What did you think of the speech?

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: strummer

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?

No. Some people are meant to be in the army. I feel I can better serve my country, I can better use my talents elsewhere.

Additionally personalizing this issue doesn't make it any stronger, in fact quite the opposite. I have stated 10x in a row that "I hate it when people die in wars".

Those people chose to serve our country, they know the risks. Extremely saddened that they are dying...absolutely. Is it their job to go out and serve this country whether or not they agree with the reasons behind it...absolutely.

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

I'm sure the families of those people who have died will not appreciate that.

-Kevin

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: strummer

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

I'm sure the families of those people who have died will not appreciate that.

-Kevin

Of all the bad reasons for war, the fact that there have already been people killed is one of the worst. Maybe the Hatfields and McCoys should keep the feud going.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: strummer

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

I'm sure the families of those people who have died will not appreciate that.

-Kevin

Of all the bad reasons for war, the fact that there have already been people killed is one of the worst. Maybe the Hatfields and McCoys should keep the feud going.

People die in wars. That is why no one likes them. You cannot wage war without losing troops or innocent bystanders (Unless something crazy happens).

-Kevin

 

[Lemon law]

To strummer,

You surly cannot be referring to the set of neo-con advocates of our current elective war in Iraq---not only did they all evade combat in Nam--how many of them send their sons and daughters to put theirs lives on the line for what they now advocate?---but what this crap about just sending just young men to die---thats hardly sound like a plan to me--lets send Cheney-GWB --Laura--Barney---and all their famdamily out in that mission from GOD to discover all them IUD's in unarmored humvees---now that would be be a noble commitment
and solidarity with the American soldier---anything less is somehow lacking.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To strummer,

You surly cannot be referring to the set of neo-con advocates of our current elective war in Iraq---not only did they all evade combat in Nam--how many of them send their sons and daughters to put theirs lives on the line for what they now advocate?---but what this crap about just sending just young men to die---thats hardly sound like a plan to me--lets send Cheney-GWB --Laura--Barney---and all their famdamily out in that mission from GOD to discover all them IUD's in unarmored humvees---now that would be be a noble commitment
and solidarity with the American soldier---anything less is somehow lacking.

I'll say again. Those who are in the Armed Forces chose that job knowing the full risks of it. You cannot expect Bush and any other leader to force their sons to join the armed forces. Their sons and daughters are humans just like you and I, their parents don't decide everything for them

I have not once heard Bush claim that this was a mission from God. Not once.

First off, Humvee's are not able to be armoured. They are not an armored vehicle. That is what APC's and Tanks are for. Irregardless, I have yet to see any evidence claiming that the soldiers are not properly equipped in Iraq.

Furthermore, Bush did not dodge the Vietnam War, nor did any of the other leaders. Forgive me if I am wrong, but IIRC he served in the Air National Guard- A legitimate member of our Armed Services.

As for sending our leaders over, now you are just getting desperate for an argument. They didn't sign up for the military. The military is not made up of people who hear and idea and support it and then decide to join. As much as you seem to ignore me typing it, people have talents that can be put to better use than this war (eg: Assembling the Munitions used, Researching the technology used, analyzing intel...are you just overlooking them)

-Kevin

 

[strummer]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

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

Somewhere upthread you said you were in college. The most important thing you can learn to do there is to develop your critical thinking skills. Also, if you've had physics 101 yet, you know by now that there is always a reaction to an action. Apply this basic physical law with some critical thinking to this statement of yours ---

"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." ---

What do think the repurcussions (i.e. reaction) will be to the bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities?

I'll give you a fact set to work with: #1 approximately 25% of the world's oil travels through the Strait of Hormuz; #2 Iran has several hundred miles of coastline along this waterway; #3 Iran domestically produces a knockoff of the somewhat effective Chinese Silkworm missile (surface-to-surface); #4 Without insurance, shipping lines have indicated that tankers will not traverse the Straits; #5 Insurance carriers have indicated that coverage will be pulled the moment shots are fired in or around the Strait of Hormuz; #6 Through shrewd longterm planning, the radical fundamentalist Iranians (currently their leadership) essentially control the Shi'ite miltias in Iraq; #7 The Iranians domestically produce 2nd generation anti-tank weapons that are fully capable of destroying the current stable of main battle tanks; #8 American forces in Baghdad and other urban areas of Iraq rely on their armored compliment (and close air support) to provide the superior firepower necessary to control the battlefield; #9 There is a burgeoning relationship taking hold between the Iranians and the Chinese (oil for arms, probably); and #10 The Chinese now hold about a third of US debt.

Take the fact set, do some critical thinking and tell me what you think the repercussions might be to attacking any Iranian assets.

This is not a video game we are talking about. We are talking about racheting the misery quotient up for millions upon millions of people across the globe.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: Craig234

Of all the bad reasons for war, the fact that there have already been people killed is one of the worst. Maybe the Hatfields and McCoys should keep the feud going.

People die in wars. That is why no one likes them. You cannot wage war without losing troops or innocent bystanders (Unless something crazy happens).

-Kevin

Your response to my post has nothing to do with my post.

I was not talking about the tragic casualties in all wars, I was talking about the bad reason for continuing a war that the casualties so far justify it, you don't want to say they were in vain.

 

[osage]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: osage
while I don't consider myself a "bleeding heart liberal"
I would off this plan of action in Iraq.

Get out at once. 3-4 months tops have all our ppl out of there.

Ok so you do know that in doing that a few things WILL happen:

A. Countries developing government will crumble away giving way to "tribes"
B. It will become a breeding ground for terrorist
C. It will be vulnerable to other nations such as Saudi Arabia and Iran

Are you seriously ok with this. After all the lives we have lost, you are ready to throw them all away and throw away any progress (No matter how little or big you think it is)?

-Kevin

Yes I'm OK with all that.

A. I don't care if they keep killing each other for another 1000 years.

B. The mess Mr. Bush has created in Iraq is the biggest single recruiting tool the terroists have at the moment.

C. Let Iran deal with the civil war there, that may keep them occupied for a year or two and out of our hair.

Do you really think that we honor those who have given life and limb in this war, by scarificing more troops........

Not to be too personal here but I wonder how many of the ppl here who support this war have served there or have had family members that have served.......

 

[strummer]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
[

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

I'm sure the families of those people who have died will not appreciate that.

-Kevin

Well that's just the way it is. The sacrifice of the fallen is not more valuable than the promise of the future for those still here.

 

[LcarsSystem]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

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

Well in a democracy and especially with the U.S. you cannot win wars without the support of the people, so I guess we have already lost, because I do not ever see this war gaining more support. Most American's don't care about Iraqi's, that may be heartless but that's the fact, deal with it.

And give me a break about terrorists not moving with our forces, the commanders on the ground have said so before and it's been reported several times, that the terrorists will move where the U.S. forces are. Why do you think this is an insurgency? When our forces leave, the insurgents will move with us.

Body armor links

Body Armor Story
Even the Christian Science Monitor reports on it
msnbc
FAUX NEWS

That should be enough evidence for you, I was wrong about it being CNN, but I am sure if I googled, "Buying body armor for troops" and dug around long enough I'd find it, those are the first few links on page 1.

 

[soundforbjt]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To strummer,

You surly cannot be referring to the set of neo-con advocates of our current elective war in Iraq---not only did they all evade combat in Nam--how many of them send their sons and daughters to put theirs lives on the line for what they now advocate?---but what this crap about just sending just young men to die---thats hardly sound like a plan to me--lets send Cheney-GWB --Laura--Barney---and all their famdamily out in that mission from GOD to discover all them IUD's in unarmored humvees---now that would be be a noble commitment
and solidarity with the American soldier---anything less is somehow lacking.

I'll say again. Those who are in the Armed Forces chose that job knowing the full risks of it. You cannot expect Bush and any other leader to force their sons to join the armed forces. Their sons and daughters are humans just like you and I, their parents don't decide everything for them

I have not once heard Bush claim that this was a mission from God. Not once.

