Reply With Quote
Yeah, we're stuck there.
The Democrats were too busy looking at polls to take a stand.
In the end, however, it wasn't their idea in the first place.
I was listening to Rush today and he struck a cord. We see those on here being very critical of Bush and his policies. Would those who are critical of his policies tell us who support him what the Democrat's policy is about Iraq.
I don't want to read what Bush is doing wrong just what you and your party want to do. Also I don't want to hear just get out of Iraq. Why I say this is that we have been in some other countries for literally years. Germany, Japan, Okinawa and Kosovo. We have no exit strategy for them either.
Yeah, we're stuck there.
The Democrats were too busy looking at polls to take a stand.
In the end, however, it wasn't their idea in the first place.
Bush went to Congress twice, that is two times, and many Democrats voted to support Bush on his policies, polls or not.
You can't say polls don't exist.polls or not
It was politically risky to take a stand against the invasion with all the claims the administration was making. That they have been proven largely untrue if not downright fabricated now is a nonissue -- we're there.
I'm not saying the Democrats weren't a bunch of pussies when they had a chance to oppose the war. They were. It won't go down in history as their war, that's all. Good or bad.
The US spent over a decade saying that Hussein had to go but without the desire to make it so. Bush41 passed on it when he had the opportunity and Clinton didn't do much more than try to keep the heat on.
At the end of the day, a majority of the Congress did not agree that the prospect of a Hussein increasingly free to do as he pleased and unwilling to account for his weapons programs in a post 9-11 world was a risk this nation wanted to take.
If we could only go through life as armchair QB's...
The destruction of Saddam's army and equipment in the Gulf war, the ensuing embargo, the flyovers, the intense satellite and radar surveillance were enough to keep Saddam pinned down and neutralized.
If any were going on in Iraq, US and Isaeli security (remember the Israelis bombed Saddams nuke reactor in the 80s. The Israelis were keeping a close eye on him, being much more at risk than the USA ever was) would have known about it. I don't remember the Israelis (who are much more trustworthy in ME security matters than the Keystone Kops in the US NSA/CIA/FBI) screamin that Saddam had nukes and WMD. Of course, the Israelis would have played along with the US WMD lies, to have the US take out Saddam for them.
Russia's very real, admitted, counted nukes were actually a much bigger threat to be smuggled out as terrrorist weapons than Saddam.
It's been said for 15 years that Iran was 5 years away from a nuclear bomb, and they still don't have it. A few months ago, it was said that Iran was now 10 more years away form a nuclear capability. How can that be said about Iran with any cer ude, without any inspectors crawling all over Iran, when the US said they had to believe Saddam's nuclear bluff?
The UN inspectors found no WMD, and the invasion confirmed there were no WMD. Rice's "smoking gun = mushroom cloud" was pure BS, as was Powell's mobile weapons lab.
The WMD was Chicken-Little lying pretext for the Repubs to invade, which a Repub-only policy decision when dubya took office in Jan 2001.
And your plan is?
So, are we never leaving Iraq?Also I don't want to hear just get out of Iraq. Why I say this is that we have been in some other countries for literally years. Germany, Japan, Okinawa and Kosovo. We have no exit strategy for them either.
No policy can fix the mess that Bush has done with Iraq.
"Would those who are critical of his policies tell us who support him what the Democrat's policy is about Iraq."
WTF do the Dem's have to do about the REPUG IRAQ WAR POLICY?
This typical RL and right-wing straw-man BS. They turn every attack on the Repub Iraq war into an attaack on the Dems, as if the Dems were responsible for the the Iraq war.
The Iraq war is 100% a Repub policy.
Pork Limbaugh and the rest of the conservatives should stick with the realities of Repug actions and responsbilities, rather than attacking imagined, hypothetical Dems.
Still...
until the Democrats come up with a coherent foreign policy strategy, rather than just ing about how Bush screwed up, they won't return to power.
I think the current admin is settling into the plan of getting Iraq semi-stable in a semi-democracy. Iraq is going to be an Islamic state with lousy rights for women (except maybe for the Kurds) and allied with near-nuclear Iran. If that makes the Shiites and Kurds happy, then we can get out and let them fight AQ and the Bathist Sunnis, though if Iran goes nuclear, Iraq will soon follow.
Actually, if the US has to end up bombing Iran's facilites, we had better be out of Iraq because the Iraqi Shiites will turn on us.
There, that's my plan.
