airdvr 200 #26 May 22, 2007 Quote> Enlighten us with your alternative 1) Get our troops out of every part of Iraq except Baghdad. The Iraqis have had four years to get an army and police force together; the administration has been trumpeting their successes in self-policing. Time to take them at their word. If it was only that simple. Isolationism doesn't work. We need to help the Iraqi's win the peace. We can't do that from the Green Zone only. It's not just a military solution. It's much more complex. It involves economies and politics and that's going to take time. We occupied Japan and Germany until the mid 1950's. 2) Send the extra troops two places. First, to Afghanistan, specifically the border of Pakistan. Destroy Al Qaeda's sanctuary there. They are our enemy; they're the ones who attacked us. Once they are destroyed, leave. If the Taliban want to come back - let the Afgani government decide that. It will be their decision. So we know where the sanctuary is and we're just biding our time? And we should leave the future of Al Qaeda and the Taliban to the Pakastani gov't? We did that once already. I don't think so. 3) Send the rest of our forces to Baghdad. Make it one big "green zone" so the government can get their work done. Restrict US involvement to policing that area. Ask the country for a referendum - and if they want us to leave there as well, we leave. Cut and run? You think it all goes away if we just leave. And leave the rest of the country to Syria and Iran? 4) Talk to Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Turkey etc about what they want to do about their borders with Iraq. If they want to expand there, let em. European colonists drew the borders in that area; perhaps it's time to let the people who live there redraw them. And if Iran wants to over-reach? Again, let them. Let the war they start grind their military down. You know as well as I that Iran would run though Iraq right now with little or no resistance if we didn't have a military presence. SO, you want a radical muslim state controlling the second largest oil reserve in the world. And, Syria has a great stake economically in Iraq. You think we should hold discussions with them? While it is doubtful that the Syrians stand directly behind the terrorist groups operating against the Americans in Iraq, it is clear that a decision was taken by the Syrian regime to simply let matters take their own course. The Syrians enable volunteers to enter Iraq and ignore the transfer of money and ammunition to terrorist groups there. Whenever anyone complains, the response is, "We do our best, but we have no information" We end up with Al Qaeda wiped out, a city-state in Baghdad, and a redrawn map of the Middle East. Bush gets his "victory" in Baghdad, we eliminate our enemy, and we finally have an exit strategy - and the arabs and persians have a country _they_ are happy with. You assume Al Qaeda is only in Afgansitan. We eliminate or enemy?...c'mon. They operate in over 60 countries. They will follow us home to be sure. Unfortuantely this is the war that never ends. You can fight it in the middle east or you can fight it someplace else. It won't however just disappear on its own. Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #27 May 22, 2007 Quotethis is the war that never ends This is the core of the matter. There are people, corporations, and forces that thrive on "the war that never ends" and most of them are in the US. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #28 May 22, 2007 >If it was only that simple. Isolationism doesn't work. It works quite well, and was what this country was founded upon. This "US empire" thing is pretty recent. >It's not just a military solution. It's much more complex. I agree. Time to stop TREATING it like a military problem. >So we know where the sanctuary is and we're just biding our time? We know where the sanctuary is and we don't want to piss off Musharraf. ---------------------- Al Qaeda's Pakistan Sanctuary Musharraf appeases the Taliban. by Bill Roggio 04/02/2007 The security situation in Pakistan's North-West Frontier Province continues to deteriorate. Once again, Western pressure on the government of President Pervez Musharraf has failed to prevent Pakistan from handing over territory to the Taliban, this time to a group called the Movement for the Enforcement of Islamic Laws. On March 17, a Pakistani "peace" committee struck a verbal agreement with the Mohmand tribe, under which the government promised to cease military activity in Bajaur in exchange for the tribe's promise not to shelter "foreigners" or allow cross-border attacks into Afghanistan. A look at the players shows this agreement to be another pact with the devil. The tribal militants are led by Faqir Muhammad, government sources told Dawn, an English-language Pakistani newspaper, the day the agreement was made. Faqir Muhammad is a senior leader of the Movement for the Enforcement of Islamic Laws, which provided the ideological inspiration to the Afghan Taliban in the 1990s. Faqir's group sent over 10,000 fighters into Afghanistan to fight U.S. forces during Operation Enduring Freedom in October 2001. ---------------- >And we should leave the future of Al Qaeda and the Taliban to the Pakastani gov't? No. Like I said, destroy the sanctuary, and all the Al Qaeda within. >Cut and run? You think it all goes away if we just leave. Nope. My plan is to STOP cutting and running from Al Qaeda. Destroy those who harmed us on 9/11. Defend the seat of the Iraqi government. Let them decide what to do with their country. Remember the term "sovereignty" that we kept throwing around to prove our plan was working? Time to start believing that means something. Why do you want to keep surrendering to Al Qaeda, and giving them exactly what they want? They have a sanctuary (Pakistan) and a training ground (Iraq.) I say we take that away from them. >And leave the rest of the country to Syria and Iran? Leave that whole area to the Sunni, the Shi'a, and the Kurds. It belongs to them, not us. And if Iran finds itself in a sectarian civil war? I won't shed a tear. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #29 May 22, 2007 QuoteThere are people, corporations, and forces that thrive on "the war that never ends" and most of them are in the US. Forces? Could you provide some examples? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #30 May 22, 2007 QuoteBush has made it clear than ANYTHING other than unconditional funding of open-ended war in Iraq, with no planned exit date or change in strategy, is unacceptable. He has been most adamant on the subject. Indeed, his administration would refer to the date we consolidate in Baghdad as the "surrender date" - as it has before. Its really hard to enrich you4r families funds and the retirement funds for all your buddies( in corporations like Halliburton) when there is actual oversite rather than a bunch of good ole boys rubber stamping every last thing you want. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #31 May 22, 2007 QuoteQuoteStill, it's interesting that you thought to use it for avoiding the Iraq War, instead of avoiding this current mess, altogether. I can think of a more effective way to avoid "this current mess" but you'd have to go another year back in time to 2000. Since you want to go that route...go back to '92 and have a President that would actually DO something about OBL.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #32 May 22, 2007 >go back to '92 and have a President that would actually DO something about OBL. Or go back to the 80's and have a president who did not give billions in weapons to his parent terrorist group in hopes they would kill civilians and spawn new groups to do so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,649 #33 May 22, 2007 Quote>go back to '92 and have a President that would actually DO something about OBL. Or go back to the 80's and have a president who did not give billions in weapons to his parent terrorist group in hopes they would kill civilians and spawn new groups to do so. Maybe the deficit wouldn't be through the roof, too.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #34 May 22, 2007 Quote>go back to '92 and have a President that would actually DO something about OBL. Or go back to the 80's and have a president who did not give billions in weapons to his parent terrorist group in hopes they would kill civilians and spawn new groups to do so. Don't forget ceding the rest of Eastern Europe to the Soviets...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #35 May 22, 2007 QuoteQuote>go back to '92 and have a President that would actually DO something about OBL. Or go back to the 80's and have a president who did not give billions in weapons to his parent terrorist group in hopes they would kill civilians and spawn new groups to do so. Maybe the deficit wouldn't be through the roof, too. when exactly did it go through the roof? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #36 May 22, 2007 From this we can conclude that there is plenty of blame to spread around, eh? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #37 May 22, 2007 More good news! ---------- AMMAN, Jordan - Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said Thursday that his country's forces would be able to assume security command by June 2007 — which could allow the United States to start withdrawing its troops. "I cannot answer on behalf of the U.S. administration but I can tell you that from our side our forces will be ready by June 2007," Maliki told ABC television after meeting President Bush on Thursday in Jordan. Maliki was replying to a question about whether U.S. troops could start withdrawing at that time. ------------- We can start withdrawing in a few weeks, with the full support of the Iraqi government! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,649 #38 May 22, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote>go back to '92 and have a President that would actually DO something about OBL. Or go back to the 80's and have a president who did not give billions in weapons to his parent terrorist group in hopes they would kill civilians and spawn new groups to do so. Maybe the deficit wouldn't be through the roof, too. when exactly did it go through the roof? infolab.stanford.edu/~gary/deficit.jpg Sometime between 1980 and 1988, I suggest.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #39 May 22, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Maybe the deficit wouldn't be through the roof, too. when exactly did it go through the roof? infolab.stanford.edu/~gary/deficit.jpg Sometime between 1980 and 1988, I suggest. I do get a kick out of those Budget "lite" numbers and charts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,649 #40 May 22, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote Maybe the deficit wouldn't be through the roof, too. when exactly did it go through the roof? infolab.stanford.edu/~gary/deficit.jpg Sometime between 1980 and 1988, I suggest. I do get a kick out of those Budget "lite" numbers and charts. Feel free to post your own charts. I'm sure you can find some moving average that shows Reagan and Bush to be fiscally responsible.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #41 May 22, 2007 Yeah, it sucks having to rebuild stuff after every Democratic admininstration...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 200 #42 May 22, 2007 QuoteFrom this we can conclude that there is plenty of blame to spread around, eh? On this point we agree.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #43 May 23, 2007 QuoteYeah, it sucks having to rebuild stuff after every Democratic admininstration... Do you think we're in better financial shape than we were 7 years ago???-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #44 May 23, 2007 QuoteQuoteYeah, it sucks having to rebuild stuff after every Democratic admininstration... Do you think we're in better financial shape than we were 7 years ago??? I'd say the stock market and the economic indicators would be proof of that...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,649 #45 May 23, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteYeah, it sucks having to rebuild stuff after every Democratic admininstration... Do you think we're in better financial shape than we were 7 years ago??? I'd say the stock market and the economic indicators would be proof of that... My $US don't seem to be worth as much as they were 7 years ago. The Chinese didn't hold $1.2Trillion of our currency 7 years ago. Our apparent prosperity is based on DEBT, and lots of it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #46 May 23, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYeah, it sucks having to rebuild stuff after every Democratic admininstration... Do you think we're in better financial shape than we were 7 years ago??? I'd say the stock market and the economic indicators would be proof of that... My $US don't seem to be worth as much as they were 7 years ago. The Chinese didn't hold $1.2Trillion of our currency 7 years ago. Our apparent prosperity is based on DEBT, and lots of it. I'll make sure to tell the Dow - Jones that they're full of shit, then...thanks.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #47 May 23, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Maybe the deficit wouldn't be through the roof, too. when exactly did it go through the roof? infolab.stanford.edu/~gary/deficit.jpg Sometime between 1980 and 1988, I suggest. I do get a kick out of those Budget "lite" numbers and charts. Feel free to post your own charts. I'm sure you can find some moving average that shows Reagan and Bush to be fiscally responsible. Lovely re-direct. Such a transparent ploy. Your chart showed a budget surplus of 236 Billion Dollars in 2000. If there was such a surplus, what happened to it? If there was such a surplus, why did the federal debt increase in 2000? Hmm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #48 May 23, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYeah, it sucks having to rebuild stuff after every Democratic admininstration... Do you think we're in better financial shape than we were 7 years ago??? I'd say the stock market and the economic indicators would be proof of that... My $US don't seem to be worth as much as they were 7 years ago. Inflation, even at what are considered modest or acceptable levels, causes currencies to devalue. This is basic stuff. How about the equity in your home? Has that decreased in value over the last seven years? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,649 #49 May 23, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYeah, it sucks having to rebuild stuff after every Democratic admininstration... Do you think we're in better financial shape than we were 7 years ago??? I'd say the stock market and the economic indicators would be proof of that... My $US don't seem to be worth as much as they were 7 years ago. Inflation, even at what are considered modest or acceptable levels, causes currencies to devalue. This is basic stuff. How about the equity in your home? Has that decreased in value over the last seven years? I didn't make myself clear, I was thinking in terms of comparisons with other currencies. Home? Evaluated in Euros or GBpounds, it's down quite a bit. The $US is NOT doing very well internationally, we have a gigantic debt (both trade and governmental), and Polyanna says the economy is wonderful.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #50 May 23, 2007 QuoteI didn't make myself clear, I was thinking in terms of comparisons with other currencies. Home? Evaluated in Euros or GBpounds, it's down quite a bit. The $US is NOT doing very well internationally, we have a gigantic debt (both trade and governmental), and Polyanna says the economy is wonderful. Thanks for clarifying. No doubt, the dollar has fallen hard off its 2001 highs, but realize it was at current levels in '91, '92 & '95. As far the economy goes, it seems to be cranking along like a champ. Our debt issues certainly offset the rosy economic picture, but I don't think they completely offset it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)