Out of Iraq

[Tyrone Bigguns]

In wars in the past, our gross national product would be stimulated. Now we borrow and increase the gross national product of other countries.

We used to build our own weapons and such, not anymore

Borrowing money to go to war seems pretty irresponsible doesn't it?

Questioning our president and the way he determines to save us from the barbarous hordes of foaming at the mouth islamo-fascists seems pretty irresponsible, if not treasonous.

Its a free country

No it's not. Pure myth. That is just a more liberal media duping you. Anyone who questions the president hates our country.

[Deputy Nutz]

Hate monger.

[hoosier]

Hate monger.

Who's Monger??

[Deputy Nutz]

Hate monger.

Who's Monger??

Monger Lewis

[texaspackerbacker]

Tex, you haven't really explained why you think invading Iraq was essential to preventing another 9/11. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The two are absoutely NOT connected. How is a pre-emptive war waged on a country of little to no threat to America going to prevent terrorism? The same goal could be accomplished by limiting the war to those who DO threaten America, don't you think?

Bin Laden threatened Iraq... they could have simply crushed bin Laden and his Al Queida before they ever had a chance to do so. If they were worried about Al Queida messing up Iraq, why would they go to war with Hussein - who HATED bin Laden and vice versa?

Gunakor, I thought I did that when I talked about the LINK.

Whatever the original reason, actually reasons, for invading Iraq--and there were several valid ones, the RESULT, in hindsight, which indeed IS valid in this case, as we are discussing the HOW of preventing repeats of 9/11--is that al Qaeda decided that screwing up the new government which we set up as an example of freedom and representative government was MORE IMPORTANT to them than hitting us at home. Possibly the fact that America had become a harder target--with the Patriot Act, enhanced security, and all--had something to do with that decision. Anyway, al Qaeda's decision--as articulated by Bin Laden himself--was greatly responsible for their inability to hit us at home.

And the Dem/libs--YOUR Dem/libs--opposed both the war, the Patriot Act, the enhanced security, the harsh interrogation, the imprisonment without trials at Guantanamo--the whole shibang. They--Obama, Hillary, Pelosi, Reid, Kerry, etc. opposed ALL ASPECTS of what successfully saved thousands, tens or hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of Americans from being murdered by terrorists--and they have the sick gall to brag about it.

[texaspackerbacker]

[quote="hoosier"]

You like to talk about FACTS, Hoosier. The conundrum faced by those poor sick liberals that you describe is precisely because the FACTS are stacked against them.

The FACT is that everything those guys stand for--Gore, Kerry, Obama, Hillary, etc., in fact, IS ANTI-AMERICAN--bad for American in its result, if not in its intention. And I wouldn't even automatically assume those people are mere good intentioned/misguided idiots.

And when the American people get wind of the comparative positions of the candidates, do you REALLY THINK they are going to choose dumping on America, leaving our security in the hands of the damned UN or old Europe or whoever, TRUSTING and negotiating as equals with manic hateful enemies, raising taxes, ramming through more intrusive government regulations, appointing liberal judges of the type who have already done so much harm, making abortion easier, treating homosexuality as merely an equally virtuous alternative, I could go on, but you get the idea. Democrats/liberals are on the WRONG SIDE of virtually every issue--if you disagree, please state which of the above are good for America. THAT is why as soon as we get past the propaganda machine of the leftist mainstream media, and true positions become known, the Democrats nosedive.

Oh yeah, you mentioned the SwiftBoat thing, that contributed to Kerry's downfall because it was true. His claims in Vietnam really were fraudulent--the reason he could NEVER straight out deny what the SwiftBoaters said about him.

What would be the point of replying to any of this? You have clearly decided that you and you alone are the arbiter of good and bad, American and anti-American. Anything and anyone that differs from your criteria is disqualified a priori. Apparently there's no room in your view of "America" for debate or dissent. I wonder how large a block of the American public would support you in that....

TPB is judge, jury, and executioner:

I am merely one of the Advocates for good sense and what's good for America. The American people are the judge and jury, and the election is the process of execution. The leftists, in particular, the leftists of the mainstream media are the Advocates for lunacy and what's bad for America, and it's plain to see, they have some of you completely snowed to their wrongheaded points of view.

Hoosier, it's pretty lame when you are seemingly incapable of arguing the issues--only making a few sarcastic comments. I guess you have to be forgiven, though, because there simply ARE NO effective arguments in favor of liberal positions--they are just plain WRONG, BAD FOR AMERICA, AND USUALLY JUDGED THAT WAY IN ELECTIONS. When I get around to it, I may start a thread about that.

I tried arguing the issues, Tex, I really tried. To your comment about the "bulk of the American public" opposing Obama's position on Iraq, I responded by citing a recent poll showing over 60% of American public viewing the invasion as a big mistake. The only reply you could muster to that was, that 60+% has been duped by the "left-wing media." I can only conclude that you cherry pick the "facts" that support your position and ignore those that don't. What you hear isn't sarcasm speaking, it's resignation in the face of the futility of arguing with someone who apparently deals in dogma, not facts.

Hoosier, I gave you a whole long laundary list above of issues which I state unequivocally that YOUR Dem/libs are squarely on the WRONG SIDE of--the side that is harmful to America, as well as the side that is grossly out of tune with the views and values of the American people.

Instead of discussing those, you run and hide, and talk about how a majority of Americans in a poll have the same position on the war as Obama, and how somehow that ISN'T a result of media bias hoodwinking that majority of people. You didn't even have the courage to discuss WHY you think Obama's cut and run position is good for America. So who is "cherry picking"?

Grow a pair, and state your positions of some of those issues.

[Harlan Huckleby]

the side that is grossly out of tune with the views and values of the American people .... talk about how a majority of Americans in a poll have the same position on the war as Obama, and how somehow that ISN'T a result of media bias hoodwinking that majority of people

you state that Libs are out of tune with American views/values. Yet when confronted with evidence to contray, you claim Americans have been hoodwinked. which is it?

Obama's cut and run position

Any intelligent discussion of Iraq has to ban several phrases: "cut and run", "precipitous withdrawal", "endless war", and "end the war" for starters.

We're in our 6th year in Iraq, have invested a HUGE amount. When we leave, it will be insane and disrespectful to those who sacrificed to say we cut and ran, or left precipitously. We're a couple years past the statute of limitations on those allegations.

"End the war" is empty propaganda, all we have power to do is leave.
"endless war" or "open ended commitment" are exaggerations, republicans know we have to draw down substantially. And already shaky public support requires progress, reducing casualties for us to stay at all.

You won't hear those phrases uttered by journalists or analysts. that's all just fodder for talk radio, politicians & demagogues.

[oregonpackfan]

]


We're in our 6th year in Iraq, have invested a HUGE amount. When we leave, it will be insane and disrespectful to those who sacrificed to say we cut and ran, or left precipitously.
.[/quote]

For years and years during the Vietnam War, the supporters of that war used this argument that it would be disrespectful to those soldiers to die to pull out of Vietnam now.

That war went on for 12 years and cost the lives of over 58,000 American soldiers.

How many more years of fighting must we have and how many more American soldiers lives must we squander before it is "honorable" to leave Iraq?

[texaspackerbacker]

You too, Harlan, conveniently fail to discuss the merits of the issues.


texaspackerbacker wrote:
the side that is grossly out of tune with the views and values of the American people .... talk about how a majority of Americans in a poll have the same position on the war as Obama, and how somehow that ISN'T a result of media bias hoodwinking that majority of people


you state that Libs are out of tune with American views/values. Yet when confronted with evidence to contrary, you claim Americans have been hoodwinked. Question which is it?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It obviously is both. You put solace in polls--mainly done by liberal media outlets--which ask flawed questions and reflect skewing of people's views by the leftist media. My contention is that if you get right down to core values and views, the Dem/libs indeed ARE out of tune--grossly.


And what's wrong with using those terms? Are you claiming they aren't very descriptive of Obama, Hillary, Pelosi, Reid, etc.'s positions?

Would you be equally concerned about equally inflammatory and much less accurate terms like "civil war" in Iraq and "Bush's failed policies" and "an unwinnable war", etc.?

[Harlan Huckleby]

How many more years of fighting must we have and how many more American soldiers lives must we squander before it is "honorable" to leave Iraq?

i don't think many people are arquing to stay for honor, that's a straw man. Most people who want to stay are being pragmatic, and their support is highly conditional on developments. It's not at all clear which decision will cause more death.

[Harlan Huckleby]

And what's wrong with using those terms? Are you claiming they aren't very descriptive of Obama, Hillary, Pelosi, Reid, etc.'s positions?

first of all, there are no proposals on the table for quick withdrawal. Yet any proposal for a timetable is called "cut and run" by demagogues. The choice is uncertain. YOU MAY BE WRONG. It is entirely possible that Iraq will not coalesce. In the end, if the people decide to keep primary loyalty with militias, nothing we can do will prevent long civil war.

Would you be equally concerned about equally inflammatory and much less accurate terms like "civil war" in Iraq and "Bush's failed policies" and "an unwinnable war", etc.?

"civil war" is accurate if incomplete description. "unwinnable war" is matter of opinion. I'm supporting war because of encouraging signs.

[Gunakor]

Tex is just a war monger. If we accomplish our objectives in Iraq and leave, he'll just say we should invade some other third world country who poses no threat to America so that would be terrorists would be too scared to attack us. And when we level that country, we should just move on to the next one. And so on and so forth, because as long as we are flexing our military might there's nobody who will bring thier murderous acts to American soil. It doesn't matter the country, as long as they've never attacked America and couldn't if they wanted to - but is an Islamic nation, justifying our invasion. Because the day that America isn't at war with SOMEBODY is the day that all the worlds terrorists come to America. Isn't that right Tex?

Anyone who feels differently is obviously opposed to Bush and his polocies, and therefore hates America. Meaning anyone who dares to form thier own opinion hates America. Wait a minute... anyone who excersises thier American right to free choice and free speech is ANTI-American???

That's the gist of what I've gotten from all of his rants anyway. That GW should be commended for remaining at war because that and that alone is the sole reason nobody has carried out another mass murder the likes of 9/11. There is absolutely no way that beefed up security at airports and seaports, not to mention much more thorough customs checks, no there's no way that any of these non-violent security measures could have had anything to do with the fact that there hasn't been another 9/11. We had to remain at war to protect ourselves. And anyone who feels differently about it HATES America.

Certainly the number of American GI's who die on the front lines in an endless war could never dwarf the number of American civilians who died on 9/11.

Oh wait...

[Joemailman]

Of all the rationalizations made to justify this war, the one Tex makes is the most morally bankrupt. The idea we should start a war In Iraq so that we can fight Al-Qaeda there, so that the ones dying are innocent Iraqis, can only be justified if you believe that Iraqi lives are disposable. Perhaps Tex feels that as long as we're killing Muslims, it's all good.

[oregonpackfan]

How many more years of fighting must we have and how many more American soldiers lives must we squander before it is "honorable" to leave Iraq?

i don't think many people are arquing to stay for honor, that's a straw man. Most people who want to stay are being pragmatic, and their support is highly conditional on developments. It's not at all clear which decision will cause more death.

I'm sorry, Harlan, but "honor" is an argument we heard in Vietnam as well as hearing it from some pro-Iraq War advocates.

While some of the advocates assume a "pragmatic" position by waiting for conditional developments. We need to look at the time factor. This war has lasted for over 5 years. Even WWII took less than 4 years.

During the Vietnam War, we kept hearing the term "Vietnamization" from pro-war advocates. That phrase meant Americans just needed to be patient while South Vietnam strengthened its military and political forces to stand up for itself. After 12 years, that "Vietnamization" never took place.

Now in Iraq, we are told that if we just "stay the course" we will have some form of "Iraqization" so that "Iraq can stand up while America stands down" as W likes to quote. I doubt that will ever happen. Most people in Iraq identify themselves first with the local neighborhood militia, then their religious sect of Sunni, Shiite, or Kurd. Coming in a distant last, they identify themselves as Iraqi.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think you hear alot less of the "honor" talk with this latest guagmire, altho it still comes out in Republican speeches. I think people are more... not sure if word is sophisticated or cynical ... since Vietnam era.

Oregon, it is entirely possible that you are correct about this being a hopeless cause for the reasons that you cite.

Its a complex and mixed picture. I am encouraged by the recent year, yet nervous about Sadr's apparent growing strength. It is quite an achiement that the Sunni-Shia divide is appearing more bridgable. I think getting cleansed from Baghdad has a way of focusing minds. Even educated Sunnis had been under the false impression that they were the numerical majority, when recent estimates are that they might only be 15%. I see the sunni ready to settle, that is huge.