Out of Iraq

[hoosier]

[quote="texaspackerbacker"]

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]

BTW, an EXCELLENT insight into the state of Iraq comes from Burns & Filkins, two NY Times journalists with a long history in Iraq. John Burns in particular has been accurate and honest about the war from the start. Check out Charlie Rose interview online, it is worth your time:
http://www.charlierose.com/shows/200...dexter-filkins

Damned link is either broken or takes forever to load.

works ok for me. probably your wife is picking up the phone & breaking your dial-up connection.

You laugh, but actually our cordless phone interferes with our wireless, and I haven't bothered to switch the wireless to a different frequency, so that may well be the problem. Will have to try it at work.

[texaspackerbacker]

Gunakor, you were the one who seemingly relegated to nothingness the fact that Bush prevented any repeats of 9/11, as well as bringing the country back so wonderfully in an economic sense. And he did so with INTERVENTIONIST FOREIGN POLICY--the war, SECURITY--the Patriot Act, harsh interrogation of terrorists, etc., and TAX CUTTING--All things that Gore/Kerry/Obama/Hillary, basically any Democrat you can name BLATANTLY OPPOSED. Those are the FACTS. How do you get around those FACTS when you thoughtlessly echo the rotten leftist mainstream media and disparage the Bush presidency?

I ask again, what good do you think it would have done to go on some wild goose chase for Bin Laden--even if we caught him? Is REVENGE somehow more important to you than PREVENTION of the repeated mass murder of Americans?

Are you suggesting that the only way to prevent another terrorist attack on American soil was to go to war with a country that, at the time, posed little to no terrorist threat to America? Iraq was not the problem. That's the point. They could have accomplished the same sense of security without starting a second war. I don't see why they had to go to Iraq to prevent another 9/11.

I am not opposed to the reason this war started. In fact, I fully supported going to war in the first place. But the war I supported was the one against those who were responsible for 9/11. Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi dictatorship were not the ones responsible. They were responsible for a great number of injustices, but 9/11 was not one of them. I had thought that this war was about 9/11. Please tell me what Iraq had to do with 9/11. I don't see a connection.

I suppose in order to see where I'm coming from you have to separate the war in Afghanistan from the war in Iraq. I cannot make this any more clear - they are two seperate wars. Or at least they were when America invaded Iraq.

You ask me if revenge is more imortant than the prevention of another mass murder on American soil. The answer is obviously no, but catching bin Laden wouldn't be revenge - it would be justice. Would you say that the mastermind behind 9/11 isn't worth killing or capturing? That we should just let him go? Not worry about it anymore? Was capturing Saddam Huseein more important than capturing Osama bin Laden?

As far as your comment on the interrogation methods of suspected terrorists... I've seen the pictures of Arabs in hoods, wired to car batteries. I've read the reports of waterboarding and other abuse. I know about the courts-martial of MP's for inhumane treatment of prisoners. The violations of the Geneva Convention. Holding people for years without charge or proof of guilt, and with no possibility of legal representation. People who have been PROVEN guilty of murder here in America get far better treatment. The prisoners at Guantanamo will likely never be tried, will never have a chance to prove thier innocence (something nobody should ever have to do in the first place), and probably will never see freedom again whether they were guilty of anything or not. If you pride yourself on American values and the humane treatement of others, it's blatantly obvious what is wrong with this picture.

I don't know where you are from, but my taxes aren't any lower than they were during the Clinton administration. Taxes will go up now, but only because they have to. We have to somehow pay for the deficit that your boy GW let ballon out of control due to this war. If they don't raise taxes then they have to cut spending. If you support this war then you obviously don't want them cutting spending on the war budget. So the cuts would have to come from somewhere else. Would you support cutting spending on real domestic issues such as education and health care so that our taxes won't go up? Maybe you are just fine with the deficit being so high, and have no interest in paying it off? Being TRILLIONS of dollars in debt is sure great for our economy, don't you think? C'mon now. Don't try to tout Bush's domestic or economic record.

Here's a number for you. Our national deficit is currently over 9.4 trillion dollars. It continues to increase at an average rate of 1.67 billion dollars a day, and has since September 2006. If you are okay with this, I assure you that you are in the minority. This ISN'T good for America. Yet Bush has no plan for dealing with that. Neither does McCain. Dems have bit into that deficit while in office only to let the Reps wipe away all thier progress - and in the case of Bush, make the problem bigger than it ever was in history. Does this not matter to you?

