern border with Iraq.

Turkey is already learning to live with a de facto independent Kurdistan. The Kurds in Iraq do a lot more trade with Turkey than with the rest of Iraq.

De facto or not and independent Kurdish country is not on their table AND who says the Iraqi's are going to do that anyway. We don't have the right to tell them what to do do we or are you asserting we should dictate to them? That has always been a complaint of the left, that we are acting imperially and how dare we dictate to the Iraqi's, now it's OK?

What about it? Do you think Turkey would ask us to leave? Even if they did, it's not really a problem if Kurdistan is willing to accommodate us.

They most certainly could and there is no evidence Kurdistan would allow us such a base.

No, there are other ways of supporting them besides sending our own troops in. You know that fully well, so stop wasting my time.

Then you should have no problem listing them and that of course would be an act of war against Iran just like support a coup there.

If we went to war with Iran we wouldn't have to occupy the country for an extended period of time.

And assertion without any basis. But you are talking out both sides of your mouth, your plan relies on Iran cooperating with us while at the same time we are at war with them.

You're referring to Syria? Syria doesn't have much oil.

I'm talking about the entire ME.

We don't need to escalate the situation with Iran unless they choose to escalate it. Iran doesn't own the Persian Gulf; we don't need to declare war to send our navy ships there.

And what are those ships going to do that our fleets aren't doing now?

Because they are two entirely different situations. Are you such an ideologue that you can't recognize any nuance in foreign policy beyond "negotiate with all our enemies" or "fight all our enemies"?

I understand that if you are funding an insurgency within a country then they mostly likely aren;t going to help you elsewhere.

What?

Why would any of these countries gamble on the evil United States and join with us when everything we are doing there is based on lies and is immoral and illegal?

If we aren't going to go to war, then that means that they'll get nuclear weapons. So if we choose the rapprochement route, we can offer to stop being such a pain in the *** about it in exchange for their cooperation in Iraq. We should also negotiate the lifting of most non-weapons sanctions, to encourage free trade.

While at the same time funding and insurgency? If we hadn't gone to war with Saddam in meant he would have gotten nuclear weapons. Iran doesn't want anything to do with us, they want us out of the ME and eventually the radicals that run the country want us to exist no longer.

What did negotiating with Hitler get us?

 

[Kandahar]

Just a little thing to consider. I have no reason to believe any country in the region would be willing to let us do anything. Why should they when we are protrayed as the evil satan, only there for the oil, in compitent, imperialistic, and led by a liar? And the people who want to run our foriegn policy cut and run when the going gets rough.

In the cases of the countries I mentioned:

-In Kuwait, the emir has all the power. What the people think of the United States is almost entirely irrelevant.

-In Kurdistan, there is no such portrayal of the United States as the evil Satan or any such nonsense.

-In Afghanistan, because the alternative is the toppling of the government at the hands of the Taliban.

Whether they think we'll "cut and run" at some point in the future is irrelevant. Kuwait and Kurdistan aren't at war, and Afghanistan would feel lucky to be getting the help at all, even if they thought it was temporary.

Stop suicide bombers? Again, there is no evidence that any of these country's have any desire at all to help and no wonder after the rhetoric and propaganda that has been laid against us.

With the exception of Iran, most national leaders are much more educated than to believe all of the propaganda about America that their own governments produce.

No more or less than Iraq.

Afghanistan is considerably less prone to random terrorist insurgency than Iraq. In addition to being rural whereas Iraq is urban, Afghanistan isn't an Arab culture.

Yes it does matter, the MAIN issue with Al qaeda is our presence in the Middle East.

Al-Qaeda is a small, disorganized franchise. Don't conflate the violence in Iraq with al-Qaeda. They represent a very small fraction of our problems in Iraq.

To think we are just going to keep or troop in temporary camps indiffinentaly is no different than what we are doing now. Even if we could get the permission of those countries. Why do you think Murtha was saying Okinawa? Because it is the closest place we could put that many troops.

It would be considerably different than what we're doing now. Kurdistan and Kuwait aren't in the midst of a civil war. The Arab portion of Iraq is.

I don't think you understand the strategic importance of Turkey. It was bad enough when they didn't let the 4th Armoured Division deploy from there which would have helped us in the initial war with Saddam and they have made it crystal clear they will not accept a Kurdish country created on their southern border with Iraq.

I'm not saying that we wouldn't lose any points with Turkey. But of all the possible scenarios, that is a relatively acceptable price to pay.

De facto or not and independent Kurdish country is not on their table AND who says the Iraqi's are going to do that anyway. We don't have the right to tell them what to do do we or are you asserting we should dictate to them? That has always been a complaint of the left, that we are acting imperially and how dare we dictate to the Iraqi's, now it's OK?

We don't need to dictate anything. If we make it clear that we'll support them, the Kurds WILL declare independence.

They most certainly could and there is no evidence Kurdistan would allow us such a base.

Most Kurds are pro-American and would have no objections. They would most likely view American troops as a buffer from Turkey or from a spillover of violence from Iraq.

Then you should have no problem listing them and that of course would be an act of war against Iran just like support a coup there.

A list of ways to support them aside from actual troops? Umm, ok. Giving them money, training their soldiers, selling them weapons, sharing intelligence with them, etc.

Did you really need me to explain that?

And assertion without any basis. But you are talking out both sides of your mouth, your plan relies on Iran cooperating with us while at the same time we are at war with them.

No, my plan calls for one or the other, not both. Either we do what it takes to defeat Iran, or we go with rapprochement and send an ambassador.

And what are those ships going to do that our fleets aren't doing now?

Nothing, as long as Iran doesn't start attacking Saudi/Qatari/Kuwaiti/Dubai ships. They will, however, provide a strong disincentive for Iran to do so.

I understand that if you are funding an insurgency within a country then they mostly likely aren;t going to help you elsewhere.

See above. The plan is an either/or with Iran.

Why would any of these countries gamble on the evil United States and join with us when everything we are doing there is based on lies and is immoral and illegal?

Because none of the important ones, except for Iran, are ruled by crazy people. They're all more interested in realpolitik than some principled stand against the United States.

While at the same time funding and insurgency? If we hadn't gone to war with Saddam in meant he would have gotten nuclear weapons.

In 30 years, maybe. Highly unlikely. Iraq's army was decimated after the Persian Gulf war and the subsequent no-fly zones. Iraq posed absolutely ZERO threat to the United States or to its neighbors.

Iran doesn't want anything to do with us, they want us out of the ME and eventually the radicals that run the country want us to exist no longer.

Currently, that is true. But dialog encourages the more moderate elements in the country.

What did negotiating with Hitler get us?

So close, you almost went a whole post without a reference to Hitler. :roll: While I'm sure you are too wrapped up in ideology to understand this, every geopolitical situation is different. Not all of them can be reduced to a simple Munich analogy. There are plenty of counterexamples where negotiating, rather than fighting, with our enemies helped us a lot. The USSR, China, Vietnam.

 

[Goobieman]

It was a yes, THIS Democrat has a plan. As for "the Democrats," the question is meaningless because political parties are not monolithic entities that have exactly one viewpoint on every issue.

OK, lets be mores specific:
Does the leadership of the Democratic party in congress, the Democrats as a whole in congress, or any of the likely Democratic Presidential hopefuls have a plan?
If so, what?

 

[Kandahar]

OK, lets be mores specific:
Does the leadership of the Democratic party in congress, the Democrats as a whole in congress, or any of the likely Democratic Presidential hopefuls have a plan?
If so, what?

I think some of them do. I know that Joe Biden has called for a variation of the partition plan...except he wants three states (Kurdistan, Sunni Arab, and Shia) whereas I would prefer two states to keep the Sunni Arabs in the minority in both.

I don't think the "party leadership" really does. But then, neither does Bush.

 

[Stinger]

I think some of them do. I know that Joe Biden has called for a variation of the partition plan...except he wants three states (Kurdistan, Sunni Arab, and Shia) whereas I would prefer two states to keep the Sunni Arabs in the minority in both.

I don't think the "party leadership" really does. But then, neither does Bush.

What you present is a disjointed series of wishful proposals that are premised on Iran, Syria, Turkey, the Sunni's, the Shite's, the insurgents and Al qaeda just going along.

Let's see either we will wipe Iran out or they will be our friends. It's all so simple isn't it.

The fact is everyone you name has a key interest in our failure, not our success. They have no interest in our being successful. They have no interest in a freely elected government in Iraq and if fact are highly opposed to it. And the fact that they see a disjointed United States that wants to cut and run as fast as possible regardless of the outcome. As far as this dividing Iraq up, on what authority? It is YOUR side that denigratated and attacked the Bush administration for our precieved telling them what to do and being the occupiers. We have turned their government over to them. It is for THEM to make such choices not for us to dictate to them. And your pie in the sky, we'll just sit 140,000 troops in Kuwait or SA, when that is exactly why Al qaeda and the radicals are attacking us, BECAUSE we have a military presence in the ME. That solves nothing.

Our best chance was to have been successful in Iraq, by bring democracy in the form of a representitive government. But the "opposition" here let their hatred of Bush cloud any reasonable judgement and turned the country and the world against such efforts. All the irresponsible rhetoric and attacks on this country the Dems and libs have engaged in are heard around the world. And if it was enough to convince a majority here to turn against us just imagine what the rest of the world thinks about us. To believe any country would trust us is folly. Same with the Iraqi people, they see the day coming when the insurgents win and then they go after all those who sided with us and the new government and will march them into Saddam's soccer field for some sword wielding time. If we can't get our own people behind the effort why on earth would the Iraqi's knowing what is coming when we leave them high and dry?

As far as Hitler, I ask again, where did negotiations with him get us because we are dealing with very similar forces and despots. How do you negotiated with people who have no intention of abiding by what you agree to?

 

[Kandahar]

What you present is a disjointed series of wishful proposals that are premised on Iran, Syria, Turkey, the Sunni's, the Shite's, the insurgents and Al qaeda just going along.

Not true. The only thing that is required for my two-state partition plan to work is to tell the Kurds that we'll recognize them if they declare independence. Turkey won't dare invade as long American troops are there. Turkey doesn't have the resources to just occupy the country indefinitely anyway.

Let's see either we will wipe Iran out or they will be our friends. It's all so simple isn't it.

No. Either we wipe them out or we try to get some kind of workable relationship. Barring a regime change, we're at least a couple decades from being able to call Iran our friends.

The fact is everyone you name has a key interest in our failure, not our success. They have no interest in our being successful. They have no interest in a freely elected government in Iraq and if fact are highly opposed to it.

So what? We've already failed in Iraq. That's what this thread is about. *I* have no interest in a freely elected government in Iraq either.

And the fact that they see a disjointed United States that wants to cut and run as fast as possible regardless of the outcome. As far as this dividing Iraq up, on what authority?

On the Kurds' authority, if they want independence. 99% voted in favor of independence the last time they had a non-binding referendum.

It is YOUR side that denigratated and attacked the Bush administration for our precieved telling them what to do and being the occupiers.

"My side?" :rofl
That's such a simple-minded comment I won't even dignify it with a response.

We have turned their government over to them. It is for THEM to make such choices not for us to dictate to them.

Right. So we should make it clear to the Kurds that they can choose independence if they want.

And your pie in the sky, we'll just sit 140,000 troops in Kuwait or SA, when that is exactly why Al qaeda and the radicals are attacking us, BECAUSE we have a military presence in the ME. That solves nothing.

Once again, al-Qaeda is nothing more than a nuisance in Iraq. If they disappeared tomorrow, Iraq would not be noticeably more stable.

Our best chance was to have been successful in Iraq, by bring democracy in the form of a representitive government. But the "opposition" here let their hatred of Bush cloud any reasonable judgement and turned the country and the world against such efforts.

Any "reasonable judgment" would clearly indicate that this war has been a total disaster from day one.

All the irresponsible rhetoric and attacks on this country the Democrats and libs have engaged in are heard around the world. And if it was enough to convince a majority here to turn against us just imagine what the rest of the world thinks about us. To believe any country would trust us is folly.

Do you really believe that an American political party is capable of turning the world against their opposition, if things were peachy keen?

Same with the Iraqi people, they see the day coming when the insurgents win and then they go after all those who sided with us and the new government and will march them into Saddam's soccer field for some sword wielding time.

You're right, that probably will happen. Bush really screwed this up by leaving us with such terrible alternatives to choose from.

If we can't get our own people behind the effort why on earth would the Iraqi's knowing what is coming when we leave them high and dry?

Get the Iraqis behind the effort to do what? Have you read a word I've written?

As far as Hitler, I ask again, where did negotiations with him get us because we are dealing with very similar forces and despots. How do you negotiated with people who have no intention of abiding by what you agree to?

Like I said, I'd rather get rid of Iran now. The point is that if we aren't going to do that, we need to talk to them to get some kind of working relationship with them. We gain absolutely NOTHING by pretending Iran doesn't exist at all. Talking to - rather than fighting or ignoring - the Soviets, Chinese, and Vietnamese certainly worked better.

 

[dragonslayer]

I did not know that we had lost in Iraq. If we suffer a defeat, then it is only because a man named George W. Bush, invaded Iraq for no reason. We can lay the whole inhuman and illegal experience at Bush's smelly feet.

The longer we remain there, the worse things will get, more Iraqis will die, more american service men will die for nothing. We could be there until the year 2050 and still not win.

 

[Hatuey]

I love Bush. He should be renamed the 3 year divider . He got an united country after 9/11 and managed to split it right down the middle by 2004 and then invaded an united Iraq and then in 3 years managed to divide them too.

 

[Moot]

IMO, this cartoon sums up the entire who has a solution-plan thing.

http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2006/11/20/tomo/index1.html

Now that there are little choices left, building a time machine seems like the best plan I've heard so far.

"Take all the money being spent on Iraq and funnel it into building a time machine and then go back to 2002 and pay attention to everyone who opposed this idiotic war of choice."

The Rightwing have some nerve demanding the Dems come up with a plan to bail them out. Like Colin Powell said, "YOU BROKE IT, YOU FIX IT".

 

[Stinger]

I love Bush. He should be renamed the 3 year divider . He got an united country after 9/11 and managed to split it right down the middle by 2004 and then invaded an united Iraq and then in 3 years managed to divide them too.

Bush managed to divide it? That's hilarious. The Dems and the left have engaged in a concerted campaign to divide the country and to oppose everything we have done to fight the radical islamist. Then they opposed every legislative proposal claiming it was their duty. And you say Bush divided the country, what folly.

 

[Stinger]

http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2006/11/20/tomo/index1.htmlThe Rightwing have some nerve demanding the Dems come up with a plan to bail them out. Like Colin Powell said, "YOU BROKE IT, YOU FIX IT".

Then the Dems should aquise power back to the Republicans if they are not going to do anything. The Dems have opposed everything the Bush administration has tried to do and haven't supported anything as far as fighting the radical islamist.

"IF YOUR NOT GOING TO LEAD THEN GET OUT OF THE WAY" Patton.

 

[jfuh]

Of course the Dems have a plan - leave with at least some dignity

OK, lets be mores specific:
Does the leadership of the Democratic party in congress, the Democrats as a whole in congress, or any of the likely Democratic Presidential hopefuls have a plan?
If so, what?

Did your republicans ever have a plan? did you as a Republican ever have a plan?
Kandahar answered your question and then some and you are still unsatisfied - seems your not looking for a constructive debate but simply partisan bickering. The entire wording of your pathetic posts shows just that - not to mention the fact that it's already a defeat - will bush accept responsibility? Lame.

 

[jfuh]

IMO, this cartoon sums up the entire who has a solution-plan thing.

http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2006/11/20/tomo/index1.html

Now that there are little choices left, building a time machine seems like the best plan I've heard so far.

"Take all the money being spent on Iraq and funnel it into building a time machine and then go back to 2002 and pay attention to everyone who opposed this idiotic war of choice."

The Rightwing have some nerve demanding the Dems come up with a plan to bail them out. Like Colin Powell said, "YOU BROKE IT, YOU FIX IT".

The apologetics are trying to turn it around and make it seem that we are in this mess of a war because of the dems. How laughable.
Problem being, the new congress hasn't even been sworn in or for that matter are hardly even in session yet.
Were I a newly elected congressman I wouldn't even bother with a plan until the baker report comes out. You know, credible intel, instead of faulty intelligence like the first time it was ****ed up.

 

[jfuh]

Then the Democrats should aquise power back to the Republicans if they are not going to do anything. The Dems have opposed everything the Bush administration has tried to do and haven't supported anything as far as fighting the radical islamist.

"IF YOUR NOT GOING TO LEAD THEN GET OUT OF THE WAY" Patton.

So what is the Republican fix to the situation? You have none, you're simply still bitter over loosing congress and want a "do over".The Bush admin has done absolutely nothing except for one liner rhetoric and passing the buck onto the scape goat - First the cia director then the secretary of defense - one after the other. Face it, stay the course failed miserably. Now if you've been paying any attention any the most logical thing to do now is to get out while we still can and maintain at least some dignity.
The Iraqi's claim they can take over things for themselves as was voiced by Iraqi PM - he says they're ready - so then what's keeping us there if they don't want us there?

 

[Hatuey]

Bush managed to divide it? That's hilarious. The Democrats and the left have engaged in a concerted campaign to divide the country and to oppose everything we have done to fight the radical islamist. Then they opposed every legislative proposal claiming it was their duty. And you say Bush divided the country, what folly.

Really? So I guess it's not the way the war in Iraq has been going that is dividing Americans? The American people have been brainwashed by the democrats and have yet to realized this war has been fought under false presences that while some claim to have been "honest" at heart(if you can call it that) has regardlessly turned very very ugly. I guess 3,000 dead soldiers didnt split the opinion americans have on this war, what about the news reports about 50-150 Iraqi's being killed everyday? How about the 100-200 Million dollars a day that are spent everyday in Iraq that could be spent helping out the people ravaged by Katrina? Nope I guess it must have been the democrats and their cooky ideas. Blind follower you are if you ask me.

 

[Moot]

Then the Democrats should aquise power back to the Republicans if they are not going to do anything. The Democrats have opposed everything the Bush administration has tried to do and haven't supported anything as far as fighting the radical islamist.

"IF YOUR NOT GOING TO LEAD THEN GET OUT OF THE WAY" Patton.

If the Democrats opposed everything the Bush Administration tried to do, then it's too bad he didn't listen to them. For if he had, he might not find himself as the worst president in the history of our country.

"ONE OF THE TESTS OF LEADERSHIP IS THE ABILITY TO RECOGNIZE A PROBLEM BEFORE IT BECOMES AN EMERGENCY." - Arnold Glasgow

 

[Hatuey]

If the Democrats opposed everything the Bush Administration tried to do, then it's too bad he didn't listen to them. For if he had, he might not find himself as the worst president in the history of our country.

"ONE OF THE TESTS OF LEADERSHIP IS THE ABILITY TO RECOGNIZE A PROBLEM BEFORE IT BECOMES AN EMERGENCY." - Arnold Glasgow

Watch people counter that Iraq was an emergency cause Saddam had WMDs which only existed in the minds of Bush/Cheney/And Rumsfeld cronies and supporters.

 

[tecoyah]

Another silly partisan poll, with no actual intent, other than to say the other side is wrong.....Wow....what a suprise.


I simply couldn't vote because...well...I dont know what the plan is. See....Im not privy to the Democratic partys think tank secret sessions. I wasn't involved in the Republican version either, Woe is me, I'm just a citizen of the United States hoping for the best, and expecting the worst. With any luck, I can answer this for you in a couple months, once any plan your enemy has to fix the mess in Iraq is actually released to the public for consumption.....until then, I'll have to listen to more rediculous whining from people like you.