I'm the decision maker on Iraq

[disneydude]

"The decider" is feeling a bit challenged these days. While it is true that GWB is the "Commander in Chief", it appears that he is feeling a bit uncomfortable with the challenges that people including people in his own party are raising as to his competence and judgement. Too bad that "The decider" makes his decisions without listening to the American pubic, Congress and military experts.


Bush: 'I'm the decision-maker' on Iraq - Yahoo! News

 

[Goobieman]

"The decider" is feeling a bit challenged these days. While it is true that GWB is the "Commander in Chief", it appears that he is feeling a bit uncomfortable with the challenges that people including people in his own party are raising as to his competence and judgement. Too bad that "The decider" makes his decisions without listening to the American pubic, Congress and military experts.

Bush: 'I'm the decision-maker' on Iraq - Yahoo! News

So... where's the Dem plan for victory in Iraq?

You can criticize all you want, but if you dont offer a viable alternative, you're really just whining.

 

[disneydude]

So... where's the Democrat plan for victory in Iraq?

You can criticize all you want, but if you dont offer a viable alternative, you're really just whining.

What exactly is "Victory in Iraq"?
Can we bring the troops home before we achieve "Victory"?
At what point can we claim "Victory""
When "The decider" decides?

I think we have already achieved what we can. There is nothing more that we can do there. It was an ill-conceived plan in the first place and we have created chaos and disorder. I don't think that American lives and limbs should be sacrificed to clean up Bush/Cheney/Rumsfields mistakes.

The viable alternative - Bring the troops home, eliminate them as a target and topic of dissent and let make the Iraqi government step up to the plate and take over. We then continue to work with the Iraqi government and our allies to find a diplomatic solution to the civil-war there. Clearly, there is no military solution to the civil war.

 

[Goobieman]

What exactly is "Victory in Iraq"?
Can we bring the troops home before we achieve "Victory"?
At what point can we claim "Victory""
When "The decider" decides?

I think we have already achieved what we can. There is nothing more that we can do there. It was an ill-conceived plan in the first place and we have created chaos and disorder. I don't think that American lives and limbs should be sacrificed to clean up Bush/Cheney/Rumsfields mistakes.

The viable alternative - Bring the troops home, eliminate them as a target and topic of dissent and let make the Iraqi government step up to the plate and take over. We then continue to work with the Iraqi government and our allies to find a diplomatic solution to the civil-war there. Clearly, there is no military solution to the civil war.

Just so we're clear here -- you're agreeing that there's no Democrat plan for victory for Iraq.

 

[Gibberish]

Just so we're clear here -- you're agreeing that there's no Democrat plan for victory for Iraq.

There is no Republican plan either. There is only a goal. "Victory in Iraq".

 

[Dr_Patrick]

Just so we're clear here -- you're agreeing that there's no Democrat plan for victory for Iraq.

If we go by our original reasons for invading Iraq (ie. WMD) then our mission has been accomplished because we didn't find any. If we go by our follow up reason (ie. liberating Iraq by taking Saddam out of power) then our mission is still accomplished. What more are we supposed to do for them? We originally invaded the country under false pretenses and now because of our invasion we have created more death and destruction to an already wounded country. How exactly is adding a paltry 20,000 troops to the mix going to fix an unfixable situation? I think it's clear that "victory" at this point is unachievable.

 

[Goobieman]

There is no Republican plan either. There is only a goal. "Victory in Iraq".

I guess you were in an alternate universe two weeks ago, when Bush put forward his plan...?

Oh sure, you don't LIKE the plan -- but that doesnt mean there isn't on.
Note too that you dont have an alternative -- so where does that leave you and your criticisms?

 

[disneydude]

Just so we're clear here -- you're agreeing that there's no Democrat plan for victory for Iraq.

No. I am not saying that at all. You can put labels on anything that you want....Bush apologists and their leader GWB can call their latest fiasco....."together forward for Victory"..."A plan for Victory" if you want....it doesn't make it one just because you label it that way.

There have been a number of Democrat plans. I think the consensus among the Democrats for a plan for Victory is to accept the idea that there is not a military solution to the problem, bring our troops home and make the Iraqi government step up to the plate...and then work with our allies to try to reach a diplomatic solution to the problem....because the military solution is simply not working.

Now....you might not like that plan any better.....but don't lie and mislead and claim that there is no plan.

 

[Goobieman]

If we go by our original reasons for invading Iraq (ie. WMD) then our mission has been accomplished because we didn't find any. If we go by our follow up reason (ie. liberating Iraq by taking Saddam out of power) then our mission is still accomplished. What more are we supposed to do for them?

Same thing we do for every country we defeat:
Help reduild them and help them put together a stable, functioning, democratic government.

I think it's clear that "victory" at this point is unachievable.

Of course you do -- but then, how are you a competent judge?

 

[Goobieman]

No. I am not saying that at all. You can put labels on anything that you want....

So, what's the Dem plan for victory in Iraq?

There have been a number of Democrat plans. I think the consensus among the Democrats for a plan for Victory is to accept the idea that there is not a military solution to the problem, bring our troops home and make the Iraqi government step up to the plate...and then work with our allies to try to reach a diplomatic solution to the problem....because the military solution is simply not working.

Your plan is, as you yourself say, predicated on the idea that winning is imposisble and losing is inevitable. That's not a plan for victory, that's a plan for retreat due to defeat and for overall failure

 

[Noah's Hammer]

You would have him rule by poles.

We don't even need a government if we are going to let the poles make all our decisions. In a Republic like ours popular opinion does not rule.

If it did abortion would be illegal, homosexual marriage would be banned and we would throw down in Iraq and come home instead of having our soldiers terrified to pull the trigger on a bad guy for fear of being convicted of a crime. If liberals want our troops to come home like they say then they should shut up and let them do their job and it would happen much faster.

 

[disneydude]

So, what's the Democrat plan for victory in Iraq?


Your plan is, as you yourself say, predicated on the idea that winning is imposisble and losing is inevitable. That's not a plan for victory, that's a plan for retreat due to defeat and for overall failure

Wrong......it recognizes what pretty much every military expert has said and that the Generals have said....and that many of our troops are saying.....sending in more troops will not help and will most likely hinder our efforts.....but yet "the decider" sinces he is the decision maker, decides that they are all wrong. It recognizes what pretty much every military expert has said and that is that it is becoming more and more clear that there is not a military solution to the problems in Iraq. Where does that say that recognizing that is a "plan for failure?" What it says is that if we truly want to find a solution to the problems there....aka "Victory".....we have to rethink the entire strategy. The best way to achieve "Victory" is to work with our allies towards a diplomatic solution. How do you equate that with a plan for failure?

 

[Goobieman]

Wrong......it recognizes what pretty much every military expert has said and that the Generals have said....and that many of our troops are saying.....sending in more troops will not help and will most likely hinder our efforts.....

I said:

Your plan is, as you yourself say, predicated on the idea that winning is imposisble and losing is inevitable. That's not a plan for victory, that's a plan for retreat due to defeat and for overall failure

You're just supporting my point here -- that we need to retreat because we can't win; any such plan based on the above is necessarily not a plan for victory as it assumes we've already lost.

 

[Noah's Hammer]

Wrong......it recognizes what pretty much every military expert has said and that the Generals have said....and that many of our troops are saying.....sending in more troops will not help and will most likely hinder our efforts.....but yet "the decider" sinces he is the decision maker, decides that they are all wrong. It recognizes what pretty much every military expert has said and that is that it is becoming more and more clear that there is not a military solution to the problems in Iraq. Where does that say that recognizing that is a "plan for failure?" What it says is that if we truly want to find a solution to the problems there....aka "Victory".....we have to rethink the entire strategy. The best way to achieve "Victory" is to work with our allies towards a diplomatic solution. How do you equate that with a plan for failure?

I disagree. There is perhaps no military solution to the problem in Iraq if we are not willing to accept a significant amount of collateral damage. There is no military solution when liberals have neutered our troops so that they cannot get the job done for fear of prison.

But to say that we can't whip the terorists over there is insulting in the highest degree to any real patriot.

 

[disneydude]

You would have him rule by poles.

No. No one is asking Bush to "Rule by polls". What we are asking is that "The decider" make informed decisions and make wise decisions.
Bush put together a bipartisan committee...listened to them and the experts....and then....because he is "The decider" decided that he knew better than all of them.

In a Republic like ours popular opinion does not rule.

Absolutely....and no one is saying put it to a vote. I am glad that you understand that the desires of the majority don't always trump the rights of the minority. A lot of people don't understand that and believe that "majority rules" in every case....which is not the case.

If liberals want our troops to come home like they say then they should shut up and let them do their job and it would happen much faster.

See... thats where I disagree with you. Seems like most of the people that Bush asked for advice said exactly the opposite....going forward with this plan will not only not help...it will likely hinder our efforts there.

But then again.....he's "The decider"....good old King George.

 

[Gibberish]

I guess you were in an alternate universe two weeks ago, when Bush put forward his plan...?

Oh sure, you don't LIKE the plan -- but that doesnt mean there isn't on.
Note too that you dont have an alternative -- so where does that leave you and your criticisms?

A Plan is something constructive and well thought out. Adding a limited number of resources to try and complete the same goal is not a plan.

25,000 won't secure anything pas the short term. The democratically elected Iraq government republicans are so proud of forming won't step up to take control or try and stop the fighting.

As I have always said, Bush should have initially sent more then enough troops to lock down the country and allow for the government to take control of a SECURE Iraq. You don't topple a government and military, let a country go into anarchy, and then say "Here you go, good luck" to it's newly appointed leaders.

 

[disneydude]

You're just supporting my point here -- that we need to retreat because we can't win; any such plan based on the above is necessarily not a plan for victory as it assumes we've already lost.

You obviously are reading only what you want to read. If you actually read the post and didn't try to insert your own views into it....what I said was that the only way to achieve "Victory" is to do so by finding a diplomatic solution. Unless you define "Victory" is using the lives and limbs of our soldiers to attempt to clean up the mess that this administration created. I don't find that to be achieving Victory.

 

[Goobieman]

A Plan is something constructive and well thought out. Adding more money and more troops to try and complete the same goal is not a plan.

Your argument here is that Bush's plan is not constrictive or well thought out. Show that to be true.

The democratically elected Iraq government republicans are so proud of forming won't step up to take control or try and stop the fighting.

How do you know that they won't?
Seems they've already taken significant steps in that direction.
Now, its true that he effort in Iraq cannot succeed without the Iraqi government doing its part -- and Bush said as much --but why do you simply assume that it wont?

 

[Goobieman]

what I said was that the only way to achieve "Victory" is to do so by finding a diplomatic solution.

OK...
What's the Dem's plan to that end?

 

[disneydude]

I disagree. There is perhaps no military solution to the problem in Iraq if we are not willing to accept a significant amount of collateral damage. There is no military solution when liberals have neutered our troops so that they cannot get the job done for fear of prison.

But to say that we can't whip the terorists over there is insulting in the highest degree to any real patriot.

Its always amazing to me when people refer to the lives and limbs of our soldiers as "collateral damage". I guess it is easier than facing the fact that these are real people who are giving up their lives and coming home crippled for life. I guess it makes it easier to accept their mission to sacrifice their lives and limbs to clean up the mess that GWB/Cheney/Rumsfield created....
I guess you view it however you have to to get through the day and still support this administration and its ill-conceived ideas.

As far as neutering our troops. The vast vast majority of our troops are honorable people. It is not neutering them to require that they uphold American values. What kind of Country would we be if we sacrificed all of our ideals and values and adopted the idea that its ok to torture and kill innocent people because this is a time of war and "they" are doing it.

America has always stood for high values and ideals....and if we don't uphold that honor....than we truly are fighting for nothing.

