For Those That Support a Troop Surge:

[HipLew]

........and i predict thagt the dems aren't gonna withold money from the surge, either, cuz if it fails, they will be blamed. if it fails with full monetary support, the the it's gonna be a lot more difficult to blame the dems. they will gamble on fulol funding with failjure to blame shrub and the repubs in time for 08! big gamble for the dems, but if it works then they share in the glory cuz they financed it.

The dems win both ways if they don't cut off funding for the surge. mark my words, they won't withold a dime; they may even toss in a few more bucks to make it look good.

 

[HipLew]

now; how could the admin attack somalia without funding? if they could do it there, they can shlep some money areound in the current defense budget to make up for any underfunding the dems try ( which they won't)

 

[LadyT]

huh? south koereans anren't dying by th e boat load. and i don't see what the difference is; we aren't there cuz they want us there, we're there cuz WE want to be there, as well as europe. it's all strategic, just like iraq; no difference at all.

My bad. I mean't "aren't dying by the boatload". There's a big difference. When an ally requests and supports your military presence in a particular region vs an entire country that despises your existence and who's members routinely try to kill you there's a huge difference one of the major differences being the price tag of said presence.

 

[Jarod]

Ahhh, Bush could win in Iraq, if he wanted to... but he does not want to just now...

The newest justification for the mess in Iraq.


ROTFLMAO

 

[LadyT]

thye could achieve victory, but they don't want to right now. there has to be an excuse to stay until all our new infrastructure and control is in place, then we back down to a 'peacekeeping' force of about 20k and lots of material.

LOL, what "victory". Saddam is dead there are no WMDs. The only possible victory to be won is quagmire we're in is the instantaneous resolution of three groups who have hated each other for centuries. Realistically that's not a battle we can win.

 

[HipLew]

LOL, what "victory". Saddam is dead there are no WMDs. The only possible victory to be won is quagmire we're in is the instantaneous resolution of three groups who have hated each other for centuries. Realistically that's not a battle we can win.

that's not the objective. the objective ("victory") is to control iraqi oil; and peace between the 3 factions may not be necessary to achieve that goal. in fact a bit of rivalry may work to our advantage in commnad and control of the oil.

 

[OrnotBitwise]

now; how could the admin attack somalia without funding? if they could do it there, they can shlep some money areound in the current defense budget to make up for any underfunding the dems try ( which they won't)

[Sung to the tune of Back in the Saddle Again]

Back in Somalia again
Where on one is really our friend . . . .

 

[HipLew]

once control of th oil is in place, then the crackdown to the fighting.

 

[Jarod]

Many people, (mostly Republicans who attack President Clinton for what happened there) forget it was President Bush Sr. who sent the troops into Somalia. He failed to provide those troops with the support or mandate to protect themselves and handed the mess over to President Clinton!

 

[LadyT]

that's not the objective. the objective ("victory") is to control iraqi oil; and peace between the 3 factions may not be necessary to achieve that goal. in fact a bit of rivalry may work to our advantage in commnad and control of the oil.

Funny, I thought, "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was about liberating the iraqi's from an evil dictator.

 

[HipLew]

Many people, (mostly Republicans who attack President Clinton for what happened there) forget it was President Bush Sr. who sent the troops into Somalia. He failed to provide those troops with the support or mandate to protect themselves and handed the mess over to President Clinton!

.......who also failed to succeed and then bailed (like ronnie raygun didn in lebanon).

 

[HipLew]

Funny, I thought, "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was about liberating the iraqi's from an evil dictator.

and all this time you thought you were smart............

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

the poll is 4 - 0 against troop surge. I was hoping a Dixie or another apologist could explain how the Bushies are going to magically achieve what they have been unable to achieve for the past four years.

They are not going to achieve success, at least not in your eyes, regardless of how many troops they send. Even your own pinhead leaders will tell you, we can't just pull up stakes and come home, it ain't going to happen! Not because Republicrats are just stubborn warmongers, not because they have to build support for their 'unjust' war, not because Dummycrats won't stand up to them, but because there would be enormous ramifications of a full and immediate withdrawal, and when the reality of having to deal with $25 a gallon gas hits, is not the time to consider the ramifications of destabilizing the mid-east region. So, we are going to be there as long as there is a serious threat to the peace.

The Baker Report you morons slobbered all over a few weeks ago, indicates a dismal outlook for 2007, if nothing changes. So, Bush can't just sit on his hands and do nothing. We can't leave, and we can't "do nothing". This only leaves the option of doing more, by sending more troops to DO more. Common sense tells us, more troops can do more work, and get more done. Therefore, I would say that sending more troops will positively accomplish more, than sending no more troops or withdrawing. There is no other logical conclusion.

You want to state that it will not accomplish much, if anything at all. However, it will accomplish more than the other two alternatives. That is a start. I personally think we should Ammo Up and send about 500k troops in, mostly special forces, and lock the place down.... it's what we should have done from the start. Take out alSadr and his bunch, and get serious with these militia groups running around like little armies with AK-47's in 1980 mini-trucks!

Bush's biggest mistake is trying to fight a conventional war with them in Iraq, when he so brilliantly stated, this is like no other enemy we've fought before. We need to start thinking outside the box of traditional military warfare, and finding ways to undermine the insurgency, not undermine the Iraq War.

 

[Damocles]

I suspect that the troops can provide a temporary security that will allow the US to leave Iraq appearing in better shape than now... I suspect that it is a plan for exit.

 

[maineman]

why can't we leave? Why cannot we expect the Iraqi people to win their own freedom? There is not this giant foreign terrorist presence in Iraq fighting against the Iraqi people... it is Iraqis fighting each other. How anyone thinkgs that sending 20K more Americans to act as cannon fodder in the midst of a civil war that is begging to be fought will make the animosity go away is beyond me.

 

[Damocles]

why can't we leave? Why cannot we expect the Iraqi people to win their own freedom? There is not this giant foreign terrorist presence in Iraq fighting against the Iraqi people... it is Iraqis fighting each other. How anyone thinkgs that sending 20K more Americans to act as cannon fodder in the midst of a civil war that is begging to be fought will make the animosity go away is beyond me.

Like I said, I suspect that it is the first step to an exit. Provide a temporary security declare Iraq ready and get out while the getting is good...

Basically I think they are doing what you want.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

why can't we leave? Why cannot we expect the Iraqi people to win their own freedom? There is not this giant foreign terrorist presence in Iraq fighting against the Iraqi people... it is Iraqis fighting each other. How anyone thinkgs that sending 20K more Americans to act as cannon fodder in the midst of a civil war that is begging to be fought will make the animosity go away is beyond me.

Why can we not leave? I thought I explained that. We can't leave because of destabilization in the region that would occur if we did. I thought you had read the Baker Report? I'm sure in your simple-minded liberal world, it's just that easy... just withdraw and come home! Well, what happens when the government of Iraq collapses to insurgents and the region is taken over by the radicals who assume the role of victors? What do we do about gas that is $25 a gallon IF we can find it? THEN is not the time to be thinking, geee... we shouldn't have withdrawn from Iraq... look at the mess that caused!

Every action we take, has ramifications and consequences, and regardless of the importance to you politically, to turn Iraq into a disgraceful shambles of a mess we just throw up our hands and give up on, we simply don't have that luxury here. This is why you see no major serious Democrat leader, promoting any sort of immediate and complete withdrawal from Iraq.

 

[Cypress]

Dixie: I personally think we should Ammo Up and send about 500k troops in, mostly special forces, and lock the place down…

That would require raising taxes and instating a draft - puttting us on a real war-footing, like FDR did. A draft and raising taxes are two things you have consistently opposed. So, I suspect your just spewing rhetoric here - i.e., you don't even really believe in what you're saying.

Dixie: it's what we should have done from the start. Take out alSadr and his bunch, and get serious with these militia groups running around like little armies with AK-47's in 1980 mini-trucks!

As distasteful as the theocratic Al Sadr is, he’s an enemy YOU and Bush created. Prior to your war, he was noboby. He wasn't attacking the U.S. He is not part of al Qaeda, and was never part of the global, international jihadist movement. His goals are more parochial and nationalistic - to end the occupation, and bring Shia-dominated government to Iraq. I don’t see him coming across the Atlantic ocean in the Iraqi Navy, to attack the United States. He wants to kill Iraqi sunnis, and dominate Iraq. That’s a bad problem for the sunnis perhaps, but that’s not a good reason for you to kill more american troops and spend hundreds of billions more taxpayer dollars.

DIXIE: Well, what happens when the government of Iraq collapses to insurgents and the region is taken over by the radicals who assume the role of victors?

Wait - you just said the problem was Al Sadr and the Shia militias. The SUNNI insurgents don’t have a prayer of “taking over” Iraq. The sunnis are like 18% of the population, and our own government reports states that there’s barely a couple thousand foreign fighters in Iraq.

Dixie: What do we do about gas that is $25 a gallon IF we can find it?

I thought this war wasn’t about oil?

 

[uscitizen]

yep

Same here. This has always been the plan, it was not just saleable to the US public in it's true form. Hence the misleading began.

 

[maineman]

why can't we leave? Why cannot we expect the Iraqi people to win their own freedom? There is not this giant foreign terrorist presence in Iraq fighting against the Iraqi people... it is Iraqis fighting each other. How anyone thinkgs that sending 20K more Americans to act as cannon fodder in the midst of a civil war that is begging to be fought will make the animosity go away is beyond me.

"Why can we not leave? I thought I explained that. We can't leave because of destabilization in the region that would occur if we did. I thought you had read the Baker Report? I'm sure in your simple-minded liberal world, it's just that easy... just withdraw and come home! Well, what happens when the government of Iraq collapses to insurgents and the region is taken over by the radicals who assume the role of victors? What do we do about gas that is $25 a gallon IF we can find it? THEN is not the time to be thinking, geee... we shouldn't have withdrawn from Iraq... look at the mess that caused!

Every action we take, has ramifications and consequences, and regardless of the importance to you politically, to turn Iraq into a disgraceful shambles of a mess we just throw up our hands and give up on, we simply don't have that luxury here. This is why you see no major serious Democrat leader, promoting any sort of immediate and complete withdrawal from Iraq."

This "destabilization in the region that would occur if we left" is nothing more than a guess from a bunch of neocons who have guessed wrong about everything since day one. (remember the ones about being greeted as liberators, statues of Bush in Baghdad squares, rose petals being thrown at our feet?)

The fight in Iraq is between Iraqis. You seem to always cast it as the honorable Iraqi government fighting off these foreign insurgents from another planet. These are two different ethnic groups in Iraq battling over how their country ought to be established and governed. No different than yankees and rebels fighting for their different visions of how America ought to be governed 150 years ago. The government of Iraq needs to stand on its ownmerits or it needs to be replaced by some other entity that can govern that nation state - and that transformation needs to occur without having hundreds of thousands of armed Americans to prevent it from coming to its logical conclusion.

"$25 dollars a gallon gas" is just another unjustified scare tactic from the PNAC crowd....no different than "mushroom clouds over American cities" was.

Your guesses and predictions and prognostications about Iraq have been so uniformly INACCURATE, it would always be a smart bet to listen to what you think we should do and then do the exact opposite.