Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 35 of 35
  1. #21  
    Yes. Timetables and goals...we should definitely let our enemies know under what conditions we'll quit the fight. Reminds of me of the way Senator Glenn sanbagged Senator Thompson a few years ago investigating Democratic Socialist campaign fianance corruption. Once Glenn had his timetable, he just sandbagged until time ran out

    Your plan is great...and guess what...it's being executed and has been for some time. Why is it you see the Marines working the Syrian border and rat line towns, while Iraqi forces are working less intense areas? They need more time to build...not an indefinite amount of time but more time.

    Yet, I concede the administration has done an awful job in explaining what it is we're doing, and how successful we've been at doing it. (Of course, with the media constantly banging the "MORE THAN 2000 KILLED" drum, it is hard to get that message through.)

    The troops know what they're doing there. What they can 't understand, and this kid almost has his bachelor's degree finished, is how the Beltway class is using the war to gain power.

    Oh, and here's a prediction. If the Democratic Socialists ever regain control of the house they will vote to stop sending aid to Iraq....just like they did with Vietnam.
  2.    #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Oh, and here's a prediction. If the Democratic Socialists ever regain control of the house they will vote to stop sending aid to Iraq....just like they did with Vietnam.
    Um, Yea. Why don't you tell this guy all about the aid sent by the Republican controlled House.



  3. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Perhaps if the left would do more than unconstructively whine and call for immediate withdrawals, they might be taken more seriously? Perhaps, if the left were calling for a gradual draw-down over a fairly lengthy time period as goals (the upcoming election, for example) were met, you would have a point.

    You seem to think that the administration's plan is the exact same thing the opposition's been calling for. It is not, and that was my point. The difference should be fairly obvious.
    What did Murtha call for?
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    What did Murtha call for?
    He was quoted in the Washington Post as calling for an "immediate" withdrawal.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  5.    #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Perhaps if the left would do more than unconstructively whine and call for immediate withdrawals, they might be taken more seriously? Perhaps, if the left were calling for a gradual draw-down over a fairly lengthy time period as goals (the upcoming election, for example) were met, you would have a point.
    I like this plan:

    • The U.S. to begin a phased draw down of American troops as a series of military and political benchmarks is met, starting with a reduction of 20,000 troops over the holidays as the first benchmark –the successful completion of the December elections – is met.

    • The U.S. to immediately make clear that we do not want permanent military bases in Iraq, or a large combat force on Iraqi soil indefinitely.

    • The Administration to immediately give Congress and the American people a detailed plan for the transfer of military and police responsibilities on a sector by sector basis to Iraqis so the majority of our combat forces can be withdrawn -- ideally by the end of next year.

    • The Bush administration to prod the new Iraqi government to ask for a multinational force to help protect Iraq’s borders until a capable national army is formed. Such a force, if sanctioned by the United Nations, could attract participation by Iraq's neighbors and countries like India and would be a critical step in stemming the tide of insurgents and money into Iraq, especially from Syria.

    • The Pentagon to alter the deployment of American troops, keeping Special Operations forces pursuing specific intelligence leads and putting the vast majority of U.S. troops in rear guard, garrisoned status for security backup. We do not need to send young Americans on search and destroy missions that invite alienation and deepen the risks they face.

    • The President to put the training of Iraqi security forces on a six month wartime footing and ensure that the Iraqi government has the budget to deploy them.

    • The Bush administration to accept long standing offers by Egypt, Jordan, France and Germany to do more training.

    • The administration to immediately call a conference of Iraq’s neighbors, Britain, Turkey and other key NATO allies, and Russia to implement a strategy to bring the parties in Iraq to a sustainable political compromise that includes mutual security guarantees among Iraqis.

    • Iraq’s Sunni neighbors to set up a reconstruction fund specifically for the majority Sunni areas to show them the benefits of participating in the political process.

    • The President to appoint a special envoy to bolster America’s diplomatic efforts.

    • The U.S. to commit to a new regional security structure that includes improved security assistance programs and joint exercises.

    • The U.S. to jumpstart our lagging reconstruction efforts by providing the necessary civilian personnel to do the job, standing up civil-military reconstruction teams throughout the country, streamlining the disbursement of funds to the provinces, expanding job creation programs for Iraqis, and strengthening the capacity of government ministries.
  6. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    He was quoted in the Washington Post as calling for an "immediate" withdrawal.
    He asked for a staged withdrawl.
  7. #27  
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...111700794.html

    "The top House Democrat on military spending matters stunned colleagues yesterday by calling for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, while many congressional Democrats reacted defiantly to President Bush's latest attack on his critics."
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  8. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...111700794.html

    "The top House Democrat on military spending matters stunned colleagues yesterday by calling for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, while many congressional Democrats reacted defiantly to President Bush's latest attack on his critics."
    Let's take it from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

    Source: Rep. Murtha's website

    My plan calls for a more rapid turnover of Iraq to the Iraqi people. General Casey said in a September 2005 hearing, “the perception of occupation in Iraq is a major driving force behind the insurgency.” We have become a catalyst for violence. A recent poll showed that 80% of the Iraqi public are “strongly opposed” to the presence of coalition troops and 45% believe attacks against Americans are justified.
  9. #29  
    I believe we must begin discussions for an immediate re-deployment of U.S. forces from Iraq.
    From the very first paragraph on his own website. Again, your point is what? It appears the Post correctly represented Murtha's (totally wrong-headed, IMHO) position.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  10. #30  
    ...and if this is true:
    We have become a catalyst for violence. A recent poll showed that 80% of the Iraqi public are “strongly opposed” to the presence of coalition troops and 45% believe attacks against Americans are justified.
    Where are the anti-America protests by Iraqis? There's been an explosion in free media over there. Where are the cries for our departure? I honor Murth's service to the country, but it doesn't confer upon him any more or less valuable an opinion than anyone else. His service doesn't make him right (or wrong), in other words.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  11. #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    It appears the Post correctly represented Murtha's (totally wrong-headed, IMHO) position.
    Thankfully very few people seem to agree with Murtha.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...112600745.html
    Sympathetic Vibrations
    By Chris Cillizza and Peter Slevin
    Sunday, November 27, 2005; Page A04

    ...Seventy percent of people surveyed said that criticism of the war by Democratic senators hurts troop morale -- with 44 percent saying morale is hurt "a lot," according to a poll taken by RT Strategies. Even self-identified Democrats agree: 55 percent believe criticism hurts morale...

    ...But the survey itself cannot be dismissed as a partisan attack. The RTs in RT Strategies are Thomas Riehle, a Democrat, and Lance Tarrance, a veteran GOP pollster.

    Their poll also indicates many Americans are skeptical of Democratic complaints about the war. Just three of 10 adults accept that Democrats are leveling criticism because they believe this will help U.S. efforts in Iraq. A majority believes the motive is really to "gain a partisan political advantage."
    ...

    Even so, there is still support for Bush's policy going forward. A plurality, 49 percent, believe that troops should come home only when the Iraqi government can provide for its own security, while 16 percent support immediate withdrawal, regardless of the circumstances.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  12. #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    I like this plan:

    • The U.S. to begin a phased draw down of American troops as a series of military and political benchmarks is met, starting with a reduction of 20,000 troops over the holidays as the first benchmark –the successful completion of the December elections – is met.

    • The U.S. to immediately make clear that we do not want permanent military bases in Iraq, or a large combat force on Iraqi soil indefinitely.

    .................
    If this is YOUR plan formulated BY YOU, i may take more time in the future and read your posts. If you're simply regurgetating, which seems to be your M.O. from what i've seen, then i may have to use that fancy ignore user feature.
  13. #33  
    Condi Rice was talking about a draw down in Spring of 06 this past July. This is just an attempt by the Democrat/Socialists to make it seem they forced the issue.
  14. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
    #34  
    got this in an email the other day.


    "Interesting Thought for the day:

    If you consider that there have been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq Theater of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of 2112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000. The rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000. That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in our Nation's Capitol, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, than you are in Iraq.

    Conclusion: We should immediately pull out
    of Washington D.C."




    im not sure if these stats are accurate, but this is interesting.
    Last edited by vw2002; 11/29/2005 at 08:19 PM.
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by cheetahjeremy
    If this is YOUR plan formulated BY YOU, i may take more time in the future and read your posts. If you're simply regurgetating, which seems to be your M.O. from what i've seen, then i may have to use that fancy ignore user feature.
    It sounds an awfully close to what Kerry proposed. Here is an audio interview that seems to go along pretty close to a lot of these points.

    http://www.npr.org/dmg/dmg.php?prgCo...ref=WM&getAd=1
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions