What did you think of the speech?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Gamingphreek

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
11,679
0
81
Really? All I hear on the news is republicans crying about how everyone will be murdered if we were to leave and how it would throw the country into even more chaos, I don't like the whole republican reasoning for this war it is inherently flawed. They change their reasoning with no regard for consistentcy, first we are there for the WMD's and to remove Saddam, when we didn't find any wmd's we now become the world's humanitarians thus have a new excuse for being there; to help them. Oh and now add oil in there to by Bush's own admission, which he denied at the beginning as a reason for being there to begin with.

Bush accepted full responsibility for this. It is time to push aside the "we shouldn't be there" argument and ask yourself what you think we should do to solve the problem (Whether you support it or not it is a problem now- By saying we shouldn't be there in the first place gets us no where but more bickering).

It is unfortunate that our own military service men and women's lives were condemned the moment we entered this foolish war, but that does not mean we should condemn more? Like I said, I don't care anymore, we shouldn't be there so leave, let them deal with THEIR own mess. It makes no difference if they kill eachother, all I want is our troops home. Do you really believe any american cared about Iraqi's lives before this war? Why would they care now?

So you would feel fine insulting those who lost their lives' memory by pulling out and essentially undoing everything we have just done.

Furthermore, you don't care that a few thousand miles away people are dying by the thousands. To the average Iraqi it isn't there problem, why should they have to deal with it? The terrorists are the ones causing problems, not the Iraqi citizens.

Also, you said they should deal with it. With what means should they deal with it then? They have a developing government, virtually no police and army as of right now. By what means should they deal with it?

It is selfish is you believe that one life is any more important than another when we are all fighting towards the same thing. The Iraqis don't want to kill people any more than we do, but the terrorists are on their doorstep. A life of our soldier over there is the same as the life of an Iraqi citizen. It is downplayed because of the sheer amount of Iraqi's that have lost their lives for any plethora of reasons.

As for your last question? I certainly hope you are wrong. I certainly hope that the troops in our army had at least a shred of compassion towards what those people experience everyday.

-Kevin
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
To Non Prof John--who wailed--Perhaps instead of finding creative ways of insulting me you could offer up an idea or two of your own on what we should do.

Hate to tell you non-Prof John----I have offered my own peace plan on other threads---with necessary STEP ONE getting GWB impeached or out of the decision making loop. After that it must go to the UN and regional players to offer the additional troops necessary to stabilize Iraq---not only is your memory short---you just fail to realize the fellow who broke it is very unlikely to suddenly fix it.------face the facts---this is GWB's last chance---and from what he is talking---he is still stuck on stupid---and all the political spin you or GWB&co. can offer to now blame democrats---a failed plan plus 10% will not get it.----------it was doomed from the start---because it was phony from the start. Its no longer about diverting political blame---its about avoiding more bloodshed and repairing the damage a clueless thief and idiot named GWB&co. caused.

Maybe its time to offer your plan---but realize from step one---what you call the bad guys may not buy in.----an if you have nothing but counterfeit currency they won't take--your
plan is doomed also.
 

strummer

Senior member
Feb 1, 2006
208
0
0
Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: preCRT
Originally posted by: bobdelt
I still don't understand why any of you would rather forfeit than try to win. We arent losing, but we arent winning. Why quit in a tie.

I thought he spoke well and explained his reasonings quite well.

WTF are you drinking/smoking?

There is nothing to win and thousands of more American lives to lose...for NOTHING.
That jackass did everything he could to keep his own butt safe during Viet Nam & yet he thinks nothing over risking another 20,000 American lives over nothing.

I guess regional stability and Afghanistan on steroids doesn't matter to you, because that's what Iraq will be if we leave. Who cares about middle east stability though, they only have the most important commodity in the world which drives our economy...no biggie though. We have nothing to lose by leaving, I gotcha.


First - we told you that Bush was going to F'up Iraq and the ME at the start of this whole fiasco. By invading Iraq, Bush empowered the Iranians (i.e the Shi'ites) and he did so by choice. It doesn't get any dumber than that.

Second - It is not our oil, they can do with it what they please. They can sell it or sit on it - it is their choice. Might does not make right. At least you seem to be admitting what those of us in reality already knew long ago - that being that Iraq was always about oil...no matter how many bullshit times we hear about AQ or Democracy or any of the other reasons for invading du jour from the criminally incompetent Bush regime. So what that means is that you are essentially admitting that Bush lied us into a war.

Finally, before the diehard idiots on the right start clamoring for an attack on Iran - know that we (i.e the smart Americans) are telling you right now that gas will go to 5 dollars a gallon overnight. We can not attack Iran without being able to control the land approaches to the Strait of Hormuz. It would take a half million pairs of boots on the ground to do that. So go ahead and attack Iran - the Democrats will have super majorities in both the House and Senate to go along with their Presidency in 2008. Then the smart people can start fixing all the fuckups that Bush and his rightwing wacko foot soldiers have unleased on the country in the last 5 years.

Oh and BTW - happiest guy in the ME tonight is OBL. That guy couldn't have asked for more than Bush has given him in the last 5 years.
 

Gamingphreek

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
11,679
0
81
with necessary STEP ONE getting GWB impeached or out of the decision making loop.

Well that isn't going to happen because he has not clearly broken any laws. You may be able to stretch the truth, or by your own opinions have him breaking the law, but the fact remains he has done nothing wrong. Unpopular to many, Yes. Against many, Yes.

