• 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.

Top Democrat: Bring back the draft

The majority of people are against the war now... which is credited with the Democratic victory in the recent election. I don't think Rangel thinks he is turning anybody against the war, those that still support it by now, probably always will.

anyone else notice how he didnt argue with Rangel being a bigot and a race baiter?
 
Surprise surprise. Why would any Congress person want the draft back? Then their kids might have to fight in a war that they voted for. :roll:

aps your wrong, it was another ploy to try and get us to cut and run in Iraq.........
 
anyone else notice how he didnt argue with Rangel being a bigot and a race baiter?

hahaha


I don't know much about Rangel, I've haven't heard him say much, much less anything on race. But, I fail to see even if he were what that has to do with his draft plan.
 
Doesn't matter if it's all volunteer or draft because it's still the minorities that are going to suffer from discrimination according to the racial numbers.

Do you all remember 'student deferments'?

That is pure horse ****.........You sound like your daddy John Kerry.......
 
As an outspoken femenist and staunch supporter of equality, I say that if they bring back the draft, women should be drafted at an equal 1:1 ratio.
 
in what fashion The Real McCoy? support roles or fighting?
 
hahaha


I don't know much about Rangel, I've haven't heard him say much, much less anything on race. But, I fail to see even if he were what that has to do with his draft plan.

Maybe his plan is to reinstate the draft and get rid of all the troubled teens-up to mid 20's age group/gang members/crime committers in his district. Crime goes down in his district, he takes the credit for that while blaming Pres. Bush and the Republicans for killing them.

It's a win/win for him.
 
Goobieman proved him a liar (again) in post 33. That's why the kidrock is gone!

You mean this post?......:doh..
I tell ya I get no respect, none....
Damn gooberman is stealing my credit.......:mrgreen:


http://www.debatepolitics.com/434902-post33.html

Here is your link dumbazz! maybe you should look around before you run your mouth..

Research - Statistical information about casualties of the Vietnam conflict

CACCF Record Counts by Race (as of 12/98)
Racial category titles are those used in the documentation created at the genesis of the file, ca. 1967
Race Number of Records
American Indian 226
Caucasian 50,120
Malayan 252
Mongolian 116
Negro 7,264
Unknown, Not Reported 215
Total 58,193
 
Yep, which is why we should get the military out as soon as possible and then hunker down. The Dems have won the war against the war on the homefront. Without the support of the country it is pointless to leave our military in harms way. Now we face the consequences of thier irresponsible rhetoric.



He didn't just start this business, he has contributed to the demoralization of the country and our losing our resolve to win.
First of all, the Dems don't deserve any credit for turning the public against the war. The public led the Democrats on this, by a looong time....the Dems followed the public's lead. It's not the public's fault or the Dems fault that this war has been run ineptly by the Bush administration. Bush gets all of the credit for turning the public against the war, by turning it into a disaster. We are facing the consequences of the ill advised war that the Bush administration chose to wage....incompetently, at that.

It isn't a matter of not having resolve, it's a matter of having no plan on how to succeed. Every day that passes without a plan makes it ever more unlikely that we will have any chance of salvaging something positive from this war. The responsibility for this rests squarely on President Bush's shoulders.....not a congressman from NY from the party that was out of power when this folly began.

Nice try at the :spin:
 
A) I wonder what your source on this is.

The Pentagon:

Pentagon Opposed To New Draft


WASHINGTON, Jan. 13, 2002


Pentagon Opposed To New Draft - CBS News


Military: Increased recruitment efforts, not draft, more efficient

Dalia Hatuqa, Washington Correspondent
Published November 18, 2006


Military: Increased recruitment efforts, not draft, more efficient | GoUpstate.com | Spartanburg, S.C.

They all want it, they have been asking for years not.

General Abizaid the head of CENTCOM has rejected the idea of bringing in more troops, he said that policy would only be an incentive for the Iraqi's not to take up their own slack.

B) because being in an unwinnable war is good for morale...

According to you it's unwinnable, General Abizaid disagrees, not to mention that reenlistment rates are high.

C) That isn't true if the volunteer military can't perform its mission.

We have lots of troops not serving in Iraq, I think there are something like 150,000 soldiers and marines in Iraq the troops are there if we need them:

Approximately 1.4 million personnel are currently on active duty in the military with an additional 1,259,000 personnel in the seven reserve components (456,000 of whom are in the Army and Air National Guard).[3]

Military of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

D) I'm not addressing the issue of patrotism.

