• 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.

US Senate Confirms Petraeus as Top US Commander in Iraq

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The Armed Forces Committee confirmed General Petraeus to top Commander in Iraq by a 25-0 vote.............This is the same General who gave the President the plan for the 21,000 man surge in Iraq............

Now I ask you if the democrats are against the surge why would the approve the very Commander who promoted the surge?

VOA News - US Senate Confirms Petraeus as Top US Commander in Iraq

The U.S. Senate has unanimously confirmed Army General David Petraeus to be the next coalition commander in Iraq, succeeding General George Casey. VOA's Deborah Tate reports from Capitol Hill.
 
And then they turn around and condemn his plan.

What fools.
 
Stinger said:
And then they turn around and condemn his plan.

What fools.
Click to expand...


Yes, I read the many who said he would be great for the position until they found out that he supported the "surge"............the democrat leadership are a bunch of hypocrites
 
Cold Dirt said:
Yes, I read the many who said he would be great for the position until they found out that he supported the "surge"............the democrat leadership are a bunch of hypocrites
Click to expand...


Do they realize how this makes us look, that we have a bunch of fools debating our military strategy and engaging in such folly.
 
Stinger said:
Do they realize how this makes us look, that we have a bunch of fools debating our military strategy and engaging in such folly.
Click to expand...

Did you see the dims and their 'well wishes'? They are such a bottom feeding bunch of scum. They will give an appropriate amount of days, like a weekend, and then they will be on all the propagadist shows with their disapproval of our efforts. I'm sure Rosie will be quite busy fitting them into her schedule.
 
This is great news. Almost every post-invasion analyst that I have read agrees that General Petraeus (101st Airborne) was on the right track - tactically and strategically - when he was the US commander responsible for the Mosul area of Iraq. He initiated unique guidelines for US forces that greatly minimized Iraqi civilian resentment, and he treated Iraqi's with courtesy and respect. During his tour in Mosul, violence was minimal and the civilian population greatly assisted US forces in pacifying the area. This situation changed dramatically after General Petraeus was re-assigned stateside. Judging his previous accomplishments in Iraq, Petraeus seems the best US commander for positive change.
 

Do the democrats have to agree with everything that comes out of someone's mouth in order to support that person? I believe that Justice Ginsburg got over 80 votes in the Senate when she was confirmed. Do you think that the Republicans supported her position on the right to choose? No. One does not have to agree with a candidate's position/stance in order to support that candidate for a certain position.
 

Yeah but aps you have to see the hypocrisy...The very people that have been knocking the surge in troops all week are the ones that were hi fiveing him and heaping praise on him.........

Surely you have to see something wrong with this picture.......If they were so against the surge then no way do you promote the guy who was responsible for the surge 25-0.....
 

I don't see any hypocrisy. What I see you would have attacked them had they voted "no" and you are attacking them because they voted "yes." They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. He is qualified for this position, and senators don't have to agree with his position on everything in order to see that. My example of Supreme Court justices is right on the money. Senators vote for justices whose judicial philosophy does not meet theirs that that person is qualified.
 
aps said:
I don't see any hypocrisy. What I see you would have attacked them had they voted "no" and you are attacking them because they voted "yes." They are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
Click to expand...

Not if they hold the the position they took. They shouldn't have vote ofr Petreus if they don't support the very plan he developed and has said quite clearly he is going to impliment.

That is shear folly.

He is qualified for this position, and senators don't have to agree with his position on everything in order to see that.
Click to expand...

Well then how about them shutting up and letting Bush fight this war.

My example of Supreme Court justices is right on the money. Senators vote for justices whose judicial philosophy does not meet theirs that that person is qualified.
Click to expand...

Your example is nonsense. This is the man who is going to go impliment a specific plan to finish the war, not a judge sitting on a bench deciding as yet unknown issues.

They are adamant that they do NOT support Petreus or his plan, they don't want him to do what he is going in, clearly stating he is going to do.

So I guess they think they have their arse's covered now. If we fail they will say "we told you so", if we succeed they can say "see we supported Petraeus".

What spineless fools they are.
 
I've thought Petraeus was The Man for almost four years now. I'm glad to see that my thinking is finally catching on.
 
Giving Jesus command of the Spartans at Thebes wouldn't change the fact they were all going to die.

I don't know what prolonging the war hopes to accomplish, or changing the Generals. This is pretty stupid too, it isn't like it was the last Generals fault, Rumsfeld was micromanaging the war.

They've given this solider a missionless war, an endless tic-tac-toe match against the Iraqis. This war will be won or lost in the US Senate and House, not by anyone in Iraq.
 

Of course you don't see any hypocrisy. They are worse than hypocrites, they are traitors who can't STFU. They keep emboldening the terrorists against our troops. They should all be put in pillories in the middle of the National Mall with signs around their necks that say TRAITORS TO AMERICA DURING A TIME OF WAR.
 
Morrow said:
I don't know what prolonging the war hopes to accomplish, or changing the Generals.
Click to expand...

Then why don't you try listening to what the adminsitration and the military has been saying for months, then you will know.

This is pretty stupid too, it isn't like it was the last Generals fault, Rumsfeld was micromanaging the war.
Click to expand...

The Generals run the operational aspects and formulate the tactics. One of the mistakes Bush has made is that he has been too loyal to his generals.

They've given this solider a missionless war, an endless tic-tac-toe match against the Iraqis. This war will be won or lost in the US Senate and House, not by anyone in Iraq.
Click to expand...


If it is lost on the homefront, which the Dems are doing everything in their power to do, it will probably be lost on the battlefront.
 

Would you be so kind as to answer the following questions?

(1) How do they embolden the terrorists? Can you give me one to two examples?

(2) Who exactly are the "terrorists" that you mention? Are they Iraqis? Are they al Qaeda?

(3) How do you define democracy? Do you think that people should not be allowed to openly discuss issues during wartime?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…