The democrat policy for Iraq was Containment.. Same as GH 41.
Kerry said he would of pulled out of Iraq... so that's what you have to assume
as far as Commander & Chief leadership.
The real question is What will they do in 08? Well they will have to wait
and see how it works out.
I can tell you my guess. If Iraq is going well they will point out Hillary voted YES
for the Islamic War Bill (the use of force authorized in any country bill) and
the specific Iraq money bill.
If it's going bad they will just blame Bush and get out. If it's good they will milk it.
Anybody can all they want about dubya and associatd lying assholes and the hole war they tricked the good-faith USA into.
I'd much rather have ANY alternative foreign policy from ANYONE, including from the Repugs, than a bull war wasting lives for years and years, accomplishing nothing.
Iraq was ed under Saddam, Iraq is ed under dubya, Iraq will eventually be ed when dubya pulls his out of Iraq's asshole.
bull repugs ed iraq ed saddam dubya asshole
The US should never leave Iraq until the job is done. Build bases like they did in Japan and Korea and stay for the long haul. Fight the war against the insurgents as a marathon. Don't take any uneccessary risks and wait the enemy out if you have to. Don't try to meet any unrealistic deadlines if it's going to risk American lives. After reasonable security is established in Iraq, focus on Iran.
"The US should never leave Iraq until the job is done."
define "job". dubya can't, or won't, can you?
The problem is that the US will need TONS of troops to control the country. Even then, they will permanently need these TONS of troops to keep control. Building a few bases and then pulling most of the troops out will not do it in Iraq.
The Japanese, Germans and Okinawans didn't hate us to the point of blowing themsleves up to kill us once we conquered and occupied. Kind of a difference there.
You heard right: Rush is an assclown.
My definition of completing the job is stabilizing the country and securing the safety of Iraqi citizens with the minimal of loss of American life. I think it would take time to do that.
There are no easy answers. I was just giving my opinion on the strategy part of it.
Testing to see if censoring bouts post clarifies his message.
Uncensored versionCensored version
Iraq was sexed under Saddam, Iraq is sexed under President Bush, Iraq will eventually be sexed when President Bush pulls his tool out of Iraq's bottom...
Nope, still senseless bouts. Carry on.
This remains one of the strongest arguments against all this right wing parsitizing the left wing-bull
Now just wait for gtownspur to make long rhetorical remarks that end up saying absolutely nothing.
I think the Bush Administration's policies put the Democrats in a difficult situation when it comes to articulating a foreign policy viz. Iraq that will get them elected.
In an overly-simplified sense, if the Democrats offer the withdrawal from Iraq as a policy initiative, they'll get lambasted by the right as being soft on terrorism (though Iraq has next to nothing to do with terrorism) and insensitive to the work that has begun in Iraq. If, on the other hand, they offer a strategy of staying in Iraq, they essentially ratify the position that the Administration has taken and become difficult to differentiate. There is a middle ground that involves staying but with a timeline for withdrawal, but as the Administration has discovered, articulating particular landmarks as the guidelines for exiting Iraq is not an easy task.
I think the Democrats best bet is to shift the focus from Iraq and set forward a strategy for prosecuting the war in Afghanistan -- a strategy focused upon finding bin Laden at all costs. Tell people that your focus is on the Big Villian and you'll get some attention. At the same time, you can score politically (I think) by questioning the Administration's failure to capture or kill bin Laden and the refusal to make that quest the #1 priority of the War on Terror. Why did the Administration run off to Iraq when the goals of invading Afghanistan had not been fully accomplished?
It's funny, sometimes I think that the President forgets that what's going on in Afghanistan is the War with the link to 9/11 -- sometimes I wonder if the American people even remember that there's a War in taking place in Afghanistan.
"stabilizing the country"
can't happen with the number of US troops there now vs the unending supply of terrorists entering Iraq.
can't happen after the US troops leave, because the Iraqi security forces won't be able to handle what the US military can't handle.
Iraq was de-stablized by USA, and now the USA can't even begin to stabilize it. broke it, can't fix it.
Perhaps Iraq and Iraqis would do better on their own eventually and faster, even if that meant a civil war and par ioning, if the de-stabilizing US pulled out. I don't really know, but obviously the security situation is not improving with the US there. Let's see what happens now the Const referendum has been held. There is a risk that the charges of fraud will de-credibilize the results with the man in the Iraqi street, esp the Sunnis who are driving the insurgency along with the jihadis.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