Well then are you calling Thomas Jefferson a hypocrite and a coward?
 
The Pentagon:

General Abizaid the head of CENTCOM has rejected the idea of bringing in more troops, he said that policy would only be an incentive for the Iraqi's not to take up their own slack.

According to you it's unwinnable, General Abizaid disagrees, not to mention that reenlistment rates are high.
The Pentagon's field commanders disagree. I have heard many times that what the majors, colonels, captians, and generals in iraq want is more troops. not to mention the prewar estimates that 450000 troops were needed. Also, our military doctrine requires a force of 10 to one to defeat guerllias, so we would need about 450000.


We have lots of troops not serving in Iraq, I think there are something like 150,000 soldiers and marines in Iraq the troops are there if we need them:

You're right, it isn't like anyone else who knows about the situation disagrees... o wait..

On top of that, to have 450,000 troop in Iraq, we would need apx 2 million to support the 3 month rotation our doctrine calls for. troops are only supposed to be in active combat for 3 months. After that it causes problems. Not to mention we would need the support to have more than 2 million troops rotating in and out of combat operations. And out support to troop ratio is like 7 to 1, so we would need a hell of a lot of guys to win the way we want to. And even if we did what we did now, one year instead of 3 month rotations, that is still hundreds of thousands of more men that people in the military want, independent sources say are needed, and active and retired generals say we need.

I do not know the reasons for Gen. Abizaid comments, but there is enormous amount of people saying the opposite of him.


Well then are you calling Thomas Jefferson a hypocrite and a coward?
You logical capabilities are too much for me.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
General Abizaid the head of CENTCOM has rejected the idea of bringing in more troops, he said that policy would only be an incentive for the Iraqi's not to take up their own slack.
So doesn't that mean General Abizaid would agree that a phased withdrawal would be an incentive for the Iraqis to take up their own slack?
 
The Pentagon's field commanders disagree. I have heard many times that what the majors, colonels, captians, and generals in iraq want is more troops. not to mention the prewar estimates that 450000 troops were needed. Also, our military doctrine requires a force of 10 to one to defeat guerllias, so we would need about 450000.

General Abizaid is the head of CENTCOM and the top field commander in Iraq. Further saying that they want more troops is not the same thing as saying they want to reinstate the draft, show me an example of a field commander or any commander for that matter saying that we should bring back the draft. Little hint you won't find one.


You're right, it isn't like anyone else who knows about the situation disagrees... o wait..

On top of that, to have 450,000 troop in Iraq, we would need apx 2 million to support the 3 month rotation our doctrine calls for. troops are only supposed to be in active combat for 3 months.

2 million? Well then we're already way over the mark:

Approximately 1.4 million personnel are currently on active duty in the military with an additional 1,259,000 personnel in the seven reserve components (456,000 of whom are in the Army and Air National Guard). [3]

Military of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I do not know the reasons for Gen. Abizaid comments, but there is enormous amount of people saying the opposite of him.

Are they the top field commander in Iraq?

You logical capabilities are too much for me.

I'm just saying that Thomas Jefferson supported the revolution but didn't take up arms to fight for the cause he believed in, does that make him a coward?
 
Last edited:
So doesn't that mean General Abizaid would agree that a phased withdrawal would be an incentive for the Iraqis to take up their own slack?

No he doesn't and neither do former Generals Batiste and Zinni:

General Abizaid rejects Levin's call to withdraw troops in 4-6 months

November 15, 2006

WASHINGTON Sen. Carl Levin got a negative response from the top U.S. commander in the Middle East Wednesday after the Michigan Democrat said during committee hearings that the United States must tell Iraq it'll begin withdrawing troops in 4 to 6 months.

Gen. John Abizaid warned the Senate Armed Services Committee against setting a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, saying it would impede commanders in managing U.S. and Iraqi forces.

That assertion seemed to put Abizaid at odds with Levin and some Democrats pressing the Bush administration to begin pulling out of Iraq.

In arguing against a timetable for troop withdrawals, Abizaid told the committee that he and other U.S. commanders need flexibility in managing U.S. forces and determining how and when to pass on responsibility to Iraqi forces.

Specific timetables limit that flexibility, the general said.