After that it must go to the UN and regional players to offer the additional troops necessary to stabilize Iraq

I believe we have done that and France, among others, refuses to support it.

not only is your memory short

Again with the personal insults. Come on, I haven't insulted you yet! Why do you have to use them as a crutch that instead of strengthening your argument detracts from it.

this is GWB's last chance---and from what he is talking---he is still stuck on stupid---and all the political spin you or GWB&co. can offer to now blame democrats---a failed plan plus 10% will not get it.----------it was doomed from the start---because it was phony from the start. Its no longer about diverting political blame---its about avoiding more bloodshed and repairing the damage a clueless thief and idiot named GWB&co. caused.

Ok so your plan is to impeach Bush, and run to the UN. And in the quoted paragraph/thing you again fall back to the overused "We shouldn't have been in there in the first place" argument.

Maybe its time to offer your plan---but realize from step one---what you call the bad guys may not buy in.

Certainly I will offer my strategy. But before I do let me start out by saying I do not know all of the intricate Foreign Relations topics you guys know (I only a Freshman in College) so I apologize in advance:
1. Stop messing around with sending little bunches of troops in and send a bunch in (We should have done this from the start) with designated targets
2. Advise the Iraqi government to set strict curfews (For the time being) and to not tolerate any misconduct (Granted this is probably already in effect)
3. Draw out a realistic (Slightly flexible) time line with goals at each step of the way
4. Assuming I am President Bush, reassure the nation that I am deeply sorry for the lives lost and wish there was a quick solution...but there isn't
5. Continue negotiations with the UN asking for support
6. Drop the Political mess that can't seem to stop finger pointing long enough to put forth their own ideas (By drop, I mean to tell both sides to grow up...childish, yes; but as the President he should reassure both sides and reiterate that he is willing to listen, with an open mind, to any of their suggestions.
7. Most definitely not pull out of Iraq

-Kevin

 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,574
7,637
136
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: mc00
basically like I said before is going to be endless battle. what make you think by us stay course is going prevent terrorist? how you sure of that? ok let say iraq become democratic country.. terrorist will find another place to plan their attack on us, so than we go invade another country so all over again.
The terrorists will TRY and find another country. However, look at the results in Somalia, worked real good for them there huh?
The best way to combat this is for the entire world to get involved in shutting down these types of governments, but most of Europe is worthless. They need their own 9-11 type attack before any of them will wake up.

Madrid, London, they?ve had their smaller scale attacks. France?s cars have burned every single night for the last year. Europe?s problem is that in Brittan the #1 name for boys last year was Mohamed. Their Islamic immigrants are replacing the Europeans in their own home and now that they?re the majority of the maternity ward the only thing between Europe and Islamic rule are a hundred years for the current population to die off and their descendants named Mohamed to replace them.

That is Europe?s problem.
 

LcarsSystem

Senior member
Mar 13, 2006
691
0
0
Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Really? All I hear on the news is republicans crying about how everyone will be murdered if we were to leave and how it would throw the country into even more chaos, I don't like the whole republican reasoning for this war it is inherently flawed. They change their reasoning with no regard for consistentcy, first we are there for the WMD's and to remove Saddam, when we didn't find any wmd's we now become the world's humanitarians thus have a new excuse for being there; to help them. Oh and now add oil in there to by Bush's own admission, which he denied at the beginning as a reason for being there to begin with.

Bush accepted full responsibility for this. It is time to push aside the "we shouldn't be there" argument and ask yourself what you think we should do to solve the problem (Whether you support it or not it is a problem now- By saying we shouldn't be there in the first place gets us no where but more bickering).

It is unfortunate that our own military service men and women's lives were condemned the moment we entered this foolish war, but that does not mean we should condemn more? Like I said, I don't care anymore, we shouldn't be there so leave, let them deal with THEIR own mess. It makes no difference if they kill eachother, all I want is our troops home. Do you really believe any american cared about Iraqi's lives before this war? Why would they care now?

So you would feel fine insulting those who lost their lives' memory by pulling out and essentially undoing everything we have just done.

Furthermore, you don't care that a few thousand miles away people are dying by the thousands. To the average Iraqi it isn't there problem, why should they have to deal with it? The terrorists are the ones causing problems, not the Iraqi citizens.

Also, you said they should deal with it. With what means should they deal with it then? They have a developing government, virtually no police and army as of right now. By what means should they deal with it?

It is selfish is you believe that one life is any more important than another when we are all fighting towards the same thing. The Iraqis don't want to kill people any more than we do, but the terrorists are on their doorstep. A life of our soldier over there is the same as the life of an Iraqi citizen. It is downplayed because of the sheer amount of Iraqi's that have lost their lives for any plethora of reasons.

As for your last question? I certainly hope you are wrong. I certainly hope that the troops in our army had at least a shred of compassion towards what those people experience everyday.

-Kevin

Ok first off, you ignore the fact that I am done bickering yet try to pin it on me. I don't care, I honestly don't, if they live that's great, if they die, that's their own fault and is of no consequence to me. Do you hold a daily vigil for everyone that is going to die that day? Do you think at some point of the day about all the people who died and weep for them? Of course you don't, I'd be suprised if any sane person did, the fact is, is that American's just like everyone else on this planet are selfish, and we have no goal and no objective for being there.

And to think you dare try to insinuate that I am somehow insulting the troops by wanting them to leave, that is nothing but a republican talking point propagated on the FOX NEWS channel. I have military service men in my own family, it is an insult to keep them there, I have deep respect for those who put on the uniform, that's why I want them home out of harms way. I would be in the military right now if it wasn't for my medical condition which disqualifies me fom joining. Do you not think it's an insult for the troops themselves and the families of our troops to have to buy body armor because we don't have enough money or supplies to do it ourselves?


If your former reasoning is how you feel then what do you have to say about the hundreds of thousands of civilian lives lost under the Bush Administration's handling of this war? OBL killed around 3,000 American's. This war has killed far more and they weren't even associated with the 9/11 attacks. Do you still feel this war was justified?
 

Gamingphreek

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
11,679
0
81
First - we told you that Bush was going to F'up Iraq and the ME at the start of this whole fiasco. By invading Iraq, Bush empowered the Iranians (i.e the Shi'ites) and he did so by choice. It doesn't get any dumber than that.

Not sure what you are getting at there, sorry.

Second - It is not our oil, they can do with it what they please. They can sell it or sit on it - it is their choice. Might does not make right. At least you seem to be admitting what those of us in reality already knew long ago - that being that Iraq was always about oil...no matter how many bullshit times we hear about AQ or Democracy or any of the other reasons for invading du jour from the criminally incompetent Bush regime. So what that means is that you are essentially admitting that Bush lied us into a war.

Whether we went in for Oil or not it is your opinion. Only Bush will ever know exactly why.

However, let me reiterate that we told Iraq they could have full control over the Oil Fields. Iraq however wishes for us to retain control over them. Again whether this was by some sort of Coercion is up to you to decide.

And then you just end a somewhat decent argument with a personal insult that essentially detracts from your previous statements (Many of which IMO had plenty of merit and needed to be addressed).

Finally, before the diehard idiots on the right start clamoring for an attack on Iran - know that we (i.e the smart Americans) are telling you right now that gas will go to 5 dollars a gallon overnight. We can not attack Iran without being able to control the land approaches to the Strait of Hormuz. It would take a half million pairs of boots on the ground to do that. So go ahead and attack Iran - the Democrats will have super majorities in both the House and Senate to go along with their Presidency in 2008. Then the smart people can start fixing all the fuckups that Bush and his rightwing wacko foot soldiers have unleased on the country in the last 5 years.

There you go leading off a very very intelligent argument with a personal insult :disgust:

If we were to plan any sort of assault on Iran it should be aerial, and we should have the full backing of the UN.

And then you end your argument with more ad hominem arguments....

Oh and BTW - happiest guy in the ME tonight is OBL. That guy couldn't have asked for more than Bush has given him in the last 5 years.

You know-
A. Constantly on the run
B. Having his base of operations destroyed (From what we can see)
C. Having his insurgents and supporters around the world constantly under cross hairs and constantly kill
-Don't exactly spell out happiness.

-Kevin
 

SketchMaster

Diamond Member
Feb 23, 2005
3,100
149
116
Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
This is the most hopeless liberal forum in existence

I find it interesting that none of the Liberals in this thread have managed to respond to ProfJohn's question. So I'll restate it:

What do you feel we should do?

Don't give some political BS answer like "We shouldn't have been there in the first place"....Right now, "What do you feel our plan should be in Iraq"

Answer!

We pull out and tell them that we will drop a huge crate full of guns and ammo in a random spot and tell them where it is, who ever can get to it first gets to keep it.

But really the only thing in it is Hillary Clinton and Jack Thompson. One way or another, the USA will be rid of one of it's problems.
 

Gamingphreek

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
11,679
0
81
Ok first off, you ignore the fact that I am done bickering yet try to pin it on me. I don't care, I honestly don't, if they live that's great, if they die, that's their own fault and is of no consequence to me. Do you hold a daily vigil for everyone that is going to die that day? Do you think at some point of the day about all the people who died and weep for them? Of course you don't I'd be suprised if any sane person did, the fact is, is that American's just like everyone else on this planet are selfish, and we have no goal, no objective for being there.

I do not have to express physical sorrow in order to be disturbed by all the deaths that have occurred over there. Using a rash generalization, that all Americans feel that way further discredits that argument.

And to think you dare try to insinuate that I am somehow insulting the troops by wanting them to leave, that is nothing but a republican talking point propagated on the FOX NEWS channel. I have military service men in my own family, it is an insult to keep them there, I have deep respect for those who put on the uniform, that's why I want them home out of harms way. I woulud be in the military right now if it wasn't for my medical condition which disqualifies me fom joining. Do you not think it is an insult for the troops themselves and the families of our troops to have to buy body armor because we don't have enough money or supplies to do it ourselves?

Don't say that I insulted you in anyway. As I have said a thousand times earlier in this thread, I hate death and destruction as much as you do. I am deeply sorry you have to have loved ones over there and I wish them the very best! (2 of my friends fathers are serving there right now...certainly not as close as family but I would prefer if you did not make me out to be some sort of detached, heartless person)

By pulling out troops we have right now we are damning everything we have done over there. Everything the troops that died for will be gone in a matter of weeks. So basically their deaths will be in vain because by withdrawing we will have undone what they sacrificed to do.

I want the other soldiers home as much as everyone else does. Unfortunately, as I said earlier, by withdrawing our troops that have not died we:
A. Insult the memory of those who have already died
B. Condemn those people who are not insurgents in Iraq
C. Condemn all that we have worked for these past years

As for the last point, that is the media saying that. Do you have any evidence that the army cannot afford to equip and arm their soldiers??

f your former reasoning is how you feel then what do you have to say about the hundreds of thousands of civilian lives lost under the Bush Administration's handling of this war? OBL killed around 3,000 American's. This war has killed far more and they weren't even associated with the 9/11 attacks. Do you still feel this war was justified?