First off, Humvee's are not able to be armoured. They are not an armored vehicle. That is what APC's and Tanks are for. Irregardless, I have yet to see any evidence claiming that the soldiers are not properly equipped in Iraq.

Furthermore, Bush did not dodge the Vietnam War, nor did any of the other leaders. Forgive me if I am wrong, but IIRC he served in the Air National Guard- A legitimate member of our Armed Services.

As for sending our leaders over, now you are just getting desperate for an argument. They didn't sign up for the military. The military is not made up of people who hear and idea and support it and then decide to join. As much as you seem to ignore me typing it, people have talents that can be put to better use than this war (eg: Assembling the Munitions used, Researching the technology used, analyzing intel...are you just overlooking them)

-Kevin

Cheney, IIRC had a total of 5 deferments...the last was his wife conveniently getting pregnent just as he was going to have to serve.

Ashcroft had his share of deferments (7total) as well. It's pretty commonly realised that Bush got into the guard by his Father's military ties.

Check out your fine republican leaders service here: http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0434,robbins,56166,1.html

 

[LcarsSystem]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To strummer,

You surly cannot be referring to the set of neo-con advocates of our current elective war in Iraq---not only did they all evade combat in Nam--how many of them send their sons and daughters to put theirs lives on the line for what they now advocate?---but what this crap about just sending just young men to die---thats hardly sound like a plan to me--lets send Cheney-GWB --Laura--Barney---and all their famdamily out in that mission from GOD to discover all them IUD's in unarmored humvees---now that would be be a noble commitment
and solidarity with the American soldier---anything less is somehow lacking.

I'll say again. Those who are in the Armed Forces chose that job knowing the full risks of it. You cannot expect Bush and any other leader to force their sons to join the armed forces. Their sons and daughters are humans just like you and I, their parents don't decide everything for them

I have not once heard Bush claim that this was a mission from God. Not once.

First off, Humvee's are not able to be armoured. They are not an armored vehicle. That is what APC's and Tanks are for. Irregardless, I have yet to see any evidence claiming that the soldiers are not properly equipped in Iraq.

Furthermore, Bush did not dodge the Vietnam War, nor did any of the other leaders. Forgive me if I am wrong, but IIRC he served in the Air National Guard- A legitimate member of our Armed Services.

As for sending our leaders over, now you are just getting desperate for an argument. They didn't sign up for the military. The military is not made up of people who hear and idea and support it and then decide to join. As much as you seem to ignore me typing it, people have talents that can be put to better use than this war (eg: Assembling the Munitions used, Researching the technology used, analyzing intel...are you just overlooking them)

-Kevin

I suggest you check out Bob Woodward's first book on this administration, "Plan of Attack".

link
link 2
Where it all started, 60 Minutes Bob Woodward interview


Uhhhh, yes they are quite capable of being armored....

Armored Humvees

 

[kedlav]

Stay the course in a shiny new gift wrapping of 'I fvcked up.' How incredibly original. Funny how not a single one of the commission's recc,'s have been implemented, yet one they didn't advise, boosting troop levels, is being implemented (Hell, how many times have we jacked up troop levels now 'temporarily?')

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: mc00
I bet million profjohn love the speech

I knew his plan was more bs. *shrug I just hope people in our country are more awake and notice some the bs came out of the man mouth.

I am not going to say I loved it. In fact I am getting tired of the speeches on what we are going to do in Iraq.

As many are saying this is his last chance to get it right.

A lot of people, generals, McCain etc are saying we are taking the right steps in this plan. That does not mean it will work though. Too many variables.

By the end of summer things have got to get better or else we have to start bringing the troops home, or getting them out of harms way.