General rejects Levin's call to begin troop withdrawal in 4-6 months
General Abizaid was not alone in rejecting the Democrats plan for immediate withdrawal retired General's Batiste and Zinni, also, chimed in rejecting the Democrats disastorous plan:


Get Out of Iraq Now? Not So Fast, Experts Say

By MICHAEL R. GORDON
Published: November 15, 2006

Anthony C. Zinni, the former head of the United States Central Command and one of the retired generals who called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, argued that any substantial reduction of American forces over the next several months would be more likely to accelerate the slide to civil war than stop it.

“The logic of this is you put pressure on Maliki and force him to stand up to this,” General Zinni said in an interview, referring to Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister. “Well, you can’t put pressure on a wounded guy. There is a premise that the Iraqis are not doing enough now, that there is a capability that they have not employed or used. I am not so sure they are capable of stopping sectarian violence.”

Instead of taking troops out, General Zinni said, it would make more sense to consider deploying additional American forces over the next six months to “regain momentum” as part of a broader effort to stabilize Iraq that would create more jobs, foster political reconciliation and develop more effective Iraqi security forces.

John Batiste, a retired Army major general who also joined in the call for Mr. Rumsfeld’s resignation, described the Congressional proposals for troop withdrawals as “terribly naïve.”

“There are lots of things that have to happen to set them up for success,” General Batiste, who commanded a division in Iraq, said in an interview, describing the Iraqi government. “Until they happen, it does not matter what we tell Maliki.”

Before considering troop reductions, General Batiste said, the United States needs to take an array of steps, including fresh efforts to alleviate unemployment in Iraq, secure its long and porous borders, enlist more cooperation from tribal sheiks, step up the effort to train Iraq’s security forces, engage Iraq’s neighbors and weaken, or if necessary, crush the militias.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/15/wa...5military.html
Abizaid also, rejected McCain's proposition that we need to add more troops:


MCCAIN: Did you note that General Zinny who opposed of the invasion now thinks that we should have more troops? Did you notice that General Batise, who was opposed to the conduct of this conflict also says that we may need tens and thousands of additional troops. I don’t understand General. When you have a part of Iraq that is not under our control and yet we still — as Al Anbar province is — I don’t know how many American lives have been sacrificed in Al Anbar province — but we still have enough and we will rely on the ability to train the Iraqi military when the Iraqi army hasn’t send the requested number of battalions into Baghdad.

ABIZAID: Senator McCain, I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the core commander, General Dempsey, we all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American Troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no. And the reason is because we want the Iraqis to do more. It is easy for the Iraqis to rely upon to us do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/15/...d-mccain-iraq/


Gee it sure sounds like General Abizaid the head of CENTCOM and the head of operations in Iraq says that stay the course is the best option, imagine that.​
 
General Abizaid is the head of CENTCOM and the top field commander in Iraq. Further saying that they want more troops is not the same thing as saying they want to reinstate the draft, show me an example of a field commander or any commander for that matter saying that we should bring back the draft. Little hint you won't find one.

2 million? Well then we're already way over the mark:

Are they the top field commander in Iraq?

I'm just saying that Thomas Jefferson supported the revolution but didn't take up arms to fight for the cause he believed in, does that make him a coward?
I see little point in continuing this, as it is apparent you would rather be argumentative than apply your logical abilities objectively. I’m done feeding you. You may view this a victory if you like, I view it as time management.
 
facts-the boys who sign up for the gungho Military jobs-seals, rangers, SF, airborne, marines are generally conservative kids from middle to upper middle class backgrounds. They join because they want to-not because its their only or best option

the "pay for college" or learn a trade in the military crowd tend to be far more liberal and less educated.

bottom line-conservative kids join the combat units.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
No he doesn't and neither do former Generals Batiste and Zinni:

General Abizaid was not alone in rejecting the Democrats plan for immediate withdrawal retired General's Batiste and Zinni, also, chimed in rejecting the Democrats disastorous plan:

Abizaid also, rejected McCain's proposition that we need to add more troops:
Thanks for the links, that's good information.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Gee it sure sounds like General Abizaid the head of CENTCOM and the head of operations in Iraq says that stay the course is the best option, imagine that.
Yep, he's pretty much saying the military should stay and I agree. We broke it, we bought it. The troops have done their part, so it's time for our politicians to do theirs and figure out some political and diplomatic ways to win the peace!
 
Last edited:
First of all, the Dems don't deserve any credit for turning the public against the war.

100% of it. The irresponible demagoging has come home to roost. The public by far no longer supports the war due to the constant denigrating of the government and the military. What did they expect would happen when all we hear is "Bush lied people died", "the war is immoral", "the war is illegal", "this is Cheney's war to enrich himself and his friends", "we are the evil ones", "it is hopeless", "it is unwinnable", "it is a quiqmire". and on and on and on and on.

This is the result, we no longer have the will nor the resolve to win and why on earth you'd expect any other countries to join in when this is what they are told is beyond me.

You're getting what you paid for so now it's time to hunker down and as the Dems want to do start training EMT's and rescue people.


The public led the Democrats on this, by a looong time....the Dems followed the public's lead.

Baloney, the public was behind the war until the Dems started their propaganda war and they have won.

It's not the public's fault or the Dems fault that this war has been run ineptly by the Bush administration.

Proving my case.

Bush gets all of the credit for turning the public against the war, by turning it into a disaster.

Baloney again. He hasn't done a very good job of countering the Dems propaganda, and started to late. I'll fault him there. But history will note how the Dems politisized the war, enagaed in their irresponsible campaign to turn the country against the war and won.

We are facing the consequences of the ill advised war that the Bush administration chose to wage....incompetently, at that.

That the Dems were completely behind and then turned coat.

It isn't a matter of not having resolve,

That's exactly what it is and it empowers our enemies and turns away potential allies. Had we shown a resolve to the enemy, the Iraqi's and the world we'd be much further along. But at every success the Dems demagoged and belittled it. And they have won.

Tell me what the Dems have done to help us succeed. Give me list proving they supported the effort and did what they could to keep the morale at home up and to keep our resolve up.

Nice try at the :spin:

When we pull out, when the radicals declare victory, when they strike again, we'll see who's spinning.
 
100% of it. The irresponible demagoging has come home to roost. The public by far no longer supports the war due to the constant denigrating of the government and the military. What did they expect would happen when all we hear is "Bush lied people died", "the war is immoral", "the war is illegal", "this is Cheney's war to enrich himself and his friends", "we are the evil ones", "it is hopeless", "it is unwinnable", "it is a quiqmire". and on and on and on and on.
You are one of the few who refuse to see that the emporer has no clothes. If there was progress shown, the public would be more willing to wait, but the incompetence of the idiots running the show in Washington has squandered the public's patience. Your nonsense about Dems denigrating the military is just more partisan garbage. No one has denigrated the military....they have done their duty, above and beyond what they should be expected to do....multiple extended tours in combat in a few short years is more than any military personnel should be asked to do.

This is the result, we no longer have the will nor the resolve to win and why on earth you'd expect any other countries to join in when this is what they are told is beyond me.

You're getting what you paid for so now it's time to hunker down and as the Dems want to do start training EMT's and rescue people.
What a joke that is, why would any of the countries want to join in when Bush has been flipping them the bird for 6 years? Oh, now that HE wants them to come back and play, they should just forget how he treated them before? Not likely. My mother taught me better manners before I went to Kindergarten.

Getting what I paid for? Oh no, I paid for a war that would succeed. I paid for competent leadership....that's not what I got. The military has done its job, the politicians have not done their job. This mess is clearly, unquestionably in Bush's lap. He had 100% control as CIC, he didn't do his job. Period.




Baloney, the public was behind the war until the Dems started their propaganda war and they have won.
Not so, if you look back to when the polls started turning against the war, it was long before the Dems started speaking out in any numbers against the war.



Proving my case.
Not quite. It's pointing out the obvious....at least, it's obvious to the majority of Americans.



Baloney again. He hasn't done a very good job of countering the Dems propaganda, and started to late. I'll fault him there. But history will note how the Dems politisized the war, enagaed in their irresponsible campaign to turn the country against the war and won.



That the Dems were completely behind and then turned coat.



That's exactly what it is and it empowers our enemies and turns away potential allies. Had we shown a resolve to the enemy, the Iraqi's and the world we'd be much further along. But at every success the Dems demagoged and belittled it. And they have won.

Tell me what the Dems have done to help us succeed. Give me list proving they supported the effort and did what they could to keep the morale at home up and to keep our resolve up.



When we pull out, when the radicals declare victory, when they strike again, we'll see who's spinning.

Who was in charge, the Democrats? No, the Reps have been in control, 100%, of this war. The Dems have had no chance to do anything about Iraq, and they have very little that they can realistically do even controlling both houses in Congress starting in January. The CIC controls the fighting of wars, so it doesn't matter, really, what the Dems want to do....Bush is the "decider", remember? Silly me, I thought you understood the separation of powers.