I am deeply saddened about the civilian casualties. But you most certainly cannot blame us for them. We are not over there purposely shooting civilians down in the streets.

Answer this: Are we over there with the direct order to shoot civilians?

(Even though you haven't given a counter point yet, I will just continue my argument for the sake of conciseness).
The insurgents, the extremists, the terrorists are the ones who are killing the innocent.

Do I think this war could have been handled better...absolutely I do. But I believe it was said in an article not too too long ago: "Civilized people cannot fathom, much less predict, the actions of evil people".

-Kevin
 

mc00

Senior member
Jan 25, 2005
277
0
0
Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
with necessary STEP ONE getting GWB impeached or out of the decision making loop.

Well that isn't going to happen because he has not clearly broken any laws. You may be able to stretch the truth, or by your own opinions have him breaking the law, but the fact remains he has done nothing wrong. Unpopular to many, Yes. Against many, Yes.

After that it must go to the UN and regional players to offer the additional troops necessary to stabilize Iraq

I believe we have done that and France, among others, refuses to support it.

not only is your memory short

Again with the personal insults. Come on, I haven't insulted you yet! Why do you have to use them as a crutch that instead of strengthening your argument detracts from it.

this is GWB's last chance---and from what he is talking---he is still stuck on stupid---and all the political spin you or GWB&co. can offer to now blame democrats---a failed plan plus 10% will not get it.----------it was doomed from the start---because it was phony from the start. Its no longer about diverting political blame---its about avoiding more bloodshed and repairing the damage a clueless thief and idiot named GWB&co. caused.

Ok so your plan is to impeach Bush, and run to the UN. And in the quoted paragraph/thing you again fall back to the overused "We shouldn't have been in there in the first place" argument.

Maybe its time to offer your plan---but realize from step one---what you call the bad guys may not buy in.

Certainly I will offer my strategy. But before I do let me start out by saying I do not know all of the intricate Foreign Relations topics you guys know (I only a Freshman in College) so I apologize in advance:
1. Stop messing around with sending little bunches of troops in and send a bunch in (We should have done this from the start) with designated targets
2. Advise the Iraqi government to set strict curfews (For the time being) and to not tolerate any misconduct (Granted this is probably already in effect)
3. Draw out a realistic (Slightly flexible) time line with goals at each step of the way
4. Assuming I am President Bush, reassure the nation that I am deeply sorry for the lives lost and wish there was a quick solution...but there isn't
5. Continue negotiations with the UN asking for support
6. Drop the Political mess that can't seem to stop finger pointing long enough to put forth their own ideas (By drop, I mean to tell both sides to grow up...childish, yes; but as the President he should reassure both sides and reiterate that he is willing to listen, with an open mind, to any of their suggestions.
7. Most definitely not pull out of Iraq

-Kevin

I agree with all 6 except 7 I'm not going to keep paying for this war but I still stay firmly with my believe this won't stop terrorist just because we converter IRAQ to democracy(if we could).. instead come home and protect our own asses.. like someone said they could get nuke well who stupid enough sell it to them? if they do that mean end of world for all us because U.S won't sit back get nuked.. if you want to be world police than do with your money and your follower leave my tax money alone and instead spend on my country and have gun ready if some power hungry wanna mess with us.
 

Gamingphreek

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
11,679
0
81
I agree with all 6 except 7 I'm not going to keep paying for this war but I still stay firmly with my believe this won't stop terrorist just because we converter IRAQ to democracy(if we could).. instead come home and protect our own asses.. like someone said they could get nuke well who stupid enough sell it to them? if they do that mean end of world for all us because U.S won't sit back get nuked.. if you want to be world police than do with your money and your follower leave my tax money alone and instead spend on my country and have gun ready if some power hungry wanna mess with us.

I'm happy that at least one person, for the most part, believes my plan isn't complete rubbish. (This is the first time I have posted about my plan so no one else has had the chance. But posting around you guys who know so much more about world politics than I do is hard to do)

To each is own on that one, but just know what will happen if we pull out of Iraq. Also know that if a government is set up in Iraq, and order is at least partially restored, the terrorist will have a WHOLE HELLUVA lot harder time setting up camp there (By setting up camp I mean Base of operations, corrupting government, launching attacks etc...).

-Kevin
 

dbk

Lifer
Apr 23, 2004
17,694
10
81
Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
I agree with all 6 except 7 I'm not going to keep paying for this war but I still stay firmly with my believe this won't stop terrorist just because we converter IRAQ to democracy(if we could).. instead come home and protect our own asses.. like someone said they could get nuke well who stupid enough sell it to them? if they do that mean end of world for all us because U.S won't sit back get nuked.. if you want to be world police than do with your money and your follower leave my tax money alone and instead spend on my country and have gun ready if some power hungry wanna mess with us.

I'm happy that at least one person, for the most part, believes my plan isn't complete rubbish. (This is the first time I have posted about my plan so no one else has had the chance. But posting around you guys who know so much more about world politics than I do is hard to do)

To each is own on that one, but just know what will happen if we pull out of Iraq. Also know that if a government is set up in Iraq, and order is at least partially restored, the terrorist will have a WHOLE HELLUVA lot harder time setting up camp there (By setting up camp I mean Base of operations, corrupting government, launching attacks etc...).

-Kevin

I thought they were no terrorists there before we attacked Iraq. Didn't they only come over after we started our operation? I guess the media is lying about that.
 

Gamingphreek

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
11,679
0
81
Originally posted by: dbk
Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
I agree with all 6 except 7 I'm not going to keep paying for this war but I still stay firmly with my believe this won't stop terrorist just because we converter IRAQ to democracy(if we could).. instead come home and protect our own asses.. like someone said they could get nuke well who stupid enough sell it to them? if they do that mean end of world for all us because U.S won't sit back get nuked.. if you want to be world police than do with your money and your follower leave my tax money alone and instead spend on my country and have gun ready if some power hungry wanna mess with us.

I'm happy that at least one person, for the most part, believes my plan isn't complete rubbish. (This is the first time I have posted about my plan so no one else has had the chance. But posting around you guys who know so much more about world politics than I do is hard to do)

To each is own on that one, but just know what will happen if we pull out of Iraq. Also know that if a government is set up in Iraq, and order is at least partially restored, the terrorist will have a WHOLE HELLUVA lot harder time setting up camp there (By setting up camp I mean Base of operations, corrupting government, launching attacks etc...).

-Kevin

I thought they were no terrorists there before we attacked Iraq. Didn't they only come over after we started our operation? I guess the media is lying about that.

Are you kidding? Iraq was riddled with terrorists and insurgents. Thousands of terrorists didn't suddenly migrate (All undetected) into the country while we were attacking.

-Kevin
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Anyone who does not believe that GWB is an international war criminal by any definition is delusional---that and the fact the he clearly brags of violating some 750 US laws cannot escape the rational--and openly states the the US Constitution is but a scrap of paper. It took almost two years to prove Nixon was guilty of obstruction of justice---it will take five minutes to prove GWB is already guilty of high crimes and mis-demeanors in spades.---we just lack the political will to do the what history will demand of us.
 

strummer

Senior member
Feb 1, 2006
208
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Can anyone tell me the Democrat plan for Iraq?

If we withdraw what is their plan if Iraq collapses into a non-nation like Somalia and becomes a terrorist hot bed, like Somalia?

Or what happens if this Shia-Sunni battle escalated with Jordan and Saudi Arabia on one side and Syria Iran on the other?

Outside of complain complain complain what, if any, plan do the Democrats have?



First - Syria is not Shi'ite dominated. Quite the opposite. This may be a little difficult to believe since BushCo always lumps them in Iran - Bush makes it seem like they are cohorts with the Iranians.

To the extent that Syria is messing around, it is probably an attempt to gain negogiating leverage to get the Golan Heights back from Israel. To me (and the UN) that is a no brainer. With Israel's nuclear capabilities now, there is no excuse for them to stick by the farcical notion that they need the Golan Height's as a buffer from a potential agressor state. We should be pressing Israel to give back the Golan Heights in exchange for the Syrians to shut down their border and prevent Syrian Sunnis from providing financial support for the insurgents. They are just as afraid of the Shi'ites as the Saudi's. They may have had an uneasy relationship with Iran (that developed because of the Iranians backing of Hezzbollah), but that has always been a case of "the enemy of my enemy", rather than an alignment of deeply held politcal or religous sentiments.

So - back to your original question - We should be negogiating with the Syrians. They just want their original territory back. I also think that if we pulled out tomorrow, the Syrians would crack down on their border in a heartbeat. Again they are no more interested in having a Shi'ite superpower as a neighbor as the Suadi's are.

We should also be negogiating with the Iranians. It is going to be a long term process for sure. We have absolutely no leverage over them and they will become nuclear capable. It is inevitable. So as soon as you accept that that is the reality, we can go forward. By isolating Iran we only make it more difficult to have the moderate elements of that country take power. Here in what is another ******-up consequence of the Iraq war, we have set that moderation movement in Iran back considerably. Moderation will come through emerging capitalism and cultural adaptation.

So bring everybody to the table. A multinational, integrated Persian and Arab peacekeeping force (with maybe a NATO force - without Turks - in the Kurdish north) will certainly be better than an American force. Do you think the Saudi's would let their nationals financial support for the Iraq insurgency continue if there were a couple brigades of Saudi's standing at post in Baghdad? One group of people who wouldn't be happy with something like this would be Exxon-Mobil, BP et al who thought they were going to control the Iraqi oil resource. Another group of people who wouldn't be happy are the neocons who want to have a permanent American military presence on Israeli's northern flank.

Follow the recommendations of the Baker - Hamilton report - that is what Democrats say. Find a diplomatic solution, for a political problem.

 

strummer

Senior member
Feb 1, 2006
208
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Do you think us Republicans are sitting back and enjoying the nightly body counts or the seemingly endless nature of this war?
Stay the course. If you don't - you're a freedom hater. Don't you want to be a freedom lover?


I get the feeling that if we leave Iraq tomorrow everyone losses, except the terrorists.


Someone said it upthread - but the insurgency is overwhelmingly Iraqi. AQ in Iraq (terrorists) is a very small percentage. Not that you would know that from the way BushCo presents it, but that is the fact.
 

strummer

Senior member
Feb 1, 2006
208
0
0
Originally posted by: Jamie571
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: bobdelt
I still don't understand why any of you would rather forfeit than try to win. We aren?t losing, but we aren?t winning. Why quit in a tie.

I thought he spoke well and explained his reasonings quite well.

Please offer up your own life then I will listen to you. This is not chess. These are human lives. WTF is wrong with you people.


Also the comments in this thread that ridicule the president and other no real alternative (which is over 85%) shows why the average IQ in America is around 100. Think of the shear amount of intelligence and military advice from hundreds of highly qualified people that is offered to the president to make his decisions.


Where was that advice from the "highly qualified" people in the run up to the war. You know the advice that said - "HEY George we are going to remove a natural counterweight to Iranian ambitions...Why exactedly are we doing this?"