BTW: Pelosi said we needed more troops two years ago, now she says we don?t need more troops. Both sides seem to have no clue what to do here.

you bring this chestnut up again after you abandoned it in another thread?LOL
Pelosi said that close to 3 years ago when it might have made a difference, now? Too late, too much damage done, too much hatred for the 'occupying forces'. dumbya and company said no then, they knew what they were doing, right? :disgust:
You go with the army you have not the army you want, bullsh!t, when you blatantly attack someone, you plan the attack and build up a force big enough to win.
Not this lean mean fighting machine that dumbsfeld brewed up. Yea, I know that ass is gone but his skidmarks across the boxer shorts that is the military still smells like fresh skunk roadkill.
Good job keeping the torch up for these morons, and not once did you say you didn't like it, you said you were getting tired of the Iraq speeches, well, since Iraq is beyond fubar, and he's directly responsible for ALL the loss of lives during this war, he'd damn well better explain his actions. I loathe dumbya, from day 1, I loathed him, knew he was the worst choice ever for a president, and I am sad to say I am right.

 

[Lemon law]

To the following bit of logic---As much as you seem to ignore me typing it, people have talents that can be put to better use than this war (eg: Assembling the Munitions used, Researching the technology used, analyzing intel...are you just overlooking them)

Oh yes---the specalists---with talents---who brew up wars--and while other people are dying--they go in and cash in by getting no bid contracts--engaging in war profiteering on a massive scale---and stay home and talk about the noble commitments of our soldiers while cutting funding for VA hospitals and
first responders. Meanwhile hiding the costs of this war off budget and running up massive debt---while making sure they get huge tax cuts---and the only thing they get excited about is saving a bunch of stem cells that will be thrown away anyway.---and when it comes time for them or their famdamilies to actually put their lives on the line in combat----they are too valuable as specalists. Brewing up more phony intelligence so we can widen this war. And when it comes time to talk to regional powers and seek a political solution--they are likewise missing in action.

Somehow---when it comes to a leader itching to go to war---I want someone who has some first hand experience what its like to be in a fox hole somewhere while people around them are dying.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: soundforbjt

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To strummer,

You surly cannot be referring to the set of neo-con advocates of our current elective war in Iraq---not only did they all evade combat in Nam--how many of them send their sons and daughters to put theirs lives on the line for what they now advocate?---but what this crap about just sending just young men to die---thats hardly sound like a plan to me--lets send Cheney-GWB --Laura--Barney---and all their famdamily out in that mission from GOD to discover all them IUD's in unarmored humvees---now that would be be a noble commitment
and solidarity with the American soldier---anything less is somehow lacking.

I'll say again. Those who are in the Armed Forces chose that job knowing the full risks of it. You cannot expect Bush and any other leader to force their sons to join the armed forces. Their sons and daughters are humans just like you and I, their parents don't decide everything for them

I have not once heard Bush claim that this was a mission from God. Not once.

First off, Humvee's are not able to be armoured. They are not an armored vehicle. That is what APC's and Tanks are for. Irregardless, I have yet to see any evidence claiming that the soldiers are not properly equipped in Iraq.

Furthermore, Bush did not dodge the Vietnam War, nor did any of the other leaders. Forgive me if I am wrong, but IIRC he served in the Air National Guard- A legitimate member of our Armed Services.

As for sending our leaders over, now you are just getting desperate for an argument. They didn't sign up for the military. The military is not made up of people who hear and idea and support it and then decide to join. As much as you seem to ignore me typing it, people have talents that can be put to better use than this war (eg: Assembling the Munitions used, Researching the technology used, analyzing intel...are you just overlooking them)

-Kevin

Cheney, IIRC had a total of 5 deferments...the last was his wife conveniently getting pregnent just as he was going to have to serve.

Ashcroft had his share of deferments (7total) as well. It's pretty commonly realised that Bush got into the guard by his Father's military ties.

Check out your fine republican leaders service here: http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0434,robbins,56166,1.html

I recall reading that Cheney's wife delivered her baby 9 months and 1 day after it was announced they wouldn't draft people with children.

As far as the speech, the Dem's are on record saying this won't work and wanting to put some controls on the spending while Bush&Co are still claiming they can win, although they don't define what a win is.

Bush still has the authority to continue the war and if he doesn't deliever this time the sh-ts gonna hit the fan.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: LcarsSystem

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

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

Well in a democracy and especially with the U.S. you cannot win wars without the support of the people, so I guess we have already lost, because I do not ever see this war gaining more support. Most American's don't care about Iraqi's, that may be heartless but that's the fact, deal with it.

And give me a break about terrorists not moving with our forces, the commanders on the ground have said so before and it's been reported several times, that the terrorists will move where the U.S. forces are. Why do you think this is an insurgency? When our forces leave, the insurgents will move with us.

Body armor links

Body Armor Story
Even the Christian Science Monitor reports on it
msnbc
FAUX NEWS

That should be enough evidence for you, I was wrong about it being CNN, but I am sure if I googled, "Buying body armor for troops" and dug around long enough I'd find it, those are the first few links on page 1.

No no, those articles only stated that they were buying body armor. They did not say they were inadequately supplied. In the "Body Armor Story" the major specifically said those who need the armor have it, and those who did not have it (Also did not need it) now have the armor.

As for your second point, as I said the insurgents do not pick up and move. We would notice a mass migration of ME men. It is a terror network, they have people in other countries. Additionally, if we go by your theory about them following us everywhere, why then would we want them to come home immediately. Would that not mean that they are going to start attacking US immediately?

Cheney, IIRC had a total of 5 deferments...the last was his wife conveniently getting pregnent just as he was going to have to serve.

Ashcroft had his share of deferments (7total) as well. It's pretty commonly realised that Bush got into the guard by his Father's military ties.

Check out your fine republican leaders service here: http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0434,robbins,56166,1.html

THey are student or occupational deferments. They were in college or had a critical job over here as it was, and the Army deemed that they should stay. I know if I were called to serve (Unless it is an extreme national crisis) I would claim that I am in college right now (Which I am). You cannot fault them for going to school.

Uhhhh, yes they are quite capable of being armored....

Armored Humvees

There are a very small portion of Armored HMMVV's as it says. They are not supposed to be armored and are not made that way. Any one that is armored has received special treatment. If the APC's suddenly weren't armored then they would have something.

I suggest you check out Bob Woodward's first book on this administration, "Plan of Attack".

link
link 2
Where it all started, 60 Minutes Bob Woodward interview

He says he feels this is what God would say if he were able to talk with them. He does not say that God instructed him to do this. Technicality, but he had reason outside religion to do these as he demonstrates when he says "Peace in the Middle East".

I'm sorry but I can't continue to argue this often in this thread. Stuff's gotta be done before I head back to college, so any argument directed at me will be answered as soon as I get a chance.

-Kevin

 

[tomywishbone]

bush is speaking right now at Fort Benning, and explaining to the soldiers, that 9/11 was terrible and the War on Terror in Iraq must be won. "9/11, Iraq, 9/11, Iraq, freedom, 9/11, hard work, democracy, etc."

Vomit.

 

[CityShrimp]

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!

As cruel as it may sound, and many other people have already stated this, but people that died in the past are sunk-cost, we should stop crying about how many lives we have already invested into this was, and we should ignore their deaths when considering the next set of actions.

That being said, I believe there are only two viable solutions at this point:
a) send in massive amounts of troops (20k too little for sure) and end the war ASAP. Although this would justify the deaths that were caused and make it seem like their deaths were not in vain, it is irrelevant to the argument as stated above. What we should consider is how many more people will die in exchange for peace and stability. Of course, also the monetary consequences.
b) leave now, and allow ME to take care of itself, since terrorism will never disappear. I also don't believe that other countries have the right to intervene with what happens with Iraq's government issues. We can "lend a hand" at times, but what we're doing now is way beyond that. We can't babysit them forever, and if a government can't sustain itself without outside help, then it shouldn't exist at all.

Anyways, I've never been in the military, and I have only started to read more news lately (bored at work -_-), so my comments might be amateur-ish. However, I did read the Art of War, and I honestly don't believe we have the elements required to easily end this war quickly.

Edit: spelling ><

 

[Gamingphreek]

b) leave now, and allow ME to take care of itself, since terrorism will never disappear. I also don't believe that other countries have the right to intervene with what happens with Iraq's government issues. We can "lend a hand" at times, but what we're doing now is way beyond that. We can't babysit them forever, and if a government can't sustain itself without outside help, then it shouldn't exist at all.

I totally see where you are coming from, but without a stable government, and given the middle east's track record, I wouldn't think they will help at all. Terrorism is being suppressed as we speak from my opinion. All of the insurgents and terrorist we have been taking out over the past 3 years, is a huge blow to them. Not only that a fully functional Iraqi government, will not be susceptible to terrorism (At least not In large scale, given their surrounding neighbors, no terrorism is a little too much to hope for)

a) send in massive amounts of troops (20k too little for sure) and end the was ASAP. Although this would justify the deaths that were caused and make it seem like their deaths were not in vain, it is irrelevant to the argument as stated above. What we should consider is how many more people will die in exchange for peace and stability. Of course, also the monetary consequences.

All for it! If we are going to Withdraw troops (Yea that isn't going to happen) do it. If we are going to send in more, flood the damn country. We should stop messing around with these little amounts, and send in a huge wave of troops. This middle of the path stuff has to stop (Mostly it is because neither party can agree on one method so they compromise every time)

-Kevin

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

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

That's exactly what happened.

We deliberately went in with an invasion force that was totally incapable of securing the borders, do you recall General Shinseki?

 

[CityShrimp]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

a) send in massive amounts of troops (20k too little for sure) and end the was ASAP. Although this would justify the deaths that were caused and make it seem like their deaths were not in vain, it is irrelevant to the argument as stated above. What we should consider is how many more people will die in exchange for peace and stability. Of course, also the monetary consequences.

All for it! If we are going to Withdraw troops (Yea that isn't going to happen) do it. If we are going to send in more, flood the damn country. We should stop messing around with these little amounts, and send in a huge wave of troops. This middle of the path stuff has to stop (Mostly it is because neither party can agree on one method so they compromise every time)

-Kevin

This would work a few years back, but since this war has sustained for way too long, more and more people are questioning GWB. Not only about his motives, but his strategy and ability to manage this war. At this point, even if we flood Iraq with troops, the war won't end quickly due to the lack of trust in our leader and, what most people believe now, a lack of leadership altogether. There are also other factors too, but I can't really think of any from the top of my head. Need to find other sources first.

And again, I have never been in military, never experienced war, blah blah blah. So maybe if we look at this war in-depth (like positioning of troops, resources, etc.) there could be a mountain of evidence indicating that this war can end quick if we launch a massive attack right now. But it just doesn't seem likely from my POV.

 

[OrByte]

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.

excellent post. the ISG report is Bushes only chance ot save face and he continues to buck it.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: jjzelinski

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

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

That's exactly what happened.

We deliberately went in with an invasion force that was totally incapable of securing the borders, do you recall General Shinseki?

One of the reasons I believe the war wasn't handled correctly.

-Kevin

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To the following bit of logic---As much as you seem to ignore me typing it, people have talents that can be put to better use than this war (eg: Assembling the Munitions used, Researching the technology used, analyzing intel...are you just overlooking them)

Oh yes---the specalists---with talents---who brew up wars--and while other people are dying--they go in and cash in by getting no bid contracts--engaging in war profiteering on a massive scale---and stay home and talk about the noble commitments of our soldiers while cutting funding for VA hospitals and
first responders. Meanwhile hiding the costs of this war off budget and running up massive debt---while making sure they get huge tax cuts---and the only thing they get excited about is saving a bunch of stem cells that will be thrown away anyway.---and when it comes time for them or their famdamilies to actually put their lives on the line in combat----they are too valuable as specalists. Brewing up more phony intelligence so we can widen this war. And when it comes time to talk to regional powers and seek a political solution--they are likewise missing in action.

Somehow---when it comes to a leader itching to go to war---I want someone who has some first hand experience what its like to be in a fox hole somewhere while people around them are dying.

Excellent summary, quoted.