As far as resolve goes, I would argue that Bush has had tremendous resolve.....but that hasn't helped him to fight the war any more competently, has it? Resolve doesn't help if you don't know what you're doing. It's obvious to me that he doesn't, and he never did.

The clock is ticking. I don't think we have the luxury of waiting for the Baker group to come up with some sort of face-saving plan. I think by the time they get done "studying" the matter, we will be planning our pullout. Things are going downhill very quickly now. That's reality, not propaganda. Even Gunny sees the cards that are on the table.

BTW, you might want to note that I have never supported pulling the troops out as a solution to the mess in Iraq. I think we should have put a LOT more troops there to begin with, and I think that if we were to pull out now, it would only make things worse. What I see happening, though, is that we are accelerating into a full blown civil war, and when that happens, we will be forced to pull out. It's coming.
 
Did the OP actually claim that it was "courageous" of Rangel to do this, despite the fact that he was "ending his career?"

Rangel did this two years ago, he's doing it now, and he'll probably do it in two years. He's not at risk of losing his job, just look at his district.

It's an attempt at making a bold statement that didn't really work. That's all.
 
You are one of the few who refuse to see that the emporer has no clothes.

Nope you are one of the ones who is so blind they cannot see. I am the one speaking of the reality of the situation and the historical perspective. Wars aren't won when the the homefront is lost. Thanks to the Dems it has been lost.

If there was progress shown,

What do you call all the the steps I have posted repeatedely. But at everyone of the time the Dems denigrated them and attacked.

Your nonsense about Dems denigrating the military is just more partisan garbage.

Calling them Nazi's is pretty denigrating I would say. Calling them people who can't do anything in life so they join the military is pretty denigrating I would say. Calling them stupid for joining is pretty denigrating I would say,

No one has denigrated the military....

The military has been slammed repeatedly.


What a joke that is, why would any of the countries want to join in when

The left and the Dems have engaged in a successful campaign to paint the war as illegal, immoral, unwinnable, all the enrich Cheney's oil buddies, run by incompitents, and a quigmire? And if you even try to deny that the left and the Dems have painted it that way you are being dishonest and you know it.


Bush has been flipping them the bird for 6 years?

Give me an example.

Getting what I paid for? Oh no, I paid for a war that would succeed. I paid for competent leadership....that's not what I got.

And what has the left and what have the Dems done to help? Not one person has been able to list one example.

The military has done its job, the politicians have not done their job.

I agree, the politicians I am talking about have done everything to can to demoralize the homefront and convince our enemies they can succeed if they will just hold out long enough for the Dems to take power and pull out.

This mess is clearly, unquestionably in Bush's lap. He had 100% control as CIC, he didn't do his job. Period.

He is CIC but that does not absolve the Dems and the left from their conceted campaign to bring him down and the war effort with him.


Not so, if you look back to when the polls started turning against the war, it was long before the Dems started speaking out in any numbers against the war.

Not so, the public was behind the war until the Dems launched their campaign of misinformation, misrepresentation, and propaganda. History will long note how they put their own political gain above the security of the country. And now we have to live with the consequences.



Who was in charge, the Democrats?

That's your excuse for the Dems?

No, the Reps have been in control, 100%, of this war.

And having to fight it on the frontlines and against the left and the Dems here. But you are proving my point. The Dems have not joined in to assure our victory, have done nothing that would have helped to have ended this a long time ago, and even now prefer to retreat and give our enemies their victory.

The Dems have had no chance to do anything about Iraq,

What on earth prevented them from supporting it. From joining in and showing that we are a united country with the will to win which just might have encourage other countries to help. Else they would have helped alot by just keeping their mouths shut.

and they have very little that they can realistically do even controlling both houses in Congress starting in January. The

They can cut the funding, which if they believe what they say they should do immediately.

CIC controls the fighting of wars,

He controls the operational, that's all. It's up to the rest of us to pitch in and support it and show the world we are in this to win. The Dems have engaged in just the opposite.

so it doesn't matter, really, what the Dems want to do....Bush is the "decider", remember? Silly me, I thought you understood the separation of powers.

Who funds it? Who authorizes it?

As far as resolve goes, I would argue that Bush has had tremendous resolve.....but that hasn't helped him to fight the war any more competently, has it?

Give me a specific example of how the Dems would have fought it more comptitently when the fact is they have done everything to encourage our defeat?

Resolve doesn't help if you don't know what you're doing. It's obvious to me that he doesn't, and he never did.

We know exactly what we are doing, and you seem to be under the impression that the President does tactical planning which he does not. If you had ever bothered to listen to him you might know what we were trying to do.

