Leaving Iraq, Honorably
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
Originally Posted by Dixie
Can't you just honestly admit that Iraq is better off functioning as a democracy than a dictatorship? It's really an easy concept, it's not that hard to say without being melodramatic or sarcastic.
Dixie, you've have GOT to be one of the last remaining Neocons sucking Bush off.
Everyone is abandoning you. Richard Perle, Ken Adelman and the hardcore neocons are bailing on you and bush.
Newt Gingrich said yesterday: “that unless the Bush administration admits that the war in Iraq is a ‘failure,’ it will never develop a strategy to leave the country successfully.”
Even WRL on the FP board, basically committed suicide the day after the Nov. 7 Democratic landslide, and hasn't been back to the board since.
Can't you just honestly admit that Iraq is better off functioning as a democracy than a dictatorship? It's really an easy concept, it's not that hard to say without being melodramatic or sarcastic.
Dixie, you've have GOT to be one of the last remaining Neocons sucking Bush off.
Everyone is abandoning you. Richard Perle, Ken Adelman and the hardcore neocons are bailing on you and bush.
Newt Gingrich said yesterday: “that unless the Bush administration admits that the war in Iraq is a ‘failure,’ it will never develop a strategy to leave the country successfully.”
Even WRL on the FP board, basically committed suicide the day after the Nov. 7 Democratic landslide, and hasn't been back to the board since.
uscitizen
Villified User
Yes like replacing hitler crony in Iran with his playboy son (the shaw) ?
Like promoting/training/equipping Afgani forces we now fight ?
Like selling weapons to Sadam ?
Like selling weapons to Iran ?
Like ignoring sadams use of chemical weapons on the Iranians ?
Yes a very old and long established mess, and we have done far more than our share of stirring it up.
bob
a member named bob
well i will still support bush as much as i can... no matter how stupid he is... just because i dont like or agree with him on every, most things, dosnt mean that i am going to just write him off, after all he still is our pres... and he can still make things a hell of alot worse then they are now
uscitizen
Villified User
I will just have to disagree with you on the supporting Bush. I don't think bush dares to do anything too rash during the rest of his term. He is going to be busy trying to show us how evil the demoncratic congress is. If Bush goes too radical the Repubs are down the tubes for another 15 years guaranteed.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
OMG, this is beautiful. I post one statement of fact, and pinheads converge to deliver so much! Where do I begin... let's see, I won't bother naming you as I go, you know your own words, I will just give my comments as I go through....
-Iraq was in much better state before we COMPLETELY DESTABILIZED THE REGION AND LURED AL QAEDA in.
We didn't lure alQaeda in, they were already there, and had been there off and on for 10 years. How do you explain their ability to establish such a sophisticated covert network of safehouses and strategic locations to wage the insurgency? If alQaeda came after we did, they simply wouldn't have been able to sustain any sort of stronghold, or organize any sort of serious threat to security. The vast majority of Iraqis are not supportive of alQaeda in the least, so there is no way to explain the way alQaeda seems ensconced within the population, unless they were already there before, unless they already had connections and infrastructure in place, before we came. Think about that, and see if you can come up with another explanation that makes sense.
-Saddam was an evil SOB that shouldn't have been in power, but the country had order, Iran was in check and Mosques weren't getting blown up every other day and roadside bombs weren't killing innocent people. Bush created all of that.
I'm glad that you realize what an evil SOB Saddam was, but the myth that the country "had order" before, is a bit of kite-flying sophistry presented by Michael Moore, and hardly the truth. There was a great special on Saddam's reign of terror, I forget which channel, maybe the History Channel, but it went into great personal detail from families who lived under Saddam, and experienced a nightmarish situation that you and I simply can't relate to.
Iran was not "in check" at all. They haven't been "in check" since about 1976. Tehran is the "Mecca" for the Islamofascist ideology of hate, which brought us 9/11, and is the source for most of the radical Islamic problem we face in the middle east. Iran is the "Head of the Snake."
As far as I know, Bush doesn't even know how to rig an IED, and I certainly don't think he has ever considered bombing a Mosque. Bush didn't "create" that at all, he is waging war against it, and he is committed to winning that war. So are the Armed Forces currently fighting the war.
-I'm sure if most sane people could go back in time and do it again, they'd have left Saddam right were he was.
If we had the luxury of hindsight, and could have been certain that Saddam posed no threat with WMD's, and had no nuclear ambitions, sure.... leave him where he sits for the time being... I agree! The thing is, we didn't have hindsight, we didn't know for certain, and he wasn't cooperating. His unwillingness to cooperate, coupled with our intelligence reports, were what we based our decisions on, since we didn't have the luxury of a crystal ball, and we didn't know anything for certain. Congress, both Republican and Democrat, voted overwhelmingly, to give the president the authority to use military force, and you can go to your graves denying this is what happened, but that is what the record shows.
-This entire debacle was a massive failure that you delude yourself into thinking is an exercise in spreading freedom.
And as I said, this seems to be the consensus DemoSpin on Iraq, that it IS a FAILURE, period. I disagree completely, it has the potential to be whatever we make of it at this point, and if you are just hell bent on making it a failure, it will be. I can see many beneficial things which could result from Iraq Democracy, and I am not willing to prejudge history here. I haven't deluded myself into thinking anything, other than the idea that Democracy in the Arab world, might just hold the key to lasting peace. I don't think this is a delusion at all, I happen to think it is a valid strategy, and so did Bill Clinton when he signed the policy into law in 1998.
-And when did it become our jobs to export democracy to every country in the world?
Oh, I think it "officially" became our job at the end of WWII, when we nuked Japan and became the worlds leading superpower. Some would argue it is our "Manifest Destiny" to do this. And by the way, I would be interested in the link to the story of Bush proposing to "export democracy to every country in the world..." I haven't seen that specific policy statement. We do stand up for Freedom and Democracy with our allies, and this has been our practice as a nation for well over 200 years now.
-I have no problems sending our troops in to stabilize regions that are being subjected to genocide
So you have no problem with us taking out a man who gassed nearly a million people? I'm glad you see the light! There are over 300 mass grave sites in Iraq, we have only unearthed a couple dozen, and have over 300,000 corpses of former innocent Iraqi citizens who were killed by Saddam's regime. We are currently stabilizing a democratically elected parliamentary constitutional democracy, in Iraq. I'm glad that you have no problem with us doing that! This is great news!
-The glandular contingent seem to believe that "democracy" is some kind of magical panacea. They appear to assume that a government whose legitimacy is allegedly founded in free elections is always "better" than any other government.
Well, that's because, it is! I'm not sure what "glandular contingents" believe, but I happen to know that democracies have rarely attacked other democracies. I also believe, as an American, that it is far "better" for the people to have a free voice in government. There are numerous examples of success, none better than the United States of America, which has become the most powerful dynasty the planet has ever known in just a couple of centuries. Far surpassing any other form or type of governmental structure to have graced the stage of geopolitics. So, there is no "magic panacea" here, just proven results that you can't refute.
-I figure it will go down in history as the US destabilization of the middle east.
Or something like that.
Yeah, something like that... or maybe, drop the "de" from stabilization... you might just be two letters off!
-Iraq WOULD BE better off - from America's perspective - as a "functioning" democracy than as a dictatorship.
Well GREAT! I'm glad you agree with what we are currently trying to achieve in Iraq, and I'm glad to hear you now support this objective. Now, let's discuss how we best accomplish this, and stop trying to turn it into Vietnam, okay?
-Well, I know I'm in the minority here, but I say we cut our losses and get the he|| out now.
