Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 51
  1.    #1  
    Was it worth it? Is it still worth it?

    It's time to bring our people home and make sure they are taken care of after the years of hell this administration has put them through.

    enough is enough.
  2. #2  
    Do you feel better now?

  3.    #3  
    Quote Originally Posted by treotraveler View Post
    Do you feel better now?

    Not really.

    I don't even find any pleasure in pointing out the ridiculousness of this attempt at mideast policy. I take no pleasure in "I told you so". I'm fracking tired of the issue and really tired of people even pretending it's debatable. It's a failed policy. Bring our people home.
  4. #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Bring our people home.
    I think in general this would be everyone's wish.

    Hillary doesn't quite agree with that statement as much anymore as far as full "redeployment" goes:
    March 14 — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a “remaining military as well as political mission” in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.

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

    The United States’ security would be undermined if parts of Iraq turned into a failed state “that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda,” she said. “It is right in the heart of the oil region,” she said. “It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel’s interests.”

    “So it will be up to me to try to figure out how to protect those national security interests and continue to take our troops out of this urban warfare, which I think is a loser,” Mrs. Clinton added. She declined to estimate the number of American troops she would keep in Iraq, saying she would draw on the advice of military officers.

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

    While Mrs. Clinton declined to estimate the size of a residual American troop presence, she indicated that troops might be based north of Baghdad and in western Anbar Province.

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

    One question raised by counterinsurgency experts is whether the more limited military mission Mrs. Clinton is advocating would lead to a further escalation in the sectarian fighting, because it would shift the entire burden for protecting civilians to the nascent Iraqi Security Forces. A National Intelligence Estimate issued in January said those forces would be hard-pressed to take on significantly increased responsibilities in the next 12 to 18 months.

    “Coalition capabilities, including force levels, resources and operations, remain an essential stabilizing element in Iraq,” the estimate noted, referring to the American-led forces.

    Source
    The hard questions, I don't think anyone has definitive answers for at the moment are:

    • Would cut and running with all of our troops abandoning Iraq create a more secure or less secure world environment?
    • What level of troops can we get down to in what time frame to have Iraq fully responsible for security?
    • If troops are left in Iraq, how many and what responsibilities?
  5.    #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    I think in general this would be everyone's wish.

    Hillary doesn't quite agree with that statement as much anymore as far as full "redeployment" goes:


    The hard questions, I don't think anyone has definitive answers for at the moment are:

    • Would cut and running with all of our troops abandoning Iraq create a more secure or less secure world environment?
    • What level of troops can we get down to in what time frame to have Iraq fully responsible for security?
    • If troops are left in Iraq, how many and what responsibilities?
    "cut & run" is a loaded term.

    I believe most sensible people can get behind the Democrat's current phased withdrawal plan.
  6. #6  
    Of all the options currently on the table, the one that will guarantee failure is an immediate and announced unilateral withdrawal. That, in my opinion, is also the only thing that will make this truly look like Vietnam.
  7. #7  
    When do we cross the line from "guaranteeing failure" to "limiting failure"?

    All the Sunday morning talk shows had the Republican talking point of "let's give the surge a chance".

    No one asked .." how long?"

    When will the administration admit that failure is already upon us.

    For the record.. I (a liberal, as you may have surmised by now) do not favor a withdrawal or re-deployment. I think attacking Iraq was a horrible mistake (the monster was contained). But now we are bogged down there for a decade .. bleeding slowly .. and paying a terrible price for the failed NeoCON experiment.

    History will hold GWB, Wolfie, Rummy accountable for what they have wrought upon our country.

    They will erect statues of these leaders in Iran for allowing the greatest expansion of their power and influence by removing Saddam.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  8.    #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs View Post
    Of all the options currently on the table, the one that will guarantee failure is an immediate and announced unilateral withdrawal. That, in my opinion, is also the only thing that will make this truly look like Vietnam.
    Toppling the Bathist regime. Done. Troops did their job.

    Standing in the middle of a civil war with a target on their back is not a fair thing to ask of our people.

    The "mission" was defeated before it left the gate by poor planning and nearly delusional denial of the region's history.

    So you can sit there and pretend failure is not an option but the reality is it's already a failure and minimizing human suffering is the best approach we can take. And that includes the human suffering of our soldiers.
  9. #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    the reality is it's already a failure and minimizing human suffering is the best approach we can take. And that includes the human suffering of our soldiers.
    What happens when a Rwanda-style genocide erupts when we leave?

    What if Syria, Iran, Turkey invade to fill in the vaccum left behind when we withdraw?

    No. We are stuck there right and proper...
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  10. #10  
    Agreeing with aprasad: we are stuck there. It'll take some careful planning and tough choices to bring the troops home.
    This is a sad fiasco but that's the way it is. Of course, Afghanistan is an unfinished-war-going-nowhere as well.
  11. #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad View Post
    They will erect statues of these leaders in Iran for allowing the greatest expansion of their power and influence by removing Saddam.
    That's the kind of complete failure that concerns me.