The clock is ticking. I don't think we have the luxury of waiting for the Baker group to come up with some sort of face-saving plan. I think by the time they get done "studying" the matter, we will be planning our pullout. Things are going downhill very quickly now. That's reality, not propaganda. Even Gunny sees the cards that are on the table.

We all do, there is no support here for the war. I have said that repeatedly. The will to win, the resolve has become a victem of the political sniping and propaganda of the left. Without that we cannot win and our enemies see themselves as the victors.

and I think that if we were to pull out now, it would only make things worse.

Hold on Babblou, it is YOUR side that has been crying for a pull out for two years. It is YOUR side that says this is illegal, immoral and unwinnable. It is YOUR side that has been saying STAYING will only make it worse and the longer we stay the worse it will get. Now there is a sudden change in tune here.

What do you hope to accomplish staying a minute longer? What will be made better?

What I see happening, though, is that we are accelerating into a full blown civil war, and when that happens, we will be forced to pull out. It's coming.

Sure, our enemies see that they are winning and that the most important thing here is to get out. OUr troops see that the country doesn't support what they are doing and in fact are being told what they are doing is immoral, evil, creating more terrorist, illegal and on and on and on. What do you think goes through their heads when they hear the likes of Pelosi and
Rangel, Durbin and the rest of them.

So tell me if you believe the propaganda the left has been spouting what is the purpose of staying any longer?
 
What's the matter, Stinger, just because I don't subscribe to the democratic plan as you define it, I don't fit into the neat little pidgeonhole that you want me to? :lol: The unfortunate part about being as partisan as you are is that you can't conceive of someone NOT being subject to the talking points of one side or the other.

I don't believe that cut-and-run OR stay-the-course is going to work, and MY side is in the middle.....like MOST Americans. I disagree with most Americans in that I don't think we should pull out immediately....I think we have a short window of opportunity that we can take advantage of, but Bush is just twiddling his thumbs and waiting for somebody to tell him what to do. I think Gunny has spelled out pretty clearly what needs to be done to turn this war around....but, like him, I don't see it happening. The approach by the Bush administration has been deeply flawed from the beginning, and mistake after mistake has gotten us to this point. The military has done a magnificent job, but they have done what they can do militarily. They are basically being asked to hold on until the politicians can find a political solution. They are holding on by their fingernails at this point....and there is no political solution in sight. I think Senator Levin has spelled out pretty clearly that the Iraqis have promised, over and over, that they will get their act together politically, but they have failed to do so. We are basically at their mercy as long as we refuse to pressure them to find a way to head off the civil war. If that doesn't happen, the civil war will take the decision away from us.

The IRAQIS have to become responsible for their country. We have tried to do too much FOR them, not WITH them. We haven't taken advantage of the assets they have to HELP them rebuild...we tried to go in and do it FOR them. That is just one example of what the Bush administration has done wrong, and what needs to be changed.

The public began to turn against the war back when Cindy Sheehan started her anti-war campaign. Remember that? She was a lone voice in the wilderness at that point, most Dems wouldn't touch her. Yet, THAT is when the polls started turning against the war....not when the "Dems" started speaking out in numbers against the war. But besides that, should we all just close our eyes to the disaster unfolding over there and pretend that everything is just peachy? This is a democracy, and a healthy democracy depends on people speaking out when they think the government is going the wrong direction. If you oppose that, you oppose the very foundation our country was built on.

I hope that Bush will find a way to declare victory and bring our troops home without leaving Iraq in a shambles. I just don't see any possible way for him to do that....from looking at the situation in Iraq, not listening to political rhetoric here at home. I'm a realist....if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck....and there is a civil war escalating in Iraq. No matter who you want to point the finger at, our troops are in harms way over there, and they will have to be pulled out as conditions deteriorate. There is no time for the political finger-pointing that you want to engage in. It's time to stop being partisan and start looking for a way to salvage Iraq....and it isn't continuing the way we are. We need a change in direction....that's what the Dems campaigned on, not "pull out immediately and cut funding" which you insist on saying is the Democratic position.

There is middle ground, the problem is that I don't think Bush can get there because he has painted himself into a corner with his arrogant treatment of other countries. His cowboy "diplomacy" is now a huge liability for him. It will take time to repair the damage he has done, and time is what we don't have in Iraq.

You keep trying to blame the messenger, but I'm not buying it, and neither are the American people.
 
Back
Top Bottom