Well, this is because you fail to see the importance of prevailing in Iraq, and you never have seen the importance of the war. I can understand your emotions here, many people question why our boys are dying for this, and why we can't just pull the plug and come home. These are emotive responses to war, and they are not uncommon, many people felt this way during the gruesome days of WWII. War is Hell, it's not fun and games, and it's not for the weak at heart. When you seriously contemplate a strategy for Iraq, the first strategy you must dismiss, is completely bailing on the Iraqis and withdrawing our support entirely. This would NOT stabilize Iraq or the region in the least. Now, maybe you just don't care about that, maybe your emotions are so, that you aren't thinking about having to pay $20 for a gallon of gas if you can get it, or maybe you aren't considering how we deal with the nuclear cleanup in Chicago, when these nutjobs come after us, and if we run, they WILL! For whatever reason, your emotions are not allowing you to think rationally about this, and you don't comprehend that every action has a reaction, and withdrawing our forces from Iraq will ultimately result in much more death, destruction, war, and US casualties, both military and civilian.
In order to "cut our losses" as you say, it would mean that we could redeploy from Iraq completely, and there would be no repercussions or consequences. This is not based in reality, and will never be the case with regard to ANY action of this nature.
-Iraq was in much better state before we COMPLETELY DESTABILIZED THE REGION AND LURED AL QAEDA in.
We didn't lure alQaeda in, they were already there, and had been there off and on for 10 years. How do you explain their ability to establish such a sophisticated covert network of safehouses and strategic locations to wage the insurgency? If alQaeda came after we did, they simply wouldn't have been able to sustain any sort of stronghold, or organize any sort of serious threat to security. The vast majority of Iraqis are not supportive of alQaeda in the least, so there is no way to explain the way alQaeda seems ensconced within the population, unless they were already there before, unless they already had connections and infrastructure in place, before we came. Think about that, and see if you can come up with another explanation that makes sense.
-Saddam was an evil SOB that shouldn't have been in power, but the country had order, Iran was in check and Mosques weren't getting blown up every other day and roadside bombs weren't killing innocent people. Bush created all of that.
I'm glad that you realize what an evil SOB Saddam was, but the myth that the country "had order" before, is a bit of kite-flying sophistry presented by Michael Moore, and hardly the truth. There was a great special on Saddam's reign of terror, I forget which channel, maybe the History Channel, but it went into great personal detail from families who lived under Saddam, and experienced a nightmarish situation that you and I simply can't relate to.
Iran was not "in check" at all. They haven't been "in check" since about 1976. Tehran is the "Mecca" for the Islamofascist ideology of hate, which brought us 9/11, and is the source for most of the radical Islamic problem we face in the middle east. Iran is the "Head of the Snake."
As far as I know, Bush doesn't even know how to rig an IED, and I certainly don't think he has ever considered bombing a Mosque. Bush didn't "create" that at all, he is waging war against it, and he is committed to winning that war. So are the Armed Forces currently fighting the war.
-I'm sure if most sane people could go back in time and do it again, they'd have left Saddam right were he was.
If we had the luxury of hindsight, and could have been certain that Saddam posed no threat with WMD's, and had no nuclear ambitions, sure.... leave him where he sits for the time being... I agree! The thing is, we didn't have hindsight, we didn't know for certain, and he wasn't cooperating. His unwillingness to cooperate, coupled with our intelligence reports, were what we based our decisions on, since we didn't have the luxury of a crystal ball, and we didn't know anything for certain. Congress, both Republican and Democrat, voted overwhelmingly, to give the president the authority to use military force, and you can go to your graves denying this is what happened, but that is what the record shows.
-This entire debacle was a massive failure that you delude yourself into thinking is an exercise in spreading freedom.
And as I said, this seems to be the consensus DemoSpin on Iraq, that it IS a FAILURE, period. I disagree completely, it has the potential to be whatever we make of it at this point, and if you are just hell bent on making it a failure, it will be. I can see many beneficial things which could result from Iraq Democracy, and I am not willing to prejudge history here. I haven't deluded myself into thinking anything, other than the idea that Democracy in the Arab world, might just hold the key to lasting peace. I don't think this is a delusion at all, I happen to think it is a valid strategy, and so did Bill Clinton when he signed the policy into law in 1998.
-And when did it become our jobs to export democracy to every country in the world?
Oh, I think it "officially" became our job at the end of WWII, when we nuked Japan and became the worlds leading superpower. Some would argue it is our "Manifest Destiny" to do this. And by the way, I would be interested in the link to the story of Bush proposing to "export democracy to every country in the world..." I haven't seen that specific policy statement. We do stand up for Freedom and Democracy with our allies, and this has been our practice as a nation for well over 200 years now.
-I have no problems sending our troops in to stabilize regions that are being subjected to genocide
So you have no problem with us taking out a man who gassed nearly a million people? I'm glad you see the light! There are over 300 mass grave sites in Iraq, we have only unearthed a couple dozen, and have over 300,000 corpses of former innocent Iraqi citizens who were killed by Saddam's regime. We are currently stabilizing a democratically elected parliamentary constitutional democracy, in Iraq. I'm glad that you have no problem with us doing that! This is great news!
-The glandular contingent seem to believe that "democracy" is some kind of magical panacea. They appear to assume that a government whose legitimacy is allegedly founded in free elections is always "better" than any other government.
Well, that's because, it is! I'm not sure what "glandular contingents" believe, but I happen to know that democracies have rarely attacked other democracies. I also believe, as an American, that it is far "better" for the people to have a free voice in government. There are numerous examples of success, none better than the United States of America, which has become the most powerful dynasty the planet has ever known in just a couple of centuries. Far surpassing any other form or type of governmental structure to have graced the stage of geopolitics. So, there is no "magic panacea" here, just proven results that you can't refute.
-I figure it will go down in history as the US destabilization of the middle east.
Or something like that.
Yeah, something like that... or maybe, drop the "de" from stabilization... you might just be two letters off!
-Iraq WOULD BE better off - from America's perspective - as a "functioning" democracy than as a dictatorship.
Well GREAT! I'm glad you agree with what we are currently trying to achieve in Iraq, and I'm glad to hear you now support this objective. Now, let's discuss how we best accomplish this, and stop trying to turn it into Vietnam, okay?
-Well, I know I'm in the minority here, but I say we cut our losses and get the he|| out now.
Well, this is because you fail to see the importance of prevailing in Iraq, and you never have seen the importance of the war. I can understand your emotions here, many people question why our boys are dying for this, and why we can't just pull the plug and come home. These are emotive responses to war, and they are not uncommon, many people felt this way during the gruesome days of WWII. War is Hell, it's not fun and games, and it's not for the weak at heart. When you seriously contemplate a strategy for Iraq, the first strategy you must dismiss, is completely bailing on the Iraqis and withdrawing our support entirely. This would NOT stabilize Iraq or the region in the least. Now, maybe you just don't care about that, maybe your emotions are so, that you aren't thinking about having to pay $20 for a gallon of gas if you can get it, or maybe you aren't considering how we deal with the nuclear cleanup in Chicago, when these nutjobs come after us, and if we run, they WILL! For whatever reason, your emotions are not allowing you to think rationally about this, and you don't comprehend that every action has a reaction, and withdrawing our forces from Iraq will ultimately result in much more death, destruction, war, and US casualties, both military and civilian.
In order to "cut our losses" as you say, it would mean that we could redeploy from Iraq completely, and there would be no repercussions or consequences. This is not based in reality, and will never be the case with regard to ANY action of this nature.
bob
a member named bob
maineman
Banned
why do you persist in cherry picking sentences out of context and refusing to actually debate the substantive issues? You remind me of Hannity, only dumber.
As part of a much more substantive paragraph, you pick the sentence: "Iraq WOULD BE better off - from America's perspective - as a "functioning" democracy than as a dictatorship"
and respond:
Well GREAT! I'm glad you agree with what we are currently trying to achieve in Iraq, and I'm glad to hear you now support this objective. Now, let's discuss how we best accomplish this, and stop trying to turn it into Vietnam, okay?
I do NOT agree with what we are trying to achieve, primarily because I find it absurdly counterproductive for US to be trying to achieve that at the point of a gun held by an invading conquering occupying army.
Like I said earlier...it WOULD BE great if Iraq did indeed blossom into a multicultural Jeffersonian democracy right there in the fertile triangle...and it WOULD BE great if I won Powerball. America can do little to positively impact the former, just like I can do little to positively impact the latter.
I have been and will always remain furious and bitter at the terrible terrible mess you and your dumbass pResident have made of this situation and of the world in general and ruined it for my children. There is a particularly nasty corner of Hell reserved for you both. Bon Voyage.
As part of a much more substantive paragraph, you pick the sentence: "Iraq WOULD BE better off - from America's perspective - as a "functioning" democracy than as a dictatorship"
and respond:
Well GREAT! I'm glad you agree with what we are currently trying to achieve in Iraq, and I'm glad to hear you now support this objective. Now, let's discuss how we best accomplish this, and stop trying to turn it into Vietnam, okay?
I do NOT agree with what we are trying to achieve, primarily because I find it absurdly counterproductive for US to be trying to achieve that at the point of a gun held by an invading conquering occupying army.
Like I said earlier...it WOULD BE great if Iraq did indeed blossom into a multicultural Jeffersonian democracy right there in the fertile triangle...and it WOULD BE great if I won Powerball. America can do little to positively impact the former, just like I can do little to positively impact the latter.
I have been and will always remain furious and bitter at the terrible terrible mess you and your dumbass pResident have made of this situation and of the world in general and ruined it for my children. There is a particularly nasty corner of Hell reserved for you both. Bon Voyage.
DIXIE: "many people question why our boys are dying for this, and why we can't just pull the plug and come home. These are emotive responses to war, and they are not uncommon, many people felt this way during the gruesome days of WWII. War is Hell, it's not fun and games, and it's not for the weak at heart."
Please stop lying.
Polls taken during world war two, consistenty found extrordinarily high approval for FDR's prosecution of the war (in the 70-80% range), and that by 1943, over 90% of americans felt we were winning the war.
The poll trends were all basically trended positive or upwards from 1941 on to the end in 1945. And americans consistenly had a very good idea of why we were fighting the war
pdf of WWII era polls:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/wwii-polls/
The graph is from (p. 48) The Human Dimension: Experiences in Policy Research by Hadley Cantril, published by Rutgers University Press, 1967.
Please stop lying.
Polls taken during world war two, consistenty found extrordinarily high approval for FDR's prosecution of the war (in the 70-80% range), and that by 1943, over 90% of americans felt we were winning the war.
The poll trends were all basically trended positive or upwards from 1941 on to the end in 1945. And americans consistenly had a very good idea of why we were fighting the war
pdf of WWII era polls:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/wwii-polls/
The graph is from (p. 48) The Human Dimension: Experiences in Policy Research by Hadley Cantril, published by Rutgers University Press, 1967.
Bush fans are desparately trying to clutch at the ghosts of FDR and Truman, to try to bring some sense and glory to their failed, idiotic war on iraq.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
And now Bush's rose led victory parade in Iraq....
to try to bring some sense and glory to their failed, idiotic war on iraq....
Wow, these Iraqi people look pretty happy Saddam is gone, one guy appears to be playing the flute! And I am sure the palm fonds were there, you just can't see them for the hoards of grateful and jubilant Iraqi people!
to try to bring some sense and glory to their failed, idiotic war on iraq....
Wow, these Iraqi people look pretty happy Saddam is gone, one guy appears to be playing the flute! And I am sure the palm fonds were there, you just can't see them for the hoards of grateful and jubilant Iraqi people!
maineman
Banned
and Dixie...I NEVER bashed CLinton's policy or the ILA....if we could have convinced the Iraqi people to band together to depose Saddam themselves, the outcome would have undoubtedly been more congenial than what has transpired..... your pinhead quote is - typically - fraudulent.
loser.
loser.
Is that why you're still here and not in Iraq? Leaving the fighting to the men folk Dixie?
So, what kind of boots do you favor?
He has more men who are actually trained and ready to fight Dixie. In case you haven't been reading the news, the "iraqi army" isn't yet ready to "stand up".
He can also have more Iraqis in the streets of Baghdad, with one nod of his head, then anyone else in Iraq.
Yes, exactly. Thank you.