    Speaking of giving the surge a chance, I'm sure you all saw the overwelmingly negative articles today all quoting the same ABC/BBC poll. Did anyone happen to look at the poll methodology? Why do you think they polled 35% Sunni Arabs when they only comprise somewhere aroung 15% of the country? Given that Sunni Arabs are dramatically more pessimistic that Kurdish Sunnis or Shiites, don't you think this skews the net figures quite a bit?
  12. #12  
    Look here at the very bottom of the report. Looks like they doubled the number of non-Kurdish Sunnis.
  13. #13  
    "Toppling the Bathist regime. Done. Troops did their job.

    Standing in the middle of a civil war with a target on their back is not a fair thing to ask of our people.

    The "mission" was defeated before it left the gate by poor planning and nearly delusional denial of the region's history.

    So you can sit there and pretend failure is not an option but the reality is it's already a failure and minimizing human suffering is the best approach we can take. And that includes the human suffering of our soldiers."

    And we expect something other than failure. Even though most of them want to do what they were sent to do, WE (at least some of us) only let them PLAY army.

    So you can continue your own pretending in the comfort of your home, while they have the targets on their backs.

    Doesn't really matter what scenario they were sent into. You can't expect anything but failure if you send them in with their hands tied behind their back. And don't let one of those hands slip loose, because you may face civil criminal charges.
  14. #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    "cut & run" is a loaded term.

    I believe most sensible people can get behind the Democrat's current phased withdrawal plan.
    Da...that is what mainly the last two questions were pointed at, which I would be very interested in answers from them. I have seen very little projections of consequences, either positive or negative, addressed by the Dems about any of their proposed plans.

    Myself, I don't care if the plan is from Reps, Dems, Greens, Inds, or the latest Hollywood documentary.....but there are very few who will lay out a plan and spell out the projected calculated consequences. I mostly see finger pointing of what will not work (with no offering of what will work) with the biggest supporting factor of it's failure on the sole reason of who laid it on the table....i.e. playing politics. And yes, this goes for both sides.
  15. #15  
    "So you can sit there and pretend failure is not an option but the reality is it's already a failure and minimizing human suffering is the best approach we can take."

    I hate to say it, but trying to minimize it can also just spare some in the meantime, but the long term may be much more expensive (for the innocent Iraqis as well as our troops).
  16. #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Was it worth it? Is it still worth it?
    Yes and Yes.

    Don't forget the thousands of American and Iraqi contractors who died too.

    Was WWII worth it? 350,000 US soldiers dead. How about Korea? 58,000 US soldiers dead.

    Saddam and Ghaddafi are no longer threats. Kim Jong Il is scared of us, and negotiations look promising.

    No question, this Administration made many mistakes, which resulted in the war lasting much longer than it should and thousands of people dying, and hundreds of billions of dollars being wasted, and lots of goodwill being destroyed. And the chaos created many more "terrorists." But we're much safer when we prevent state sponsors of terror from developing WMD programs. One nuclear bomb could potentially kill more people than a thousand plane bombs and a thousand car bombs (which is why we'd better get North Korea to follow through on its recent promises).


    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    "cut & run" is a loaded term.
    So is "failed policy."


    I believe most sensible people can get behind the Democrat's current phased withdrawal plan.
    Deployment of troops isn't a goal in itself. It's a means for achieving national security. Withdrawing troops doesn't enhance national security, so we shouldn't do it, no matter how much it frustrates you to hear about our problems in Iraq every day on the news.
  17. #17  
    ^^^^^
    what he said, if we were to bring the troops home now it could become a terrorist country and everything we have gone through over there would be worthless
    ATT Treo 680 Crimson
  18. #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Saddam and Ghaddafi are no longer threats. Kim Jong Il is scared of us, and negotiations look promising.
    You still live in a dream world. If anything, Kim Jong Il changed course because he felt sorry for the US being bogged down and helpless in Iraq, not because he was scared by the now inexistent US capabilities of threatening him.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  19. #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad View Post
    For the record.. I (a liberal, as you may have surmised by now) do not favor a withdrawal or re-deployment. I think attacking Iraq was a horrible mistake (the monster was contained). But now we are bogged down there for a decade .. bleeding slowly .. and paying a terrible price for the failed NeoCON experiment.

    History will hold GWB, Wolfie, Rummy accountable for what they have wrought upon our country.

    They will erect statues of these leaders in Iran for allowing the greatest expansion of their power and influence by removing Saddam.
    True.

    Some say Jimmy Carter was the worst President the US had lately, but Carter gave the world the Camp David Accords (lasting peace between Israel and Egypt), while Bush gave the world a foolish and arrogant invasion of Iraq, with a very high price to pay and lasting damaging consequences for a long time to come.

    Some say in democracies, people get the government they deserve. That's a harsh thing to say about the US. I really hope it will be better next time.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  20. #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    You still live in a dream world. If anything, Kim Jong Il changed course because he felt sorry for the US being bogged down and helpless in Iraq, not because he was scared by the now inexistent US capabilities of threatening him.
    You assert:
    1. Kim Jong Il feels sorry for the US.
    2. He is not scared that the US will destroy him.

    Complete nonsense based on complete ignorance.
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions