For Those That Support a Troop Surge:

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I won't expound on the hilarious and blatant hypocrisy of you coming to the defense of the Baker Report....but I will note it.

I think you agreed with the Baker Report when it came out. I agreed with most of it.

This thread is about a troop surge to put combat troops in Baghdad and Anbar Provinces where they will, undoubtedly, be slaughtered in numbers even greater than we have seen recently.

Do you not recall agreeing with me in the thread "More Troops? Less Troops? Why not BOTH?" My argument, which you said you agreed with, was to send in additional troops, get the job finished, and then start withdrawing. Are you now saying that you only agreed to the "withdrawing" part of my suggestion?

The Baker Report says we should be getting out of Iraq....

Nowhere are these words found in the Baker Report that I read.

certainly not in the dead of night tonight...

And not in the middle of the day either, at least not "precipitously" because of the destabilization issue. We are not going to completely redeploy our forces, the Baker Report was fairly clear on that.

but sending 20K combat troops - which YOU support - is NOT what the Baker Commission recommends.

Are we sending "combat" troops? Where does Baker recommend NOT sending in any more troops? I think it specifically gives that option, or leaves it on the table, as a possible solution to stem the violence.

From just a common sense pragmatic standpoint... reducing troops will not improve the situation... leaving troop levels the same will not improve the situation... sending more troops, could potentially improve the situation. Why would you oppose improving the situation?

 

[uscitizen]

Some of the troops would like to come home becuase they have fulfilled their enlistment time too, but are being held over there. This is just plain wrong for an undeclared war.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

If you really gave two $hits about them, you'd be supporting their return, and not the bombastic talking points of the chief chimp in charge.

I do give a shit about them, and support their VICTORIOUS return. This will happen as soon as they finish the job, which will happen when peace is secured in Iraq, which will happen when the insurgents have no motivation left to fight, which might happen sooner if you stop undermining the war.

Articulating the mistakes of George W. Bush in Iraq, as I have done, is not exactly a part of the Administration "talking points" these days. Where you come up with that, after I essentially AGREED with you, is beyond me!

 

[uscitizen]

But if they are not victorious they can all just die over there Dix ?

 

[maineman]

"From just a common sense pragmatic standpoint... reducing troops will not improve the situation... leaving troop levels the same will not improve the situation... sending more troops, could potentially improve the situation. Why would you oppose improving the situation?"

pardon me if I don't succomb to the temptation to view you as the be-all end-all arbiter of common sense. Your vision of "common sense" has been categorically wrong nearly 100% of the time....so you telling ANYBODY that ANYTHING is "common sense" is, in a word, nonsensical.

I DO support improving the situation. I quite frankly believe that a phased reduction of troops may very well improve the situation. I said not in the dead of night which is an idiom which implies NOT precipitously.... but I do support reducing them starting quite soon and ending at a date certain that we publish to the Iraqi government so they know when they will have to carry this ball on thier own...

and I don't really hold out any hope that anything we do will do anything other than delay the bloodbath of sectarian strife that will follow. Looking back, the Missouri Compromise seemed like great statesmanship at the time, but it certainly did not allow this nation to avoid Gettysburg, did it?

I firmly believe, that the sunnis and shiites in Iraq are just bound and determined to "get in on" and until THEY get tired of spilling their blood, and until they decide to sit down with each other and with the kurds in the north and figure out a way to co-exist, violence will be a part of the daily drill in Iraq, regardless of how much we drag our heels before getting out of there...

and the longer we drag our heels, the more American blood will spill for a cause not our own, and, quite frankly, I am sick and tired of THAT already..... it seems that only the chickenhawks with zero time in service and no chance of spilling any of THEIR OWN yellow blood are the ones yelling loudest for us to remain...and THAT fact makes me so fucking sick I could puke.

 

[LadyT]

...This will happen as soon as they finish the job, which will happen when peace is secured in Iraq, which will happen when the insurgents have no motivation left to fight, which might happen sooner if you stop undermining the war.

Are you now trying to insinuate that my dissent is what's motivating the terrorist attacks in Iraq? Please provide the evidence of this in the form of a URL that links my dissent to the civil war that's been insuing in Iraq over the last year.

Articulating the mistakes of George W. Bush in Iraq, as I have done, is not exactly a part of the Administration "talking points" these days. Where you come up with that, after I essentially AGREED with you, is beyond me!

Wrong again corky. Everyone is on the band wagon, even Bush. Face it....you're a Bush Parrot.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/24/AR2006042400850.html

"President Bush today said mistakes were made in planning for the Iraq invasion, but he defended the troop level he ordered in the initial strike, saying he would have committed the same number if given a second chance."

 

[Cypress]

What you must realize now is, this war is not going to be over sooner by your undermining it, if anything, it's going to make it longer. So, for the sake of the troops, we need to stop undermining the war,

Wow, you're still clinging to this talking point?

This is so 2004. No one's buying your bullshit anymore.

 

[LadyT]

For the troops sake, how about we bring them home?

 

[uscitizen]

Victory or death ?

 

[Cypress]

-DIXIE, today: "I have never argued that Iraq had nothing to do with oil"

-DIXIE, August 2005: "Well Rev, you and Desh are morons, that's all I can say. You've completely lost touch with reality and you seek to drag the rest of us down the shit hole with you. If we are out by the '06 mid-terms, I will be very surprised, as I don't see it happening that fast, and if it's rushed or done prematurely, Iraq will be in serious trouble. This is too important to fuck up..." "This has NOTHING to do with oil! For Christ's sake, do you think we are paying record prices for gas in this country because we invaded Iraq to steal their oil? Is that how moronic you are, or can you possibly fathom a rational explanation?"


http://fullpolitics.com/viewthread.php?tid=5412#pid124338

I don't see where you got back to me on this, Dixie.

My question is: Do you simply forget what contradictory arguments you were making for the war two years ago? Or, do you conciously and knowingly shift your arguments around, so that you are always supporting the latest Bush position?

 

[LadyT]

I don't see where you got back to me on this, Dixie.

My question is: Do you simply forget what contradictory arguments you were making for the war two years ago? Or, do you conciously and knowingly shift your arguments around, so that you are always supporting the latest Bush position?

That was classic ownage btw. I laughed out loud when I read that.

Its so funny to see the apologists tap dance around Iraq. He wasn't the only one that considered us tinfoil hat pinheads for bringing up oil in the beginning of this war.

 

[maineman]

I don't see where you got back to me on this, Dixie.

My question is: Do you simply forget what contradictory arguments you were making for the war two years ago? Or, do you conciously and knowingly shift your arguments around, so that you are always supporting the latest Bush position?

I am quite sure that Dixie will fabricate a clever response that will clearly explain how he can say totally contradictory things without contradicting himself.

Has anyone on here EVER seen him show the least bit of contrition for such bullshit?

 

[Cypress]

-DIXIE, August 2005: "Well Rev, you and Desh are morons, that's all I can say. You've completely lost touch with reality and you seek to drag the rest of us down the shit hole with you. If we are out by the '06 mid-terms, I will be very surprised, as I don't see it happening that fast, and if it's rushed or done prematurely, Iraq will be in serious trouble. This is too important to fuck up..."

"This has NOTHING to do with oil! For Christ's sake, do you think we are paying record prices for gas in this country because we invaded Iraq to steal their oil? Is that how moronic you are, or can you possibly fathom a rational explanation?"


http://fullpolitics.com/viewthread.php?tid=5412#pid124338

That was classic ownage btw. I laughed out loud when I read that.

Its so funny to see the apologists tap dance around Iraq. He wasn't the only one that considered us tinfoil hat pinheads for bringing up oil in the beginning of this war.

My vote is that he knowingly shifts his argument around, as the years pass, to always be in support of the latest Bush postion.

How could he simply "forget" that he spent years saying the war "had nothing to do with oil?

 

[LadyT]

My vote is that he knowingly shifts his argument around, as the years pass, to always be in support of the latest Bush postion.

How could he simply "forget" that he spent years saying the war "had nothing to do with oil?

clearly his positions are that of convenience. fortunately for us, you, Lorax, and Maineman are quick with the search engines. I just will pol.com's database was up. We'd really have some douzies.

 

[maineman]

oh...to be able to go get those loong winded rants where he accused Lt Kerry of being a war criminal by violating terms of the Geneva Convention that had not even been written until Kerry was out of service....


those were good times...good times

 

[LadyT]

oh...to be able to go get those loong winded rants where he accused Lt Kerry of being a war criminal by violating terms of the Geneva Convention that had not even been written until Kerry was out of service....

those were good times...good times

I'd love to get quotes from them saying that we are going to find evidence WMD program within months of going into Iraq. Or when toby told us he had 5 degrees, cancer, and how he used to fly on the company jet.......yeah....good times, good times.....

 

[Muqtada_AlSadr]

Some people may think when I retaliate against the sunni's next week its due to incidents like this:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/10/iraq.main/index.html

"Ten Shiite pilgrims were ambushed, shot and killed Wednesday as their caravan returned from the Hajj in Saudi Arabia, an Interior Ministry official in Baghdad said. "

But only the astute and politically kean, like you Dixie realize, we retaliate because of liberal dissent coming out US.

Die infidels die.

 

[uscitizen]

I personally think that the military should not be able to hold service people beyond their enlistment period unless it is a declared war.

 

[Cancel7]

No one is going to stop the escalation. The dems might get a resolution passed, probably with some small bipartisan support, stating that Congress is against more troops. That won’t stop it. The dems will not refuse to fund the troops, they know that the republicans are just salivating at the very idea that the dems would do that and would pounce. They don’t have the courage to go out and make a case straight to the American people of why refusing to fund the war would not put the troops into danger (we would fund getting them the hell out of there fully) and why it is the only way to stop the war. But even if we lived in an alternate dimension where the dems did have the courage to make this case, and they did cut off funding, that still would not stop bush.

So our people will continue to die, and let us not forget, to kill in Iraq. And the American people will get more and more outraged until finally the pressure gets so hot on the republican party that they will go to bush and tell him he must stop or he must resign. I believe we will see a Nixonian moment, probably in 07. But Bush is not Nixon and so he will not resign, and he will not bring the troops home. We have never had such a disturbed personality in the white house before.

The war will not end, nor will troop levels ever be reduced while bush is in office. So by the end of this year the country as a whole will have to come to a decision; do they want to wait for the end of his term, or do they want to do something about it now?

There might be an actual, real, live “constitutional crises” before that happen. Not the faux ones the right tried to claim we were encountering during the 2000 recount and during the Clinton BJ BS.

All in all, it makes for very interesting television. Especially if, you know, you don’t love anyone who is in Iraq or going to Iraq and have no empathy or conscience. Anyway, that’s just my opinion.

 

[OrnotBitwise]

Basically, I agree with Darla. This is escalation, in the same way that we saw it in Vietnam. I think it will have just as much effect as it did in Vietnam, too. But the Democrats are both too timid and too cynical to risk open opposition to the plan. They'll make symbolic and empty gestures but will not take any substantive steps. That way, if things fail they can claim they were against it but don't have to take any real lumps for "success" . . . whatever the hell that might be.

It's a win-win situation for them. Except for all the messy killing and maiming, of course.