Probably the most tragic case of group think in American history.
 

mc00

Senior member
Jan 25, 2005
277
0
0
Originally posted by: strummer
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Can anyone tell me the Democrat plan for Iraq?

If we withdraw what is their plan if Iraq collapses into a non-nation like Somalia and becomes a terrorist hot bed, like Somalia?

Or what happens if this Shia-Sunni battle escalated with Jordan and Saudi Arabia on one side and Syria Iran on the other?

Outside of complain complain complain what, if any, plan do the Democrats have?



First - Syria is not Shi'ite dominated. Quite the opposite. This may be a little difficult to believe since BushCo always lumps them in Iran - Bush makes it seem like they are cohorts with the Iranians.

To the extent that Syria is messing around, it is probably an attempt to gain negogiating leverage to get the Golan Heights back from Israel. To me (and the UN) that is a no brainer. With Israel's nuclear capabilities now, there is no excuse for them to stick by the farcical notion that they need the Golan Height's as a buffer from a potential agressor state. We should be pressing Israel to give back the Golan Heights in exchange for the Syrians to shut down their border and prevent Syrian Sunnis from providing financial support for the insurgents. They are just as afraid of the Shi'ites as the Saudi's. They may have had an uneasy relationship with Iran (that developed because of the Iranians backing of Hezzbollah), but that has always been a case of "the enemy of my enemy", rather than an alignment of deeply held politcal or religous sentiments.

So - back to your original question - We should be negogiating with the Syrians. They just want their original territory back. I also think that if we pulled out tomorrow, the Syrians would crack down on their border in a heartbeat. Again they are no more interested in having a Shi'ite superpower as a neighbor as the Suadi's are.

We should also be negogiating with the Iranians. It is going to be a long term process for sure. We have absolutely no leverage over them and they will become nuclear capable. It is inevitable. So as soon as you accept that that is the reality, we can go forward. By isolating Iran we only make it more difficult to have the moderate elements of that country take power. Here in what is another ******-up consequence of the Iraq war, we have set that moderation movement in Iran back considerably. Moderation will come through emerging capitalism and cultural adaptation.

So bring everybody to the table. A multinational, integrated Persian and Arab peacekeeping force (with maybe a NATO force - without Turks - in the Kurdish north) will certainly be better than an American force. Do you think the Saudi's would let their nationals financial support for the Iraq insurgency continue if there were a couple brigades of Saudi's standing at post in Baghdad? One group of people who wouldn't be happy with something like this would be Exxon-Mobil, BP et al who thought they were going to control the Iraqi oil resource. Another group of people who wouldn't be happy are the neocons who want to have a permanent American military presence on Israeli's northern flank.

Follow the recommendations of the Baker - Hamilton report - that is what Democrats say. Find a diplomatic solution, for a political problem.

this sound good to me.. and reasonable too.
 

strummer

Senior member
Feb 1, 2006
208
0
0
Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
This is the most hopeless liberal forum in existence

I find it interesting that none of the Liberals in this thread have managed to respond to ProfJohn's question. So I'll restate it:

What do you feel we should do?

Don't give some political BS answer like "We shouldn't have been there in the first place"....Right now, "What do you feel our plan should be in Iraq"

Answer!



How's this for a Democratic plan -- Everybody between the ages of 20 and 30 who still supports this inane tragedy (i.e. Operation Iraqi Liberation), and want to see more tragedy (i.e. more death), are required to enlist in the Army or Marines. Then we can put true believers who won't care that they are making a futile sacrifice on every single corner of every single street in Baghdad.

Sounds like a good plan to me.
 

Gamingphreek

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
11,679
0
81
Originally posted by: strummer
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Can anyone tell me the Democrat plan for Iraq?

If we withdraw what is their plan if Iraq collapses into a non-nation like Somalia and becomes a terrorist hot bed, like Somalia?

Or what happens if this Shia-Sunni battle escalated with Jordan and Saudi Arabia on one side and Syria Iran on the other?

Outside of complain complain complain what, if any, plan do the Democrats have?



First - Syria is not Shi'ite dominated. Quite the opposite. This may be a little difficult to believe since BushCo always lumps them in Iran - Bush makes it seem like they are cohorts with the Iranians.

To the extent that Syria is messing around, it is probably an attempt to gain negogiating leverage to get the Golan Heights back from Israel. To me (and the UN) that is a no brainer. With Israel's nuclear capabilities now, there is no excuse for them to stick by the farcical notion that they need the Golan Height's as a buffer from a potential agressor state. We should be pressing Israel to give back the Golan Heights in exchange for the Syrians to shut down their border and prevent Syrian Sunnis from providing financial support for the insurgents. They are just as afraid of the Shi'ites as the Saudi's. They may have had an uneasy relationship with Iran (that developed because of the Iranians backing of Hezzbollah), but that has always been a case of "the enemy of my enemy", rather than an alignment of deeply held politcal or religous sentiments.

So - back to your original question - We should be negogiating with the Syrians. They just want their original territory back. I also think that if we pulled out tomorrow, the Syrians would crack down on their border in a heartbeat. Again they are no more interested in having a Shi'ite superpower as a neighbor as the Suadi's are.

We should also be negogiating with the Iranians. It is going to be a long term process for sure. We have absolutely no leverage over them and they will become nuclear capable. It is inevitable. So as soon as you accept that that is the reality, we can go forward. By isolating Iran we only make it more difficult to have the moderate elements of that country take power. Here in what is another ******-up consequence of the Iraq war, we have set that moderation movement in Iran back considerably. Moderation will come through emerging capitalism and cultural adaptation.

So bring everybody to the table. A multinational, integrated Persian and Arab peacekeeping force (with maybe a NATO force - without Turks - in the Kurdish north) will certainly be better than an American force. Do you think the Saudi's would let their nationals financial support for the Iraq insurgency continue if there were a couple brigades of Saudi's standing at post in Baghdad? One group of people who wouldn't be happy with something like this would be Exxon-Mobil, BP et al who thought they were going to control the Iraqi oil resource. Another group of people who wouldn't be happy are the neocons who want to have a permanent American military presence on Israeli's northern flank.

Follow the recommendations of the Baker - Hamilton report - that is what Democrats say. Find a diplomatic solution, for a political problem.

Very sound argument. And I agree that we should find a diplomatic solution if at all possible.

I agree that we need to continue (or start, I am not sure what we have done about Syria) negotiations with Syria and certainly not use military power.

As for Iran, I believe we certainly do need to seek diplomatic ways, however you do need to remember that Iran is governed by a religious extremist/terrorist body. We need to, with the UN's help order them to halt Nuclear production and try to find a peaceful means.

If it is imminent; however, that they will attain Nuclear status, we do need to bomb their facilities with conventional bombs from our stealth aircraft. Actual military presence should be avoided at all costs.

The problem with an international peacekeeping for is that no one supports it outside of us and a few other nations. By all means continue attempting to get UN/NATO backing as well as try to unite some of the few ME nations; but I wouldn't count on it succeeding unfortunately.

I honestly wish I could discuss this further, but I simply do not know enough about Foreign Policy and each groups goals and demographics.

-Kevin
 

LcarsSystem

Senior member
Mar 13, 2006
691
0
0
Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Ok first off, you ignore the fact that I am done bickering yet try to pin it on me. I don't care, I honestly don't, if they live that's great, if they die, that's their own fault and is of no consequence to me. Do you hold a daily vigil for everyone that is going to die that day? Do you think at some point of the day about all the people who died and weep for them? Of course you don't I'd be suprised if any sane person did, the fact is, is that American's just like everyone else on this planet are selfish, and we have no goal, no objective for being there.

I do not have to express physical sorrow in order to be disturbed by all the deaths that have occurred over there. Using a rash generalization, that all Americans feel that way further discredits that argument.

That's what it was, and I still bet most American's don't care about Iraqi's and I'll stand by that, as I've said time and time gain. American's care about American pride, to think most care for the Iraqi's is delusional thinking.

And to think you dare try to insinuate that I am somehow insulting the troops by wanting them to leave, that is nothing but a republican talking point propagated on the FOX NEWS channel. I have military service men in my own family, it is an insult to keep them there, I have deep respect for those who put on the uniform, that's why I want them home out of harms way. I woulud be in the military right now if it wasn't for my medical condition which disqualifies me fom joining. Do you not think it is an insult for the troops themselves and the families of our troops to have to buy body armor because we don't have enough money or supplies to do it ourselves?

Don't say that I insulted you in anyway. As I have said a thousand times earlier in this thread, I hate death and destruction as much as you do. I am deeply sorry you have to have loved ones over there and I wish them the very best! (2 of my friends fathers are serving there right now...certainly not as close as family but I would prefer if you did not make me out to be some sort of detached, heartless person)

If I read what you were trying to say wrong, I am sorry, I was wrong, but to insinuate I am fine with it, as being an insult is wrong in itself. You have to ask yourself though, when does it end? It will never end because their country and culture is untenable.

By pulling out troops we have right now we are damning everything we have done over there. Everything the troops that died for will be gone in a matter of weeks. So basically their deaths will be in vain because by withdrawing we will have undone what they sacrificed to do.

Vietnam was the same, we have to swallow our pride, this war is unwinable, you can't win the WoT because terrorism itself is a tatic, an idea, a way to instill an idealogy, you can't defeat an idea or idealogy. We can supress it however, and the terrorists in Iraq will follow the U.S. wherever it goes, so let's move out of Iraq and finish up what we were doing in Afghanistan which I supported. Enough of this fake humanitarianism, and nationbuilding crap. If I appear heartless in any of this then so be it, I am just saying what many people I know fear to say.

I want the other soldiers home as much as everyone else does. Unfortunately, as I said earlier, by withdrawing our troops that have not died we:
A. Insult the memory of those who have already died
B. Condemn those people who are not insurgents in Iraq
C. Condemn all that we have worked for these past years

As for the last point, that is the media saying that. Do you have any evidence that the army cannot afford to equip and arm their soldiers??

Uhhh it's a well known fact many families have had to buy body armor for their loved ones in harms way. In fact I remember seeing a story on CNN.com I believe that said the Pentagon was voicing disapproval and sending out an official memo because of this. Mentioning reasoning like, it wasn't right the kind of body armor or something, it was awhile ago, however any body armor is better than no body armor at all.

f your former reasoning is how you feel then what do you have to say about the hundreds of thousands of civilian lives lost under the Bush Administration's handling of this war? OBL killed around 3,000 American's. This war has killed far more and they weren't even associated with the 9/11 attacks. Do you still feel this war was justified?

I am deeply saddened about the civilian casualties. But you most certainly cannot blame us for them. We are not over there purposely shooting civilians down in the streets.

Answer this: Are we over there with the direct order to shoot civilians?

No, but intent does not negate the fact that it happened. This war would have my support and most of the countries if it was somehow justified, but it isn't. What do you say to the man who lost his son because he was caught in a crossfire? A man whose country was invaded their sovereign leader deposed and his world turned upside down. And American's wonder why today we are so hated throughout the world. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and Bush is certainly going to his special little corner if hell does indeed exist.

