Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan And the GOP ran both houses and the White House all this time. How have Democrats stopped progress in Iraq? How are they to blame for the way this war has been prosecuted? That seems to be the thing now, blame the Democrats and try to forget who was minding the store. Sheesh.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I have asked you 3 times to give me an example of Democrats doing things to support our troops and Bush in a way where we win the war." It's a false premise. Answer your question. Look, we gave you a tumble here, and you've come up wanting. We've been through this same thing before, only more obnoxiously. Your way is not the answer anymore. You haven't added anything we haven't heard in the past. As the song says "if you're not part of the future, then get out of the way." Come back and see us on this issue when you've caught up.
Originally Posted By No Waiting in Line --Look, we gave you a tumble here, and you've come up wanting-- Oh, I got a tumble from the regulars on here and didn't pass the test huh? What a surprise. Seems like this section is basically a bunch of people who say we can't win in Iraq and any attempt to even consider the possibility of winning is out of the question. Right Passholder? How dare I support the idea of defeating the terrorists and winning in Iraq. How foolish of me to think our military could actaully win against a bunch of 3rd world scumbag Islamo-Nazi thugs running around in tennis shoes and ripped up shirts. Sorry pal, but the America I know, the Marine in my family along with the rest of the US Military doesn't lose wars. We only lose if we quit and insist the enemy is to tough to beat. That is exactly what the Democrats are saying and doing. That is what you are doing. Again, what happens if we lose in Iraq? Why won't you answer that?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Oh, I got a tumble from the regulars on here and didn't pass the test huh? What a surprise.<< The regulars? Golly gee whiz, and here I thought you were a brand new poster. Careful, Beau, you almost slipped out of character there.
Originally Posted By No Waiting in Line --And the GOP ran both houses and the White House all this time. How have Democrats stopped progress in Iraq? How are they to blame for the way this war has been prosecuted?-- The Democrats would love to defund the war. Many Democrats have come out and said this. They are going to vote against sending more troops even though the vote means nothing. How nice of them. The Democrats can't tell the world loud enough how we tourture, how we are imperialists, how we have comitted war crimes, how we have no right to even be in Iraq. So the enemy sees our country divided on winning. They see a group wanting to cut and run give up. They see a group saying the very things the terrorists are saying about the president, the country and the war on terror! The Democrats don't however have the guts to actually pull funding because that would kill them politically. And make no mistake, this is all about political gain for the Democrats at this point. A win for Bush in Iraq is a loss for them come 08. It really is an amazing place the Democrats find themselvs in. This is what happens when you put politics in front of national security. Really, I find it amazing I am fighting with people on here ( A Disney site!! ) because I support the war effort, the president, the troops and want to win the war. Then people act offended when I say Democrats want to lose? Just read this board for proof.
Originally Posted By No Waiting in Line --Careful, Beau, you almost slipped out of character there.-- Who is Beau?
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> In the real world we judge people by their actions. << Exactly. Bush has been judged by his actions and he no longer has the support of the american people. Who's fault is that? >> How foolish of me to think our military could actaully win against a bunch ... << Foolish? Maybe. Shortsighted? Definitely. There are other ways to bring about stability in iraq than just military force. We're not the only ones who can escalate the number of combatants in iraq. Consider that our actions in iraq are CREATING terrorists that wouldn't exist if we weren't there. That would be counter-productive, right? And you never answered my earlier question - what do you care if saddam is or is not in power? And now that he's dead, what other oppressive dictators are you concerned about?
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> They are going to vote against sending more troops even though the vote means nothing. << It means something to me. It means that at least 'some' of my elected representatives are actually representing me. That's something that bush ought to look into. Baker's report said "US Foreign policy is doomed to failure - as is any course of action in iraq - if it is not supported by a broad, sustained consensus". Bush had that - at the beginning, and he squandered it. He doesn't have it anymore - who's fault is that? Bush is the elected representative of people of the US, and yet he's trying to drag us further into a war that is ill-conceived and poorly executed. And he expects us to pay the bill. And you're surprised when there's resistance, and think it's just partisan posturing by the dems. What about the joint chiefs of staff? Are they all democrats too?
Originally Posted By No Waiting in Line -- Exactly. Bush has been judged by his actions and he no longer has the support of the american people. Who's fault is that? -- Bush has lost a lot of support because he has stopped being agressive and he does a horrible job at explaining the war and why we are there. I have been frustrated with his lack of agressivness over the last year. This is why I am hopeful the surge in troops along with the Iraqi Army and a new policy of anything goes when fighting works. From what I am hearing it is already working. My problem is that at least half of the Democrats in this country hopes the troop surge fails!!!!! But don't question their patriotism. -- Consider that our actions in iraq are CREATING terrorists that wouldn't exist if we weren't there. That would be counter-productive, right? -- There may be more insurgencies from the desperate terrorists who are fighting to retake contol of Iraq, but these instances are going to be short lived if we actually fight them like we are doing with the new troop surge. Besides, this is silly on so many levels. I guess we should not have killed Nazis because that would only create more Nazis!!! Give me a break. --And you never answered my earlier question - what do you care if saddam is or is not in power? And now that he's dead, what other oppressive dictators are you concerned about? -- Saddam not being in power makes Iraq a friend instead of an enemy. You don't see this? Same thing in Afghanistan and the Taliban. I am concerened about Iran and Syria. They are the actual cause of the terror in Iraq. Until they are delt with this is never going to end.
Originally Posted By No Waiting in Line Gadzuux, what happens if we leave Iraq today and we lose? Then what? We were attacked many times before Iraq ever happened. Just remember that.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>My problem is that at least half of the Democrats in this country hopes the troop surge fails!!!!!<< No matter how much punctuation you use, it doesn't make it true. At least half? What's your source?
Originally Posted By onlyme >>My problem is that at least half of the Democrats in this country hopes the troop surge fails!!!!!<< I really don't know if this is true or not, but I sincerely doubt that the people who DO feel this way, and I'm sure there are many, are going to actually come out and say it. It's a slippery slope. I mean, of course, Democrats want Bush to fail, it's only natural. But to come out and actually say it also implies that you want our troops to fail. On this particular issue, the two go hand in hand. Can someone please humor me, and just give me a little wink, i.e., admit, if it is at all possible that maybe, just maybe there are politicians that are very anxious to see Bush and his recent plan, fail. To state that it is wrong to assume such a thing, is silly. Republicans want Democrats to fail...Democrats want Republicans to fail. Unfortunately, there's not a lot of bipartisianship left in Washington these days.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Saddam took a Koran to the gallows, he was a Muslim. Not a very good Muslim who followed the rules of Islam all the time, but he was an Islamic terrorist all the same.> You said he was an Islamist, which is a very different thing. He was a Muslim, but not as Islamist. How can you be taken seriously when you can't even get a simple thing like that right or demonstrate that you understand the distinction? <According to the Duelfer Report that came out a few years back, Saddam posed an imminent threat to the USA and the rest of the world.> That's a highly simplified (to the point of misleading) characterization of the Duelfer report. <Were we just supposed to leave him alone until he pulled off an attack?> Against us? With the WMD he didn't have? <You are arguing that Saddam was best left in power killing hundreds of thousands of his own people and he should have been able to continue to be a menace to the world. Why?> No. Any more than Bush not invading Korea means he's fine with Kim brutalizing HIS people. This simplistic garbage has been asked and answered a thousand times. If you are Beau, you know that, yet repeat the same drivel ad nauseum. If you're not Beau, you sound just like him, offer the same insults, and have no more to offer than he did, sadly. But I think you are him. Enjoy this while it lasts.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> Gadzuux, what happens if we leave Iraq today and we lose? Then what? << Likely, the same thing as if we stay for another year or two and then leave. >> We were attacked many times before Iraq ever happened. Just remember that. << But not by iraq. Bush told you that we were in danger from saddam and iraq. He lied to you. Just remember that.
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka Well, if it is Beau pretending to be someone else, I much prefer this persona to the old one.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj I just wish someone could explain to me exactly what it means to "win" in Iraq? For all the rhetoric on "cut and ran" and "Dems want us to lose," I just don't understand what it means to "win." Even if we achieve some sort of stability in that region, we're going to be stuck there for decades. We're going to continue dumping money that we don't have into a country that really has no potential to ever return on that investment. What other national priorities are on the back burner as a result of this fixation on Iraq? How much debt and future economic disaster are we willing to accept in exchange for a "win" in Iraq? We have a host of problems that need solutions in this country and none of them are being addressed right now because of this conflict -- in fact, many of them are being made a lot worse. The cost of our aging population is not going to be any more manageable if we don't get control of our national indebtedness. We're not going to make much progress in our foreign oil dependence if we continue to be obsessed with securing our cheap oil from the Middle East. I don't see where our being in Iraq is anything but a losing proposition no matter how you cut it. Our best options now are to figure out how to get out of there as quickly as possible so that we can focus our energies elsewhere.
Originally Posted By No Waiting in Line --No matter how much punctuation you use, it doesn't make it true. At least half? What's your source?--- <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/011807_foxnewspoll.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.foxnews.com/project s/pdf/011807_foxnewspoll.pdf</a> Question # 19 show it all. 49% of Democrats either want us to lose in Iraq or “don’t know†if they want us to succeed. Do you personally want the Iraq plan President Bush announced last week to succeed? Here are the results: Overall: 63% Yes 22% No 15% Don’t Know Democrats: 51% Yes 34% No 15% Don’t Know Republicans: 79% Yes 11% No 10% Don’t Know Independents 63% Yes 19% No 17% Don’t Know
Originally Posted By No Waiting in Line --No matter how much punctuation you use, it doesn't make it true. At least half? What's your source?--- <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/011807_foxnewspoll.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.foxnews.com/project s/pdf/011807_foxnewspoll.pdf</a> Question # 19 show it all. 49% of Democrats either want us to lose in Iraq or “don’t know†if they want us to succeed. Do you personally want the Iraq plan President Bush announced last week to succeed? Here are the results: Overall: 63% Yes 22% No 15% Don’t Know Democrats: 51% Yes 34% No 15% Don’t Know Republicans: 79% Yes 11% No 10% Don’t Know Independents 63% Yes 19% No 17% Don’t Know
Originally Posted By No Waiting in Line --No matter how much punctuation you use, it doesn't make it true. At least half? What's your source?--- <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/011807_foxnewspoll.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.foxnews.com/project s/pdf/011807_foxnewspoll.pdf</a> Question # 19 show it all. 49% of Democrats either want us to lose in Iraq or “don’t know†if they want us to succeed. Do you personally want the Iraq plan President Bush announced last week to succeed? Here are the results: Overall: 63% Yes 22% No 15% Don’t Know Democrats: 51% Yes 34% No 15% Don’t Know Republicans: 79% Yes 11% No 10% Don’t Know Independents 63% Yes 19% No 17% Don’t Know
