Reply With Quote
I prefer benchmarks to dates, I think the ISG was trying to depoliticize its report unnecessarily and to the detriment of the mission in Iraq.
I figured since most of the political forum is dedicated to these two guys arguing that we should just start a thread so they can argue. Since both of you will go off on tangents and start arguing other things, I'll give you a vague topic and you guys go from there.
Topic: Study says to pull out troops by 2008.
Ok, now ready..........get set..........argue!!!!!!!
I prefer benchmarks to dates, I think the ISG was trying to depoliticize its report unnecessarily and to the detriment of the mission in Iraq.
Huh, Yoni's not into this one eh? How about, there is a group fighting for hourly workers (mainly minimum wage workers) to get paid for sick days. Go!!!!!
Everyone gets sick.
Classic.
Bush senior breaks down in public because W has ruined Jeb's political future..........ready.......set........GO!
Have you read Wesley Clark's position on Iraq? Sounds eerily similiar...
Which position is that?
When he was originally backing the administration and the invasion? Or afterwards when he decided his political career would be best served by announcing his previously undeclared political affiliation and then changed his stance?
Clark, like everyone else, was 100% in favor of removing Saddam...originally.
I don't expect you to know that, much the same way you and all other Libs are ingorant of Kerry, Clinton, Chiraq, Anan, and the rest of the world saying Saddam needed to be removed...
Clark is about as much one of those pathetic things known as the modern Democrat as Yonivore....
I like Clark, because I don't think he's a traitor like Kerry...and his military record in guerilla war situations spaks for itself...plus he's a very smart guy...
But please don't delude yourself into thinking this West Point Grad shares the same worldview as you....you'll be horribly wrong on that.
Last edited by whottt; 12-06-2006 at 11:59 PM.
Not so 'cut and run' after all...
MSNBCDec. 5. 2006 - In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, the soon-to-be chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a stepped up effort to “dismantle the militias.”
The soft-spoken Texas Democrat was an early opponent of the Iraq war and voted against the October 2002 resolution authorizing President Bush to invade that country. That dovish record got prominently cited last week when Speaker designate Nancy Pelosi chose Reyes as the new head of the intelligence panel.
But in an interview with NEWSWEEK on Tuesday, Reyes pointedly distanced himself from many of his Democratic colleagues who have called for fixed timetables for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Coming on the eve of tomorrow’s recommendations from the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton commission, Reyes’s comments were immediately cited by some Iraq war analysts as fresh evidence that the intense debate over U.S. policy may be more fluid than many have expected.
“We’re not going to have stability in Iraq until we eliminate those militias, those private armies,” Reyes said. “We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq … We certainly can’t leave Iraq and run the risk that it becomes Afghanistan” was before the 2001 invasion by the United States.
Some one must have showed Reyes the 'intelligence report' of what could happen in the M.E. if the Iraq conflict is not contained.
You can't set a time frame on a situation like Iraq. Well, you can but it is just a guestament of the goal at hand and no way to really judge the outcome. Instead of placing a time frame on getting out there should be a timeframe of getting things done. Damn it, set goals and do it. Baby steps. Give the military the go ahead to get their mission done. You wan't control of Baghdad? You're gonna have to take it. Simple as that.
This should not be a democrat or republican, liberal or conservative, red or blue issue but simply an issue of humanity. The dying must stop and we must make every effort to see that that goal is reached by, dare I say it, by any means necessary?
Iraq is also turning our heads from other issues in the world with Somalia a tragedy of humankind ready to implode, can it get any worse?, and the stories from there are horrific.
It is time to end this but a pullout is not the answer.
The time table stuff is stupid...
What if we are out of Iraq by 08 we will have won? We will not have lost?
The Shias and the Sunnis will stop killing each other?
Stooooooooooopid.
It's ing stupid stuff that panders to alarmists...
Invading Iraq and excluding the ruling party that was keeping the country together and Iran influence at a minimum was stupid. Look, we can't afford militarily or monetarily to stay in Iraq for the decades it would take to fix this clusterfick. So the choices are, downsize militarily for the long-run, hoping to keep at least some minimal influence in the region and with the new Iraqi government. Other options include setting a time-table for complete a withdrawal based on either bench-marks or timetable, I find the later appealing, but both options leave open the possibility that even more U.S. troops could be needed in the region again very soon to fight an even bigger and dangerous war of attriation unless the secretarian violence in Iraq is contained.
...but for now, I would be happier with General Pace out of there too.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
