|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Jan 11th, 2007 07:41 PM | |
| Ant10708 | Havn't the Democrats lacked any alternative strategy since Bush got us into this mess? |
| Jan 11th, 2007 06:49 PM | |
| GAsux |
I'm not clear on what the Democrats offered solution here is? If you're claiming the mid term elections indicate the American Public doesn't support the direction of the war, I suppose that calls for a change in strategy. Adding troops is a change in strategy, but now according to Dems not the answer? Just curious, but suppose we support the gradual but relatively rapid phased pull out the Dems are pushing. What does that mean for stability in Iraq? What message does it send to insurgent groups? Not saying the troop increase is cause for celebration, but it doesn't seem to me that there are a lot of possible viable options here that don't carry some significant level of suck. Just my worthless opinion, but I think the days of "good" options are long gone. |
| Jan 11th, 2007 01:30 PM | |
| kahljorn |
Maybe they will set up a "Complaints" department you know the kind with a drop box and a pad of paper next to it and all then give the terrorists the ability to vote as well so terrorists will be like, "I can vent my frustration politically instead of with a gun!" obviously they'd be receiving alot of pieces of paper with frowny faces!!!!!! |
| Jan 11th, 2007 08:47 AM | |
| KevinTheOmnivore |
"I do not believe that sending more troops to Iraq is the answer. Iraq requires a political rather than a military solution," said US Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS), a 2008 White House hopeful, in a major surprise move. .....So it's not only Republicans jumping on this message. I'm still however struggling to hear what a "political" solution might be.... |
| Jan 6th, 2007 09:06 PM | |
| DehydratedPorkMan |
*In old man accent* "Nobody runs this country. Money runs this country! |
| Jan 6th, 2007 08:49 AM | |
| Courage the Cowardly Dog |
here's a fresh one Leahy wants to introduce an antiwar profiteering act. he has me interested i'll say that much. http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200701/010407b.html |
| Jan 6th, 2007 05:05 AM | |
| kahljorn |
There's no such thing as dropping facades, only placating them. 
|
| Jan 6th, 2007 12:58 AM | |
| ItalianStereotype |
and how do they expect to have FORCE PROTECTION and COUNTER-TERRORISM without COMBAT? it seems to me that if they want to cut and run they should simply drop the facade entirely. |
| Jan 5th, 2007 11:12 PM | |
| Miss Modular | Paris for President! |
| Jan 5th, 2007 09:40 PM | |
| sspadowsky | Perhaps it's time to give the piping hot fries a chance. |
| Jan 5th, 2007 03:11 PM | |
| kahljorn | lol I like how they say they can take care of their own political situation. Didn't they have a dictator not too long ago? |
| Jan 5th, 2007 02:54 PM | |
| Preechr |
That quote stuck out like a sore thumb for me, too. I mean, of course professional politicians believe the only answer to this or anything else is political. Ask a diplomat, and he'll tell you the way out is through diplomacy. A guy that works at Burger King would probably say piping hot french fries are the answer. Adding more troops may or may not improve the situation, as I said before: it all depends on what you have them doing when you get them there. The letter seems to indicate the only thing a Democrat believes a soldier is good for is blowing shit up and shooting people, yet that's only the focus of a very small part of the troops we have over there. Most of our soldiers are serving in a civil authority capacity, ie: "training, logistics, force protection and counter-terror," not to mention getting schools and other municipal building and reconstruction projects accomplished. That said, removing troops all by itself is surely no sort of plan for victory. So much of what modern democrat socialists follows this sort of childish non-logic... Social Security will work SOMEHOW simply because we want it to... Welfare programs must work because we believe in them... We can just leave Iraq and the Iraqis will somehow figure it out for themselves. Logic is replaced by emotion. I'm sorry, but wishing you have something doesn't get it for you in the real world. But, now that we've got "phased-redeployment" out on their side of the table, what's the rest of the plan? What if we do that and it gets worse over there? What do we do then? Start over and re-invade? |
| Jan 5th, 2007 02:19 PM | |
| KevinTheOmnivore |
"They, like us, believe there is no purely military solution in Iraq. There is only a political solution" This is a curious statement. I wonder what the leadership thinks that political solution might look like. And while we're "redeploying" troops, where might they be going? |
| Jan 5th, 2007 02:01 PM | |
| mburbank |
Democrat Leaderships letter to President Here's the text. Weigh in. Dear Mr. President: The start of the new Congress brings us opportunities to work together on the critical issues confronting our country. No issue is more important than finding an end to the war in Iraq. December was the deadliest month of the war in over two years, pushing U.S. fatality figures over the 3,000 mark. The American people demonstrated in the November elections that they do not believe your current Iraq policy will lead to success and that we need a change in direction for the sake of our troops and the Iraqi people. We understand that you are completing your post-election consultations on Iraq and are preparing to make a major address on your Iraq strategy to the American people next week. Clearly this address presents you with another opportunity to make a long overdue course correction. Despite the fact that our troops have been pushed to the breaking point and, in many cases, have already served multiple tours in Iraq, news reports suggest that you believe the solution to the civil war in Iraq is to require additional sacrifices from our troops and are therefore prepared to proceed with a substantial U.S. troop increase. Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed. Like many current and former military leaders, we believe that trying again would be a serious mistake. They, like us, believe there is no purely military solution in Iraq. There is only a political solution. Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain. And it would undermine our efforts to get the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. We are well past the point of more troops for Iraq. In a recent appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee, General John Abizaid, our top commander for Iraq and the region, said the following when asked about whether he thought more troops would contribute to our chances for success in Iraq: "I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the Corps commander, General Dempsey. We all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no. And the reason is, because we want the Iraqis to do more. It's easy for the Iraqis to rely upon to us do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future. " Rather than deploy additional forces to Iraq, we believe the way forward is to begin t he phased redeployment of our forces in the next four to six months, while shifting the principal mission of our forces there from combat to training, logistics, force protection and counter-terror. A renewed diplomatic strategy, both within the region and beyond, is also required to help the Iraqis agree to a sustainable political settlement. In short, it is time to begin to move our forces out of Iraq and make the Iraqi political leadership aware that our commitment is not open ended, that we cannot resolve their sectarian problems, and that only they can find the political resolution required to stabilize Iraq. Our troops and the American people have already sacrificed a great deal for the future of Iraq. After nearly four years of combat, tens of thousands of U.S. casualties, and over $300 billion dollars, it is time to bring the war to a close. We, therefore, strongly encourage you to reject any plans that call for our getting our troops any deeper into Iraq. We want to do everything we can to help Iraq succeed in the future but, like many of our senior military leaders, we do not believe that adding more U.S. combat troops contributes to success. We appreciate you taking these views into consideration. Sincerely,Â*Â*Â*Â* Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid House Speaker Nancy Pelosi I agree, and I'm somewhat heartened that the D's are not such a pack of whipped dogs that even in victory the can't find some spine. I know a lot of R's agree with this as well, but it's the President who's commander in chief. The question is, does W. give a little tin crap or does he really think he's Harry Truman like he's been saying? |