(Even though you haven't given a counter point yet, I will just continue my argument for the sake of conciseness).
The insurgents, the extremists, the terrorists are the ones who are killing the innocent.

Do I think this war could have been handled better...absolutely I do. But I believe it was said in an article not too too long ago: "Civilized people cannot fathom, much less predict, the actions of evil people".


-Kevin

 

strummer

Senior member
Feb 1, 2006
208
0
0
Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Originally posted by: mc00
Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
This is the most hopeless liberal forum in existence

I find it interesting that none of the Liberals in this thread have managed to respond to ProfJohn's question. So I'll restate it:

What do you feel we should do?

Don't give some political BS answer like "We shouldn't have been there in the first place"....Right now, "What do you feel our plan should be in Iraq"

Answer!

I may not have answer to current issue.. sure, hell if I had solution to our current issue wouldn't include more solider lives.. I realize you the supporter of this chaos, prefer stay the course so yah won't look like coward for leaving and thinking the terrorist won, well we can't wipe them neither, there always going to be terrorist and no way in hell by our self are going destroy them all. so go head keep dumping money/solider life to your beloved war on terror/freedom to world adventures.

Its not my beloved war. I hate more as much as anyone, but unless you have a better suggestion, pulling out will essentially be saying "Screw all the lives we have lost and any progress"

-Kevin



Forget about the lives already sacrificed. They are a sunken cost and should have no bearing on the future.
 

strummer

Senior member
Feb 1, 2006
208
0
0
Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Not only that, Liberals are constantly complaining about the bloodshed of Iraqi's. So if we pull out and end our troops bloodshed you don't care about any of the other countless thousands that will die as a result of our selfishness?

-Kevin

You consider your life more important then those who are serving?

Of course you do. It gives you a platform to keep whining about libs.....

I don't believe I have ever said that, nor will I ever.

I said if we pull out of Iraq it will be an insult to the memories of those who have already lost their lives, and it will condemn the Iraqi's to further turmoil as their newly formed Government undergoes a full collapse.

Here ya go, Kevin....

You can be part of GWB's 20,000...

Sorry, my purpose in life is not the Army. (If I had to choose it would be ROTC Air Force btw). I can do a whole lot more for this country by working based on my strengths. I'm in college and intend to stay there.

-Kevin


So you're all for paying the ultimate sacrifice as long as someone else is doing the paying?
 

Gamingphreek

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
11,679
0
81
That's what it was, and I still bet most American's don't care about Iraqi's and I'll stand by that, as I've said time and time gain. American's care about American pride, to think most care for the Iraqi's is delusional thinking.

I am not so naieve to believe that most American's do care that much, but not all of us are as heartless as you have made it out to be.

Vietnam was the same, we have to swallow our pride, this war is unwinable, you can't win the WoT because terrorism itself is a tatic, an idea, a way to instill an idealogy, you can't defeat an idea or idealogy. We can supress it however, and the terrorists in Iraq will follow the U.S. wherever it goes, so let's move out of Iraq and finish up what we were doing in Afghanistan which I supported. Enough of this fake humanitarianism, and nationbuilding crap. If I appear heartless in any of this then so be it, I am just saying what many people I know fear to say.

I agree with your first half. The second half however, is where I have to disagree. Terrorism will follow anyone who is against their views. The individual terrorists do not pick up and follow our country's armed forces. Those who are in Iraq fighting us right now will be there if we were to leave ready and waiting to begin the downward spiral of a developing nation.

Uhhh it's a well known fact many families have had to buy body armor for their loved ones in harms way. In fact I remember seeing a story on CNN.com I believe that said the Pentagon was voicing disapproval and sending out an official memo because of this. Mentioning reasoning like, it wasn't right the kind of body armor or something, it was awhile ago, however any body armor is better than no body armor at all.

Im sorry, but I have to say that is a weak argument. If you have evidence (CNN may be liberal but they cannot outright lie) by all means post it and I will most certainly offer you my apologies and add that to my list of mistakes with the war.

No, but intent does not negate the fact that it happened. This war would have my support and most of the countries if it was somehow justified, but it isn't. What do you say to the man who lost his son because he was caught in a crossfire? A man whose country was invaded their sovereign leader deposed and his world turned upside down. And American's wonder why today we are so hated throughout the world.

Well it is justified from my point of view. I'm not naieve enough to believe that our intentions were 100% pure over there (ie: There was some economic goals) but Saddam, while not allies with Saddam was harboring terrorists in his country. He had already proven to be unstable (Invasion of Iraq), he was guilty of Genocide (Kurds)...he needed to be removed. The same could be said about other leaders in the nations yes and something needs to be done about them (**Note: I am in no way suggesting military action be taken**)

The man who lost his son...Well I am deeply sorry. We can only be so careful over there. Simply ceasing fire in the middle of a gun fight will get not only them killed but ourselves as well. If there were a way where we could destroy the insurgents without hurting the innocent civilians I am certain we would use it.

As for the sovereign country. You cannot accurately, IMO say that Iraq was sovereign. Yes it had a "government" (If you want to call it that) however that government was unstable and was led by a leader whose faults I addressed in my previous point.

The American hate is a vast generalization. If we are so hated, then why are so many people immigrating here. People hate war, they hate evil; When the process of fighting that is next door, it is natural for someone to hate it. As I said it is a vast generalization and a vast majority of people respect the US, even though they do not always agree with the leaders' decisions.

-Kevin
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |