• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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.

Do the Dems have a plan?

Do the dems/liberals have a plan to deal with the consequnces of defeat?


  • Total voters
    18
There have been two sides in this issue, with a few wobbling inbetween, But were it counts there have been two sides. And the Democrat/left side has done nothing to support our success, have actively engaged in propaganda designed to lower the moral of the people and our resolve to win, which also has the unfortuniate effect of increasing the resolve of our enemies and send the message to the Iraqi people that we will leave them haning in the balance at the mercy of the victors.
You show your true colors with every post Stinger. You obviously have not learned anything from the past 6 years. There are more than 2 sides to an issue despite the "either you're with us or against us" mantra that you repeatedly chant. You display the same folly that lead this Administration to think that there were either pro-US people or pro-Saddam people in Iraq and failed to recognize the other sides, people who hate both and hate their Sunni or Shiite neighbor even more. But no, it was the thinking that once we crushed the pro-Saddam people, the only people left would be pro-US. There's clearly nothing I can say to change your incredibly distorted view of the world as black or white.

So that's your real issue, you want to tax the rich more.............................geez.
Sad to let you know Stinger, I probably benefit far more from the tax cuts than you do. But it's not about "taxing the rich". It's about willing to make sacrifices for this cause that the Republicans keep saying will determine the future of our world. Wars cost money. I'm willing to pony up more to make sure that our troops have the armor they need. The Republicans have shown that they are not willing to make the financial sacrifice necessary to fully commit to this war.

Another scare tactic from the left, designed to turn the people against the war. It was the left that object to sending too many troops in the beginning saying it made us look like occupiers. And everytime the prospect of sending more was brought up it was the left that went around declaring that it was a sign we are losing.
In almost every response, the only recourse you have is to label me as part of the left or a liberal. I am neither. But the reality of the situation is that simply staying the course with the number of troops we have now is not sufficient. Look around, we have been losing this war, or at the very best are in a painful stalemate that looks like it could last a long time. If we want to win this war, we need more boots on the ground. Where are they going to come from? New recruits are down. Reenlistment is down. Either commit to the war or don't. Instead you tell me "We have no choice but victory" yet are not willing to either raise the troops or pony up the cash to do so. Forget troops or resources. What our troops need is better slogans.:roll:


You're preaching to the choir there. But that was exactly the tactic the left and the Democrats took. Why do you think they were demanding we show all the body bags coming home and dead soldiers in the streets and even lately snipers getting kills on our soldiers. One reason, to undermine our efforts to succeed.
Umm. Who has been in control of all of Washington for the entirety of this war? You don't care what Democrats think, right? So why are you using Democratic minority opposition as the reason why Republicans have failed to call for true sacrifice among our citizens? "We don't need to pay for the war. We can do this with a volunteer army only. Just go about your day as if nothing is really happening. Ignore the man behind the curtain."

Then why stay a minute longer, why have one more US casuality?
That's the point. Finally you understand. Again, I'm not sure where I stand on whether Iraq is winnable. I used to think it was, but now I'm not so sure. But if you're convinced that there is no way it's winnable, then we shouldn't stay a minute longer.

And after we pull out we hunker down. The Democrats say we should be spending the money on rescue people and EMT and firemen. Well they may be right, they're coming after us.
Man, do you ever speak with a forked tongue. In this very post you complain of Democratic "scare tactics" then tell everyone to "hunker down", "they're coming after us". Hypocritical much?
 
they will turn the country back to the Iraqis. Ultimately the Iraqis are the ones who have to deal with all the death and chaos we have caused in Iraq.

There is no victory for america possible in Iraq. We have screwed things up to badly for victory.
 
Who's the president that gave the orders to start the war? .

Jimmy Carter for not coming down on the terrorist supporting Iranian government like the Wrath of God on November 4, 1979 and compounding his error by paying off said government with 8 billion dollars enabling decades of encouraged terrorism. The US is paying for that mistake to this day.

20 minutes after President Reagans inaugural address the hostages were released into US custody.

260px-Ahmadinejad_alleged.JPG


The Hostage Crisis in Iran

_40489961_woman203.jpg
 
There is no victory for america possible in Iraq. We have screwed things up to badly for victory.

If our goal was to kill the terrorists only, then we would win. We are trying to "maintain" peace like police rather than fight a war. Politicians have tied the hands of ouor military and use them as scapegoats for their own political agenda. This war didn't have a chance no matter how noble due to political reasons.
 
You can blame the opposition and the left as much as you want to stung.

You are deny the facts? You deny that Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, Kerry et al have engaged in a take no prisoners campaign to undermine and oppose the war we are engaged in? Please don't insult my intelliegence and claim they have not.

But the fact of the matter is, who's in charge?

So how does that change anything. I have clearly stated YOU GUYS WON. I fault Bush for not being able to overcome the propaganda campaign the left has engaged it. OK got it. But it is the left that engaged in the concerted effort to turn the country and the world against the war.

So why aren't they being true to the rhetoric they have engaged in? Now they are doing an about face and suddenly saying that we have now join together and even put in MORE troops. After they have done everything to undermine up until now. Yes they have some things to answer for.

Who's the president that gave the orders to start the war and proceed with the current do nothing stay the course policy?

The policy did do much and could do more if it had more support, takes to your side it doesn't.
You can spin it as much as you want,

You deny the left has demonized Bush and his cabinet, oppose everything they have tried to do to win this, given zero support to anything?
 
Who's the president that gave the orders to start the war and proceed with the current do nothing stay the course policy?

Let me ask you this, what President made it the official policy, voted into law by the overwhelming majority of the congress, to remove the Saddam Hussien regiem saying that if it were not done he would futher his development of WMD and work with terrorist to use them against us?

Is that what your whole position is based on, that we shouldn't have removed him? Well we did, with the full support of the congress. And then the Dems and the left saw they were losing political capital and enaged in their propaganda campiagn to turn the country against the war and insure no other country's joined in. Is that the ONLY factor effect the war. Of course not, but rest assured we cannot win this without the support of the homefront and the rest of the world.
 
Jimmy Carter for not coming down on the terrorist supporting Iranian government like the Wrath of God on November 4, 1979 and compounding his error by paying off said government with 8 billion dollars enabling decades of encouraged terrorism. The US is paying for that mistake to this day.

20 minutes after President Reagans inaugural address the hostages were released into US custody.


The Hostage Crisis in Iran
Reagan? Iran contra.
From the link you provided I see little information as to what Reagan did exactly to propel the release of prisoners.
Source
Contrarily one would argue it having more to do with what Carter did that released the hostages than Reagan swearing in.
And no, Carter himself did not fuel islamic fundamentalism in Iran. That was caused through much of the Shia himself and US support for him since the 40's.
 
You are deny the facts? You deny that Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, Kerry et al have engaged in a take no prisoners campaign to undermine and oppose the war we are engaged in? Please don't insult my intelliegence and claim they have not.



So how does that change anything. I have clearly stated YOU GUYS WON. I fault Bush for not being able to overcome the propaganda campaign the left has engaged it. OK got it. But it is the left that engaged in the concerted effort to turn the country and the world against the war.

So why aren't they being true to the rhetoric they have engaged in? Now they are doing an about face and suddenly saying that we have now join together and even put in MORE troops. After they have done everything to undermine up until now. Yes they have some things to answer for.



The policy did do much and could do more if it had more support, takes to your side it doesn't.


You deny the left has demonized Bush and his cabinet, oppose everything they have tried to do to win this, given zero support to anything?
Yep, the left's demonization is exactly what lead to Bush's arrogant stay the course failure of getting us stuck in Iraq. Like I said, spin all you want, it doesn't change the fact that Bush is the CnC and the one whom arrogantly ordered stay the course. Hopefully he will wise up and accept the Iraq study groups recommendations.
 
Let me ask you this, what President made it the official policy, voted into law by the overwhelming majority of the congress, to remove the Saddam Hussien regiem saying that if it were not done he would futher his development of WMD and work with terrorist to use them against us?

Is that what your whole position is based on, that we shouldn't have removed him? Well we did, with the full support of the congress. And then the Democrats and the left saw they were losing political capital and enaged in their propaganda campiagn to turn the country against the war and insure no other country's joined in. Is that the ONLY factor effect the war. Of course not, but rest assured we cannot win this without the support of the homefront and the rest of the world.
ANd here you go again, spinning and twisting words to suit your ridiculous lies and implications.
The country has gone against this pathetic war not because of anything the dems did (recall that Bush won simply with Iraq in '04). The country turned against Iraq because of the pathetic and arrogant decisions this administration has made with regards to Iraq.
In otherwords, Bush's complete and utter failure to lead. Lies after lies after lies. The war will take no more than 6 months, we know they have WMD's, we will be greeted as liberators, we'll won't leave until the job is done, we can not finish the job unless we stay there. Sound bite after sound bite after sound bite and 0 progress.
Plz, you'd be screaming your head off if Clinton was the president and got us stuck in Iraq.
 
One of the main reasons I voted the way I did was because of what's in my signature. I'd love for you to explain that one away. That's an open invitation for anyone.

Two of those 2,705+ dead after our mission was apparently accomplished I knew personally, so please, tell me why they died after our job was done, according to the President.
 
Yep, the left's demonization is exactly what lead to Bush's arrogant stay the course failure of getting us stuck in Iraq. Like I said, spin all you want, it doesn't change the fact that Bush is the CnC and the one whom arrogantly ordered stay the course. Hopefully he will wise up and accept the Iraq study groups recommendations.

If you are going to say that the Democrats have not engaged in rhetoric to turn the country against the war, have not supported anything, have opposed everything since the statue fell, then your post are simply too dishonest to reply to.

And the ISG has added NOTHING new to the debate, they are saying he should do what we have been doing. So just more dishonesty.
 
ANd here you go again, spinning and twisting words to suit your ridiculous lies and implications.

And here you go again when you can't rebut the facts. Stick to the issues and what I post, your declaring it spin does not fool anyone.


The fact is the Democrats and the left have turned the country against the war and encouraged our enemies. Now we pay the price.

And I not that you run away when asked the hard questions so YOU can try to SPIN your way out of it. I repeat

Let me ask you this, what President made it the official policy, voted into law by the overwhelming majority of the congress, to remove the Saddam Hussien regiem saying that if it were not done he would futher his development of WMD and work with terrorist to use them against us?

Why won't you answer that question? Because it blow your position. You like the rest of the left prefer to engage in propaganda that has worked against our success and you don't care, you don't care that lives could have been saved and the Iraqi government more stable. It's all about politics.
 
I see Stinger in classic neocon fashion ignores my open invitation to explain why nearly 3000 Americans had to die after our mission was accomplished.
 
I see Stinger in classic neocon fashion ignores my open invitation to explain why nearly 3000 Americans had to die after our mission was accomplished.

Our mission hasn't been accmomplished. If you are referring to what Bush said when the he greeted the CV Lincoln back from the one of the longest carrier deployments since WW2 you might want to reconsider before you look foolish.

How about you answering the question poised

................what President made it the official policy, voted into law by the overwhelming majority of the congress, to remove the Saddam Hussien regiem saying that if it were not done he would futher his development of WMD and work with terrorist to use them against us?
 
If you are going to say that the Democrats have not engaged in rhetoric to turn the country against the war, have not supported anything, have opposed everything since the statue fell, then your post are simply too dishonest to reply to.

And the ISG has added NOTHING new to the debate, they are saying he should do what we have been doing. So just more dishonesty.
Again, the Democrats could've done anything they wanted to with screaming and yelling against the war, but it still would've proved fruitless if what they said were not the actual facts. Keep on spinning.
 
I see Stinger in classic neocon fashion ignores my open invitation to explain why nearly 3000 Americans had to die after our mission was accomplished.
That's simply because in classic neocon fashion, he can't explain or rationalize anything without demonizing the opposition through lies and one liner sound bites from Faux news or the likes.
 
Our mission hasn't been accmomplished. If you are referring to what Bush said when the he greeted the CV Lincoln back from the one of the longest carrier deployments since WW2 you might want to reconsider before you look foolish.

Before I look foolish? Read Bush's quote in my signature and tell me if I look foolish now.


................what President made it the official policy, voted into law by the overwhelming majority of the congress, to remove the Saddam Hussien regiem saying that if it were not done he would futher his development of WMD and work with terrorist to use them against us?

The same President that lied to us and told us that Saddam was searching for African uranium and that he was connected to the 9/11 attacks.
 
From the link you provided I see little information as to what Reagan did exactly to propel the release of prisoners..
His no nonsense reputation was all he had to provide.
I just stated the 20 minute fact. How you take it is your business.
Reagan's reputation theory

Source
Contrarily one would argue it having more to do with what Carter did that released the hostages than Reagan swearing in.
.
Yes Carters paying off of the terrorist supporting regime and caputulating to their demands did indeed contibute to the release of the hostages and legitimized terorrist tactics for decades.



And no, Carter himself did not fuel islamic fundamentalism in Iran. That was caused through much of the Shia himself and US support for him since the 40's.
Carter did not initially fuel it but he certainly legitimized it by paying them off and therefore fueling it for decades and possibly more.
 
Last edited:
His no nonsense reputation was all he had to provide.
I just stated the 20 minute fact. How you take it is your business.
Reagan's reputation theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis
The theory is obviously invalid because otherwise we should not be in war at all today with Iraq and Iran with our Bush/Cheny/Rummy reputations. Clearly it had far more to do with Carter's negotiations than "reagan's reputation"
Do you think that if Carter did nothing on negotiation that 20 minutes after Reagan swears in that we'd have had the same result? Impossible.

akyron said:
Yes Carters paying off of the terrorist supporting regime and caputulating to their demands did indeed contibute to the release of the hostages and legitimized terorrist tactics for decades.
Nope, did nothing of the sort. Contrarily, Reagans financing of the early taliban as well as OBL to fight against the soviets contributed far more than anything carter did.

akyron said:
Carter did not initially fuel it but he certainly legitimized it by paying them off and therefore fueling it for decades and possibly more.

Again, no carter did not legitimize terrorism. Reagan did far more to see to that than any administration prior to this current one. There was no pay off to the terrorists, none of that.
 
Smart people always oppose stupidty. It was stupid pointless war so it was the obligation of loyal americans to oppose it and to undermine Bush. I wonder if we will ever know why the Crazy Right Wing, wanted this war. We know that all the reasons given were false. We had and have dictators, leaders, and rogue presidents all over the world that are worse than Sadam ever was.
 
Smart people always oppose stupidty. It was stupid pointless war so it was the obligation of loyal americans to oppose it and to undermine Bush. I wonder if we will ever know why the Crazy Right Wing, wanted this war. We know that all the reasons given were false. We had and have dictators, leaders, and rogue presidents all over the world that are worse than Sadam ever was.
Using tax payer money to make a profit?
Make 6billion dollars "disappear"?
Use American soldier's good will of protecting american values so as to gain access to the second largest oil reserve in the world?
Who knows what goes on in their sick bastard minds.
 
Again, the Democrats could've done anything they wanted to with screaming and yelling against the war, but it still would've proved fruitless if what they said were not the actual facts. Keep on spinning.

So you are saying what the Dems were saying were actual facts. OK if you believe that then surely you demand an immediate withdrawl from Iraq, that there is nothing we can do to make it any better, that it is illegal for us to be there and immoral too.
 
Blaming Bush for invading Iraq is pointless. He, like most Democrats, thought Saddam had WMD's before we went. Saying that we shouldn't have gone because we didn't find any WMD's is complete hindsight. We would not have known there were none there if we didn't go in the first place.

Where Bush and his administration deserve all of the blame is completely failing to recognize the challenges of occupying Iraq. They completely ignored several thousand years of history and honestly thought that we could waltz in, be greeted as heroes, and that everyone would live happily ever after. The Bush administration were the ones who ignored calls for more troops from the start because the transition to a new government was going to be so easy. They were the ones who disbanded the entire Iraqi army and threw out every Baathist they could find, leaving an immense power vacuum. They were the ones who failed to recognized how disruptive Iran and Syria were going to be. They were ones who thought all we had to do was show the Iraqi people what a great place America was and everyone would want to be like us. The Bush failure has been the reconstruction, not the war. If you remember, we won the invasion pretty quickly. It's everything else afterwards that Bush has stuck us with.
 
Blaming Bush for invading Iraq is pointless. He, like most Democrats, thought Saddam had WMD's before we went. Saying that we shouldn't have gone because we didn't find any WMD's is complete hindsight. We would not have known there were none there if we didn't go in the first place.

Where Bush and his administration deserve all of the blame is completely failing to recognize the challenges of occupying Iraq. They completely ignored several thousand years of history and honestly thought that we could waltz in, be greeted as heroes, and that everyone would live happily ever after. The Bush administration were the ones who ignored calls for more troops from the start because the transition to a new government was going to be so easy. They were the ones who disbanded the entire Iraqi army and threw out every Baathist they could find, leaving an immense power vacuum. They were the ones who failed to recognized how disruptive Iran and Syria were going to be. They were ones who thought all we had to do was show the Iraqi people what a great place America was and everyone would want to be like us. The Bush failure has been the reconstruction, not the war. If you remember, we won the invasion pretty quickly. It's everything else afterwards that Bush has stuck us with.

And that's the point of this thread, innit? This is the standard critique of Bush.

But do the Democrats have a plan to deal with the unique consequences of running away, of charting a different course? That's the topic of the thread. Thanks for taking it full circle.
 
Back
Top Bottom