Iriemon said:Answer: #4 -- GWB and the Neocons. That was the only conflict where the US went to war not because the other country either attacked us or invaded another country.
tecoyah said:1) systematic withdrawal
2) set several "Green Zones" within the country. Do not play games with this, make it known ANY attack on a green zone will be met with complete destruction of everything around it....EVERYTHING
3) allow the religious factions to have their civil war...and watch (might take ten years)
4) expand the zones as required, with the intention of eventually encompassing civilian populations, when they ask for protection....not before.
5) westernize and modernize these Zones, allowing all Iraqis to see the benefits availible within
6)wait, and invest
Iriemon said:I agree that is key. When do you say we start? I say 6 months, all out by 8/07.
Please explain.
Suppose 40 executed Sunni bodies are found in a street in Baghdad.
Or a suicide bomber blows himself up in front of a police station.
What is the "complete destruction" to be done?
What is the difference between that and current policy?
And isn't that inconsistent with #2?
My impression is that the entire nation is asking for protection -- lack of security has been complaint #1 among the Iraqis almost from the get go, I think.
I'm with that -- I mean, it doesn't get any better than reading Hustler while chowing on a Big Mac and fries, does it?
I think that is already what we have been doing too -- 3 1/2 years and about $300 billion dollars (not counting extra $1/2 trillion or so that has been pumped into the lard infested military industry) so far.
Other than still not understanding what your "next level" theory is, I don't really see how your proposal is any different than what we are already doing.
Navy Pride said:Yeah but with the exception of WW2 none of those attacks were against us......I thought that was the liberal mantra........
Navy Pride said:Exactly what the terrorist and insurgents want.........They just wait until we leave................you are their best friend..........They will probably make a hero of you like the NVN and General Giap did with Kerry...........
Why must you start bullshit polls like this? You make it impossible for forum members to make a fair choice. Cut and Run implies leaving tomorrow and that is not a strategy that I've heard articulated by 95% of Americans...so what is the damn point of this poll?Navy Pride said:5-0 in favor of cutting and running............5 liberals............why am I not surprised.........:roll:
SixStringHero said:That's quite a conspiracy theory you have there.
You and Mr. Moore should get together and make a "documentary."
Iriemon said:No, I think most liberals agree that military response can be justified in response to a military invasion by one nation against another. Liberals are not unconditional pacifists.
I think that the allied response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was justified, for example, so do most liberals I know. Though I'm not sure that diplomatic efforts were really exhausted, the military response was based on a clear violation of international law, there was an international and regional consensus that a military response was justified (several Arab nations joined in support) and the military response was limited and based on clear objectives that were achieved. Most liberals I know would agree that a military response is justified in those circumstances, and that does not constitute unjustified or pretextual military agression or warmongering.
Navy Pride said:Yeah but when the going gets tough the liberals lose the stomach for the fight and want to cut and run just like they did in Nam....................
Almost all the libs in the senate including Kerry, Edwards and Biden voted for the war and now they want to cut and run......................so very sad.........
Iriemon said:You neocons are so funny. You somehow think if we just "stay the course" long enough, the Iraqis are going to leave? You think the Vietnamese would have left?
LOL! Wake up. Yes, they are going to wait until we leave, because it's their country! That's their home! They aren't ever going to leave, no matter how long we stay there. We can't "wait them out."
You guys didn't learn anything from Vietnam, did you?
Navy Pride said:Yeah we learned a lot from Nam and we will not make the same mistake we made there and cut and run no matter how much you liberal whine and cry.............
If you knew anything you would know that the worse thing you can do is tell the enemy your plan.......
Iriemon said:Thank God the liberals whined and cried so another 58,000 didn't have needlessly die.
The plan? Any idiot can figure out "the plan".
Iraqi plan: Stay in their country and resist us, and sooner or later even the thickest Americans (save the warmongers and true believers who will insist we stay forever as long as they don't have to actually pay the taxes to pay for the war or send their kids to fight it) will figure it's not worth it and we will leave their country. Probably in the worst possible way.
Bush/neocon/Republican plan: Don't admit the mistakes, stay the course, stand and die, though around election time make pronouncements about how great things are going and that we'll start reducing the troop levels soon. Wait till a Democrat is elected, and let that person deal with the mess, and finally pull the troops out, and whatever the negative ramifications there are, blame it on the Democrats for "cutting and running."
Rocket science.
Navy Pride said:Thanks to Liberals 58,000 died for nothing in Nam including 6 of my friends........Every time I visit the Viet Nam Memorial in D.C. I talk to Viet Nam vets and to a man they say the biggest mistake we made was cutting and running thank to the cowardly left.........We know we could have won that war if the Suits in Washington and the whacko left let us do it......
Iriemon said:Most of the 58,000 needlessly died because the warmongers kept us from pulling out until long after we should have.
Those men should be thankful they are alive to have that sentiment, and that they didn't have to spend another 10 years in Vietnam like the warmongers would have had us do.
galenrox said:Befored I say anything, I have to say this.
There is a special place in hell for whoever came up with the term "cut and run", and lesser places for everyone who uses it. All it is is semantics intended to lower the level of debate. This is a complex issue with HUGE reprucussions, and we need to be able to discuss it frankly and honestly, which is impossible when, if you explore a series of possible actions you are immidiately labeled as wanting to "cut and run", which actually doesn't mean anything, but to whoever said it, they think that they've made a point, and the stupider people watching that discussion may also think whoever said that is the point. Regardless of the stance you take on the war, bullshit phrases like that are inexcusable.
That being said, I don't think we should pull out of Iraq. We are in a global war on terror, and that will continue after we leave Iraq, and if we leave Iraq before we've gotten them on the right track to a stable democracy, we will have suffered a HUGE loss in the war on terror.
It will fall apart, and with that, so will anything that resembles an infrastructure. And as we've seen globally, places of severe desparation are terrorist breeding grounds. Madrasas will rise up everywhere, not to mention terrorist training facilities (because if we're not there, who's gonna get rid of them?). Huge levels of terrorist recruitment, not to mention countless other resources that terrorists will gain.
It's obvious that we've ****ed up in Iraq. We shouldn't have disbanded the national guard, and we should've IMMIDIATELY gotten to work replacing their infrastructure at the very second that Baghdad fell. But that's in the past, so we can bicker about that all we want, but we need to keep the past in the past, and the future in the future. When we're discussing what we should do in Iraq, unless there's a lesson in our previous failures, our previous failures are irrelevant.
We're making progress. We've got a region that's under Iraqi control (I think I heard that), and it's a very slow domino effect. Iraqis control a region, then our military there doesn't have to be spread so thin, and we can send the troops who were in that region to another region, until another region becomes stable and self sufficient, and as we go we'll have fewer areas we need to fix, and the same amount of troops to do it. What is essential is that we also leave an infrastructure, not just a police and military force, in our wake, or else the military gains will either have to be extremely repressive, or doomed to fail eventually.
I've noticed there've been a lot of comparisons to Vietnam, and I think they're misleading. These comparisons held more water initially, when Paul Bremer was heading up their government, and refused to let the elected officials pick who they wanted. This is because the lesson that we should've learned from Vietnam is that you can go into a nation and instill a democracy, but you're s.o.l. if you don't like who they pick. That's something I think Bush is beginning to understand, that Iraq won't be a mini-US, even in the best possible scenario, it will be Iraq, and there will be aspects of their government that we won't neccisarily agree with, and we sort of have to bite the bullet at say "Ok. As long as it's free and democratic, that's all we ask."
But we can't leave Iraq. Say what you will about our initial causes in entering Iraq, but no one can deny the catastrophic effects us leaving would have, not only on the Iraqi people, but on us, and everyone else on our side of the global war on terror.
Navy Pride said:We have not ran this one for awhile............Last time most people said know.......I wonder if that has changed.........
Navy Pride said:Your right Galen, its not important why we went to Iraq at this point.......We are there and right or wrong we need to finish the job that we started................Things are improving there.......I heard on the news that another region was turned over to the Iraqi army.........Most media outlets won't report that though...............They are only interested in body counts and casualties.........
Wars don't always go as planned............Some of our friends pn the left need to keep that in mind............
It would be a terrible mistake to cut and run now.........
galenrox said:I think this isn't entirely correct. Our goal isn't to bring terrorists to justice, our goal is stopping terrorism. And if we leave Iraq, it will make that goal infinitely more difficult.
You've got the idea right, we do need to dedicate a lot more effort in not inspiring more terrorism, because as long as we're inspiring as many (if not more) terrorists as we're stopping, then we're making no progress, but leaving Iraq will lead to the creation of far more terrorists than sticking around will.
galenrox said:I think this isn't entirely correct. Our goal isn't to bring terrorists to justice, our goal is stopping terrorism. And if we leave Iraq, it will make that goal infinitely more difficult.
You've got the idea right, we do need to dedicate a lot more effort in not inspiring more terrorism, because as long as we're inspiring as many (if not more) terrorists as we're stopping, then we're making no progress, but leaving Iraq will lead to the creation of far more terrorists than sticking around will.
Navy Pride said:Thanks to Liberals 58,000 died for nothing in Nam including 6 of my friends........Every time I visit the Viet Nam Memorial in D.C. I talk to Viet Nam vets and to a man they say the biggest mistake we made was cutting and running thank to the cowardly left.........We know we could have won that war if the Suits in Washington and the whacko left let us do it......
Deegan said:The fact is that no one wants to be involved in this civil war in Iraq, in fact, no one wants to go to war at all. Sadly though, when our interests are affected by the inability of other countries to handle their own problems, or worse, when these inactions lead to attacks on our shores, we have little choice but to act. Some don't see Iraq as a problem, or at least not a problem that affects the world, this could not be further from the truth. The problem is Islamic fascism, and this is certainly a huge problem in Iraq, the only thing that is keeping it from being a worse problem is the civil war between the Sunni and Shiite. If Iran has it's way, the Sunni will soon lose that battle, and that will leave the Shiite the time needed for the next stage of operation, the desecration of the West, AKA the infidel. That means all of us folks, not just Israel, not just the U.S, but anyone who is not in line with the twisted ideals of these fanatics.
This is why I want to stay and see this through, if not only to position ourselves to gather the very important intelligence we have obviously lacked. We may also make some much needed friends in the region, which is hard to realize today, but we have made ground in that very effort.
Iriemon said:I would have agreed with your analysis regarding Iraq if 1) Iraq had anything to do with an attack on us or 2) Hussein was a Islamic fanatic. Neither condition was true.
Hard to see how we are making friends by invading countries on false pretext. Many nations tend to view that sort of thing with suspicion.
alphieb said:We should have never involved ourselves in that mess anyway. Now they are engaging in a civil war. That mess will never end. If we wait until it is peaceful we will never get out.
Our focus should be in bringing the terrorist to justice not generating more hate in Iraq.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?