What I am suggesting--in fact, stating unequivocally--is that we have not had any repeats of the 9/11 mass murder of Americans or worse. I am, further, making the logical connection of that prevention of acts of terror to the Bush Administration policies--ALL of which were strongly opposed by Obama, Hillary, and all the other big name Democrats.

What were those policies? Interventionist foreign policy, pre-emptive war, and enhanced security at home. Could any of you lefties possibly disagree that your pet Dem/lib candidates opposed these things? Could you possibly deny the LINK between these and preventing terrorism at home? I suppose some of you might be in denial of that link, but you would be wrong.

Did Saddam have WMDs? Probably, but it's no big deal one way or the other in hindsight. Did Saddam support terrorism? Clearly yes, but that also is not high up among the relevant factors in preventing terrorism. Was Saddam complicit with Bin Laden? Maybe--no proof one way or the other--but this also is not a key factor.

In hindsight, the key factor--the LINK between the war in Iraq and the prevention of mass murder of Americans by terrorism--pay attention now; Even though this is well known and not even controversial among our troops as well as the vast majority of Americans, it somehow escapes most of you liberals, the LINK is the fact that al Qaeda, as stated by Bin Laden himself, PRIORITIZED MESSING UP IRAQ AHEAD OF PERPETRATING ACTS OF TERROR IN AMERICA. That along with enhanced security is the HOW to the FACT that Bush and company have prevented repeats of 9/11 type terrorism in America.

And you leftists whine about mistreatment of terrorist prisoners. Would you honestly consider THAT more important than saving lives of Americans? You can put those mistreatment instances in two categories: piddling little low level incidences done by frustrated American troops AND effective measures to get vital information out of high level prisoners. The former represents minor crap demagogued by the anti-American mainstream media. The latter represents doing what provably worked to save American lives. Tell me you don't oppose that.

Obama, Hillary, also Kerry and a lot of other Dems, in their own words, would NOT have used those policies--including the war in Iraq. Can we, therefore, assume we WOULD HAVE had repeats of 9/11 if there was a Democrat president? I suppose that's a slight stretch, but it is no stretch at all to say none of those Dems supported what worked, and they had NO RATIONAL ALTERNATIVE to prevent terrorism. The closest they to a policy any of those Democrats has ever expressed is John Kerry's idiotic "police approach"--basically wait for them to hit us, and then track them down like cops.

So you forum lefties who are so prone to piss all over Bush's achievements and deny the importance of saving American lives, do you have any better way?

[Harlan Huckleby]

The case to be made for leaving (gradually) is that we will have to over time. We do nor have the troop levels needed to maintain 140,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely

right. my guess is the next pres has limited latitude, so the iraq war question is not so critical as all the huffing & puffing would make it seem. altho there might be some minor differences in rate of withdrawal, we still prefer a pres with the right touch. (rather than one who is touched?)

Bush and McCain know the next President will be forced to withdraw troops from Iraq, unless we are going to have a draft. They just won't say it. Leveling with the American people

i don't know if this 100% true. we could probably keep 110K troops there indefinitely.

the point is, we are in the end game of being so extended iraq. there isn't any point in staying unless the iraqi army is gradually taking over, and politics continue in right direction. i can't imagine obama would interfere with situation that is healing steadily. and the american patience is OVER (ouch -my shoulder) if situation looks like a house of cards.

[Gunakor]

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?

[Partial]

We gotta start doing the necessary evil (pulling out) because Iraq is expensive.

[Deputy Nutz]

We gotta start doing the necessary evil (pulling out) because Iraq is expensive.

So are diamonds.

[Partial]

Yeah but once you buy a diamond you no longer have to pull out.

[Deputy Nutz]

The expense is an issue but it might cost this country more in terms of viewing Iraq as an investment if the military would just "pull out".

[Harlan Huckleby]

the scary thing is we aren't even paying for war now, it is borrowed money.

that means the war is STIMULATING our economy now. so how bad is the economy now really?

the only comfort you can take is i don't know shit about this stuff, maybe i misunderstand. but i fear we are digging hole. vietnam era was boom, post vietnam bust.

[Deputy Nutz]

the scary thing is we aren't even paying for war now, it is borrowed money.

that means the war is STIMULATING our economy now. so how bad is the economy now really?

the only comfort you can take is i don't know shit about this stuff, maybe i misunderstand. but i fear we are digging hole. vietnam era was boom, post vietnam bust.

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

[GoPackGo]

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?

[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.

[Deputy Nutz]

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

[GoPackGo]

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.

Thats funny-
I was raised to be a republican by default, but after witnessing the last 2 terms-I'm switching to Libertarian