 

[oldreliable67]

Bush put together a bipartisan committee...listened to them and the experts....and then....because he is "The decider" decided that he knew better than all of them.

You would have us believe that all of the "experts" were unanimous in their opinions on the best way forward in Iraq. Nothing is further from the truth. Moreover, your characterization that "what pretty much every military expert has said and that the Generals have said....and that many of our troops are saying" glosses over the differences in the opinions of many of those "military experts" and fails to give weight to those who actually requested the increase in troops and endorsed the plan - the military on the ground in Iraq.

Bush did not decide that he knew better than all of them; he considered all of the viewpoints over a two-month period and then chose the course he thought best, which is his prerogative as commander-in-chief.

 

[Goobieman]

Its always amazing to me when people refer to the lives and limbs of our soldiers as "collateral damage".

He wasn't. He was referring to Iraqi civilians and infratructure.

 

[disneydude]

OK...
What's the Democrat's plan to that end?

Obviously....since the Democrat's are not the ones who control the action....i.e., not "The deciders"...there is no ONE individual plan.
The consensus from most of the people in the Democratic party that I have read is that we give the Iraqi government a timetable for withdrawl....this gives them an opportunity to plan. We begin systematic withdrawl of our troops over a period of time. We begin to work with our allies to provide aid in the rebuilding effort and to use sanctions and other measures against neighboring countries to try to bring about a diplomatic solution.
Once there is a Democratic President and/or a Republican President who truly wants to find a solution to the problems and thus achieve "Victory"... you would see a more detailed plan.
The bottom line is: GWB may claim that he wants to achieve "Victory" but it is clear that his only agenda is to keep the war going long enough that he can leave office and leave the mess to someone else.

 

[aps]

You would have him rule by poles.

We don't even need a government if we are going to let the poles make all our decisions. In a Republic like ours popular opinion does not rule.

If it did abortion would be illegal, homosexual marriage would be banned and we would throw down in Iraq and come home instead of having our soldiers terrified to pull the trigger on a bad guy for fear of being convicted of a crime. If liberals want our troops to come home like they say then they should shut up and let them do their job and it would happen much faster.

Excuse me? I believe that the majority of Americans support the right for a woman to choose.

Abortion
_________

Bush sounds like a combative child. I actually feel sorry for him. I envision him stomping on his feet as he says he is the "decider." LOL Okaaaaaay.

 

[Noah's Hammer]

No. No one is asking Bush to "Rule by polls". What we are asking is that "The decider" make informed decisions and make wise decisions.
Bush put together a bipartisan committee...listened to them and the experts....and then....because he is "The decider" decided that he knew better than all of them.



Absolutely....and no one is saying put it to a vote. I am glad that you understand that the desires of the majority don't always trump the rights of the minority. A lot of people don't understand that and believe that "majority rules" in every case....which is not the case.




See... thats where I disagree with you. Seems like most of the people that Bush asked for advice said exactly the opposite....going forward with this plan will not only not help...it will likely hinder our efforts there.

But then again.....he's "The decider"....good old King George.

I'll be honest. I don't agree with the way the situation in Iraq is being handled by this administration. But the solution is not to come home before we exterminate the psychos over there. It's to take the gloves and get the job done and come home in short order.

But here's the facts. We should have gone over there. In a post 9/11 world we could not take the chance that a psycopath like Saddam could be manufacturing WMD's and selling them or donating them to Bin Laden and the like. We could not know for sure because Saddam refused to let the weapons inspectors do their job. So we plead with him to listen to reason. when he wouldn't we had no choice but to act. Not because anybody was telling us that there was definitely WMD's in Iraq but because we did not know whether or not there were WMD's in Iraq. We could not take the chance.

No one could have predicted that things would turn out the way they did. That's why almost every Democrat voted for the war.

But I think I've learned this lesson. Freedom must be earned. it cannot be given to you by someone else. Our freedom is sacred to us because our ancestors spilt blood for it. The Iraqi's do not appreciate freedom because they did not spill their own blood for it.