Recommended Posts
rushmc 18
QuoteAnd of course, the Republicans will make sure that they don´t pull from Irak before the next elections because people tend not to change presidents during a war perpetuating that climate of fear.
If the republicans win, they will not be any worse than now, and they will have more political capital to spend in their agenda and 4 more years to fix the mess in Irak.
If the democrats win they will inherit a fucking huge mess that has no good fix. They will have to choose the better of two evils and republicans will take advantage politically of that.
It is a win-win situation for the republicans and a loose-loose situation for the democrats if the stay as they are for now.. Too bad no one is thinking about the soldiers or our friends the irakis...
One fact seems to debunk your theory here. If still being in Iraq in 08 is a problem for the Dems and and win for the R's then the Dems should vote to pull funding and get out now. If they have done the correct thing they will look like heros buy elections time. What do you think?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Butters 0
QuoteAnd of course, the Republicans will make sure that they don´t pull from Irak before the next elections because people tend not to change presidents during a war perpetuating that climate of fear.
If the republicans win, they will not be any worse than now, and they will have more political capital to spend in their agenda and 4 more years to fix the mess in Irak.
If the democrats win they will inherit a fucking huge mess that has no good fix. They will have to choose the better of two evils and republicans will take advantage politically of that.
It is a win-win situation for the republicans and a loose-loose situation for the democrats if the stay as they are for now.. Too bad no one is thinking about the soldiers or our friends the irakis...
I don't believe the situation is loose-loose for the democrats. If they win the election and if there is still a war in Iraq, then the democrats finally have an opportunity to stop talking and start acting. However, with the amount of talk they have done, if they don't manage to make the situation better then it will be a large loss because people will believe that the democrats are all talk and no action (or at least no better action than the republicans) which the republicans are already trying to present them as.
"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch
QuoteQuoteAnd of course, the Republicans will make sure that they don´t pull from Irak before the next elections because people tend not to change presidents during a war perpetuating that climate of fear.
If the republicans win, they will not be any worse than now, and they will have more political capital to spend in their agenda and 4 more years to fix the mess in Irak.
If the democrats win they will inherit a fucking huge mess that has no good fix. They will have to choose the better of two evils and republicans will take advantage politically of that.
It is a win-win situation for the republicans and a loose-loose situation for the democrats if the stay as they are for now.. Too bad no one is thinking about the soldiers or our friends the irakis...
One fact seems to debunk your theory here. If still being in Iraq in 08 is a problem for the Dems and and win for the R's then the Dems should vote to pull funding and get out now. If they have done the correct thing they will look like heros buy elections time. What do you think?
I think this whole conversation is fucked. This war is bad news any way you look at it and the worry about whether it benefits the demoblicans or the republicrats is an exercise in missing the big picture.
Hey, you asked me what I thought.
rushmc 18
QuoteQuoteQuoteAnd of course, the Republicans will make sure that they don´t pull from Irak before the next elections because people tend not to change presidents during a war perpetuating that climate of fear.
If the republicans win, they will not be any worse than now, and they will have more political capital to spend in their agenda and 4 more years to fix the mess in Irak.
If the democrats win they will inherit a fucking huge mess that has no good fix. They will have to choose the better of two evils and republicans will take advantage politically of that.
It is a win-win situation for the republicans and a loose-loose situation for the democrats if the stay as they are for now.. Too bad no one is thinking about the soldiers or our friends the irakis...
One fact seems to debunk your theory here. If still being in Iraq in 08 is a problem for the Dems and and win for the R's then the Dems should vote to pull funding and get out now. If they have done the correct thing they will look like heros buy elections time. What do you think?
I think this whole conversation is fucked. This war is bad news any way you look at it and the worry about whether it benefits the demoblicans or the republicrats is an exercise in missing the big picture.
Hey, you asked me what I thought.
You must be looking at this from a much differnt context than I because I do not think this is a "fucked" discussion.
The point I was originally trying to make is I think the Dems (not all of them)believe that we are doing the right thing in Iraq. That it is necessay to do this for the safety of the country. I think their retoric is differnt to play to those that believe as you do for political purposes only. I think the Rs that oppose the Iraq war (now) do it for political reasons too.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Quote
The point I was originally trying to make is I think the Dems (not all of them)believe that we are doing the right thing in Iraq. That it is necessay to do this for the safety of the country. I think their retoric is differnt to play to those that believe as you do for political purposes only. I think the Rs that oppose the Iraq war (now) do it for political reasons too.
I disagree with all of what you just wrote, especially "necessary for the safety of this country" and the last sentence. We're less safe now than we were four years ago, I'm really not sure how that can even be debated. And most of the R's supported the war for political reasons as evidenced by their lock step support of party over ideology, but now (some) are looking out for the best interests of the US and our military. John Warner is the best example. As for the bigger picture, the war was a mistake, has been full of mistakes, and thousands, no millions of people will continue to pay for those mistakes for years to come. No one is better off for this war (with the exception of a few defense contractor administrators and company shareholders). The whole situation is screwed up and this is Bush's baby regardless of how people may want to spin it. I wish he would just us his super powers and fix it by simply saying "it has to work" and "I told them that they had to. That was the end of it. That's the way it is." To blame certain R's and the D's because they are having a hard time coming with a solution to the clusterfuck that Bush and company created is just plain....(searching for a better term....nope....can't find one) fucked.
rushmc 18
Wow
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
kallend 1,678
QuoteIf (and I think we will be to some extent) we are still in Iraq and the Dems win the presidency, what do you think the Dem leader would do?
Fuck up, to the point of getting far more of our troops killed.
The responsibility for getting ANY of our troops killed in Iraq at any time rests squarely on the idiot who sent them there (under false pretenses) in the first place and then fucked-up the occupation.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
QuoteQuoteIf (and I think we will be to some extent) we are still in Iraq and the Dems win the presidency, what do you think the Dem leader would do?
Fuck up, to the point of getting far more of our troops killed.
The responsibility for getting ANY of our troops killed in Iraq at any time rests squarely on the idiot who sent them there (under false pretenses) in the first place and then fucked-up the occupation.
Agreed, and there are far more factors involved.
Amazon 7
So basically answer this.. how many american troops will need to die in Iraq to compensate for so many little dicks in the administration and elsewhere trying to prove how macho they are????
Kennedy 0
What is the last significant military action this country took that you think was "ok?" Iraq II? Afghanistan? Iraq I? Somailia? Eastern Europe? Vietnam? Korea? WWII?
ps - have you read the "top ten iraq war myths" thread, and what do you think of it?
ps - have you read the "top ten iraq war myths" thread, and what do you think of it?
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
QuoteWhat is the last significant military action this country took that you think was "ok?"
Afghanistan. I wasn't a big fan of some aspects of it but the people who attacked us were there as was a political leadership that supported them so we certainly had no problem justifying the military action. Also, having the vast majority of the world community supporting our actions didn't hurt either.
Amazon 7
Afghanistan was a righteous war... they attacked us ......too bad the A.D.D. pinhead in charge listened to the NEO CON idiots who needed to get rich off of Iraqui oil and did not finish the job there in Afghanistan.
We had the support of most of the world.... now we DO NOT have the support of most of the world.. and it will be a far longer and more costly war on terror.
Your buddys need some help.. I know there has to be a local recruiter you can go have a talk with.
We had the support of most of the world.... now we DO NOT have the support of most of the world.. and it will be a far longer and more costly war on terror.
Your buddys need some help.. I know there has to be a local recruiter you can go have a talk with.
Agreed.... but you speak like it's in the past but it is far from over even there yet.
(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome
(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome
One thought about this magical timeline that the Dems. keep talking about when it comes to getting us out of Iraq. A set timeline for getting out is the wrong answer, all this would do is make the public happy. Remember when the invasion first kicked off, two weeks after we crossed the border the public was bitching and crying about why we hadn't defeated the Iraqi military yet, They looked back at '91 and figured it would be exactly the same. Well it was far different, instead of trying to push the Iraqis out of a country they were occupying(which the Iraqi troops didn't want to be in anyways so they didn't put up a fight) we were rolling onto their home turf. So we had more ground to cover, more soldiers to fight, and their morale was far higher because they were defending their homeland, obviously this would take more time before we controlled the ground. Unfortunately a good number of people couldn't figure this out and started complaining, they spoke like when you go to war you can stamp a timeline on it and that's exactly how long the war would last, no more, no less.
Well now the Dems. are doing the same thing, they are talking about getting us out of Iraq on a set schedule, all you are doing there is asking for a guarantee of failure. We don't need a set timeline, we need a set of goals and milestones to accomplish, by all means throw down a plan to get us out, but dont put a single date on there, put what has to happen to achieve success and tie the withdrawl in with reaching those goals. All the Dems. are doing by asking for a timeline is playing the public for a fool, they think if they get troops out it doesn't matter how much of a mess they leave over there they still look like the party that won the war. And honestly IMO this makes them complete idiots, yeah sure Bush may not be the smartest man alive and he has made his fair share of mistakes, but a least he is not looking for meeting an agenda, he is looking for victory.
And from the troops perspective what do you think would make us fight harder, someone saying "hey guys just hang in there for one more year and then you're all coming home" or someone saying "hey guys you make these things happen and you are out of there".
I also hear everyone talking about "wasting" lives, or "sacrificing" more soldiers, well the only things that would be a waste would be to pull out now before we win leaving those deaths unanswered, if we come out victorious those deaths were anything but in vane, no soldier ever dies for nothing but it is very disrespectful to the dead to give up on the fght they gave their lives for. Look back at Somolia, we lose 18 men and Clinton tucks his dick between his legs and runs, all the Rangers over there were begging to stay and finish the fight, but the politician wanted to play to the favor of the public. And that's exactly what's happening now, the Dems. want to make the voters happy so they can win in the next election and the Republican's want to still find a way out, but ensure victory along the way.
Well now the Dems. are doing the same thing, they are talking about getting us out of Iraq on a set schedule, all you are doing there is asking for a guarantee of failure. We don't need a set timeline, we need a set of goals and milestones to accomplish, by all means throw down a plan to get us out, but dont put a single date on there, put what has to happen to achieve success and tie the withdrawl in with reaching those goals. All the Dems. are doing by asking for a timeline is playing the public for a fool, they think if they get troops out it doesn't matter how much of a mess they leave over there they still look like the party that won the war. And honestly IMO this makes them complete idiots, yeah sure Bush may not be the smartest man alive and he has made his fair share of mistakes, but a least he is not looking for meeting an agenda, he is looking for victory.
And from the troops perspective what do you think would make us fight harder, someone saying "hey guys just hang in there for one more year and then you're all coming home" or someone saying "hey guys you make these things happen and you are out of there".
I also hear everyone talking about "wasting" lives, or "sacrificing" more soldiers, well the only things that would be a waste would be to pull out now before we win leaving those deaths unanswered, if we come out victorious those deaths were anything but in vane, no soldier ever dies for nothing but it is very disrespectful to the dead to give up on the fght they gave their lives for. Look back at Somolia, we lose 18 men and Clinton tucks his dick between his legs and runs, all the Rangers over there were begging to stay and finish the fight, but the politician wanted to play to the favor of the public. And that's exactly what's happening now, the Dems. want to make the voters happy so they can win in the next election and the Republican's want to still find a way out, but ensure victory along the way.
History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower
--Dwight D. Eisenhower
weren't we supposed to start removing troops starting at the end of 2005???
After all, the insurgency was in its final death throes.
After all, the insurgency was in its final death throes.
Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
rushmc 18
Another dam nice post.
You bring up a great point about the incedent in Somolia (oh, and did you know Clinton got a bj?
)
One other thing that is nutty is the nonbinding resolution voting going on. Gives whomever votes for it the way out. Gives them the chance to play both sides. The Dems have to do this because they have (before this) staked the politcal careers on an Iraq loss.
You bring up a great point about the incedent in Somolia (oh, and did you know Clinton got a bj?
) One other thing that is nutty is the nonbinding resolution voting going on. Gives whomever votes for it the way out. Gives them the chance to play both sides. The Dems have to do this because they have (before this) staked the politcal careers on an Iraq loss.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rushmc 18
Quoteweren't we supposed to start removing troops starting at the end of 2005???
After all, the insurgency was in its final death throes.
Probably. I guess they need to fire the fortune teller. I will bet you have a better one huh?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
yeah, and what are these goals exactly??QuoteWe don't need a set timeline, we need a set of goals and milestones to accomplish,
What do you mean by "win"????Quotewell the only things that would be a waste would be to pull out now before we win
It's an occupation during an insurgency! How TF do you "win" an occupation??
You don't win an occupation, you endure it, until you finally decide to leave.
Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
If the republicans win, they will not be any worse than now, and they will have more political capital to spend in their agenda and 4 more years to fix the mess in Irak.
If the democrats win they will inherit a fucking huge mess that has no good fix. They will have to choose the better of two evils and republicans will take advantage politically of that.
It is a win-win situation for the republicans and a loose-loose situation for the democrats if the stay as they are for now.. Too bad no one is thinking about the soldiers or our friends the irakis...
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites