More Troops, Less Troops, or.... Both?

Dixie said:
WOW! That is GREAT NEWS, Prissy! If the insurgents are now turning on each other, this thing is all but over with! Yea!!!! VIVA AMERICA!
Click to expand...

Oh, and how about admitting you were WRONG when you made this statement:

DIXIE: "they too share the same common objective of eliminating democracy in Iraq. They are not killing each other, there is no internal insurgent fighting happening, so that isn't the case"
 
Onceler said:
It's always "gotcha" partisan politics with you. That is one of the biggest reasons we are stuck in this mess; Bush cheerleaders were more concerned about defending him as "right" than taking an objective look at the situation.

What exactly did Clinton say? If he said we need to stay the course until we successfully establish a western-style democracy in Iraq, I vehemently disagree with him...as does Kissinger, Baker, Adelman, et al.

There are very few people talking like you are, Dixie. Do you read the news? Do you really have an understanding of where things are in Iraq right now? You have never been very good with reality...
Click to expand...

Well, Clinton didn't just "say" something, he advocated for and received legislation from Congress, which made it official US foreign policy to support democracy in Iraq and replace the Saddam regime. It's called the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, if you want to Google it. So, when someone states that Bush's "friends" are no longer advocating this official US policy and law, I wonder where this denouncement is? Surely Clinton issued a press release or something, this is pretty huge.
 
Cypress said:
Oh, and how about admitting you were WRONG when you made this statement:

DIXIE: "they too share the same common objective of eliminating democracy in Iraq. They are not killing each other, there is no internal insurgent fighting happening, so that isn't the case"
Click to expand...

How about I put you on ignore, because you are beginning to annoy me?
 
Dixie said:
How about I put you on ignore, because you are beginning to annoy me?
Click to expand...

LOL

Its a simple question: Were you Wrong when you said this:


DIXIE: "they too share the same common objective of eliminating democracy in Iraq. They are not killing each other, there is no internal insurgent fighting happening, so that isn't the case"



1) "US delight as Iraqi rebels turn their guns on al-Qa'eda"
By Oliver Poole in Qaim

"American troops on the Syrian border are enjoying a battle they have long waited to see - a clash between foreign al-Qa'eda fighters and Iraqi insurgents."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...rq04.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/07/04/ixworld.html


2) 'Enemy on enemy' fire signals split among insurgents in Iraq

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/06/21/news/rebels.php


3) "Deaths Across Iraq Show It Is a Nation of Many Wars, With U.S. in the Middle"

"The fighting in Iraq is not a single conflict, but an overlapping set of conflicts, ... Muslim militiamen and other armed groups — all fighting each other. ..."


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...7,0,3782980.story?coll=la-home-headlines[/url
 
"Well, Clinton didn't just "say" something, he advocated for and received legislation from Congress, which made it official US foreign policy to support democracy in Iraq and replace the Saddam regime. It's called the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, if you want to Google it."

Jesus Christ...are you back to this? Dixie, that is absolutely the most pathetic thing I have ever seen. I actually thought he said something recently to the effect of 'stay the course' the way you were talking.

Get a life; this thing is NOT Clinton's fault, and it ain't Hillary's fault, and it didn't happen because of Michael Moore. Just shut the hell up; you're really making a complete fool out of yourself. I can't believe that we're in this mess because of people like YOU....
 
The iraqis will hunt down and kill al qaeda, once the provoking nature of an american occupation is removed.

Well, no, that's not so. The American forces in Iraq, are not provoking Iraqi's from killing insurgents or alQaeda. In fact, they are fully supportive of it. The problem seems to be, and we have defined it clearly here, the outside influences who are supplying the insurgents. Without an arsenal, the insurgents will fade quickly, and Iraq can get about its business of running its democratic government.

You are going to have to come to terms with this, it's not American presence that is the problem in Iraq. Without the American presence, Iraq would most certainly collapse to the anti-democratic forces in the region, and to simply deny or ignore this, is utterly stupid. The problem is funding and assistance coming from Syria and Iran, and security of the borders. Period. Now, how to deal with those problems, we can discuss reasonably, as we have, but to revert back to Howard Dean/Dennis Kusinich Peacenik Mode, is pointless and unproductive here.

We are not leaving Iraq any time soon, we can't. We have to first find a way to enable the Iraqi's to have security and control of their country, against these insurgents who are being supplied by foreign interests. Besides just throwing up our hands and giving up, do you have any bright ideas of how to do this?
 
Dixie said:
I strongly believe that having a toothless Saddam in power in Iraq who still could, nonetheless, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah-blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah... blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah blah.

If we had some sort of puppet control over Saddam, perhaps you make a valid point, but we didn't. Regardless of this, we aren't discussing what COULD have been, we've moved beyond that debate, remember?

And you didn't answer the question, you side-stepped it. Here, I'll post it again....

Is fighting for Democracy, against forces opposed to it, a good or bad thing, in your humble opinion? Because this sounds to me like you don't really think we should take a proactive position in support of Democracy over anti-democracy, that we should remain "neutral" on the matter. Is this how you feel? Just be honest.
Click to expand...


In answer to your question. I think America ought to always act first and foremost to further her own enlightened self interest.

We should definitely support the formation of democracy throughout the world, but never, I believe, at the point of a gun. I fully supported the goal of the original Clinton era ILA legislation. I do not think we should be invading countries and cramming democracy down the people's throats.
 
Its a simple question: Were you Wrong when you said this:


DIXIE: "they too share the same common objective of eliminating democracy in Iraq. They are not killing each other, there is no internal insurgent fighting happening, so that isn't the case"


of course he was wrong...but it will be a cold day in hell when he admits it. In all my years here and on the previous two sites, I have NEVER seen Dixie EVER admit to being wrong.
 
Dixie said:
The iraqis will hunt down and kill al qaeda, once the provoking nature of an american occupation is removed.

Well, no, that's not so. The American forces in Iraq, are not provoking Iraqi's from killing insurgents or alQaeda. In fact, they are fully supportive of it. The problem seems to be, and we have defined it clearly here, the outside influences who are supplying the insurgents. Without an arsenal, the insurgents will fade quickly, and Iraq can get about its business of running its democratic government.

You are going to have to come to terms with this, it's not American presence that is the problem in Iraq. Without the American presence, Iraq would most certainly collapse to the anti-democratic forces in the region, and to simply deny or ignore this, is utterly stupid. The problem is funding and assistance coming from Syria and Iran, and security of the borders. Period. Now, how to deal with those problems, we can discuss reasonably, as we have, but to revert back to Howard Dean/Dennis Kusinich Peacenik Mode, is pointless and unproductive here.

We are not leaving Iraq any time soon, we can't. We have to first find a way to enable the Iraqi's to have security and control of their country, against these insurgents who are being supplied by foreign interests. Besides just throwing up our hands and giving up, do you have any bright ideas of how to do this?
Click to expand...

Yes it is the american occupation that is provoking many of the insurgents and nationalists. I'm right, you're wrong...as is almost always the case, with regard to iraq. All the empirical data support me: polls on iraqi attitudes, increasing surge of violence the longer the occupation goes on, etc.

Without the provoking nature of a foreigh occupation, Iraqis would spend more time turning their guns on al qaeda fighters, who've killed so many iraqis. Iraqis believe in tribal justice, and they don't take to kindly to al qaeda foreign fighters blowing up their women and children. Again, empirical data support me: 94% of iraqis dissaprove of al qaeda.
 
maineman said:
Its a simple question: Were you Wrong when you said this:


DIXIE: "they too share the same common objective of eliminating democracy in Iraq. They are not killing each other, there is no internal insurgent fighting happening, so that isn't the case"


of course he was wrong...but it will be a cold day in hell when he admits it. In all my years here and on the previous two sites, I have NEVER seen Dixie EVER admit to being wrong.
Click to expand...

He'd rather just plug up his ears & put people on "ignore." This life is not exactly about "learning" for Dixie.

It's very O'Reilly-esque. I don't know if anyone has been watching him lately, but he's really gone boycott crazy on publications; Olbermann looked into it, and a lot of the boycott calls were just because of personal slights or reasoned arguments against something O'Reilly said (though on the show, he always makes a vague reference to some publication that he has targeted "veering hard left" and "catering to the SP's")....
 
He'd rather just plug up his ears & put people on "ignore"

No, I would rather have an intelligent debate on the issues, and not be side tracked with Prissy's obsessions of trying to be right about something irrelevant. If my options are, to put up with that or ignore it, I choose to ignore it. But it has little to do with what I would rather do.
 
why is pointing out when you are dead wrong about something "irrelevant"?

You pawn yourself off as this wise, all-knowing seer.... this sage and somber speaker of the truth.... when we catch you being painfully, obviously WRONG, that is worthy of noting.... it is valuable evidence to impeach your credibility... and come on Dixie... you give us so much ammunition. From your pronouncements about the election and about the certainty of the republicans exercising the nuclear option to the terrible damage democrats would feel from their position on Terri Schiavo....your announcement of the impending death of the insurgency upon the death of Zarqawi..... your suggestion that Iran would support sunni insurgents.... all the way back to 1/3 and the Geneva Convention. You have been boxed around like a punching bag with your own words for years now. And let me tell you this one thing: if you would show just a tad of humility, a tad of contrition.... a tad of awareness of the errors and the arrogance of your own positions....if you would apologize for published slanderous miscues.... if you would admit that you had been wrong about some things....you would gain so much immediate respect here.... from me, for sure, and I would think from others from the left....and I would be the first to criticize my fellow liberals for not showing you that respect should you do so.
 
Dixie said:
He'd rather just plug up his ears & put people on "ignore"

No, I would rather have an intelligent debate on the issues, and not be side tracked with Prissy's obsessions of trying to be right about something irrelevant. If my options are, to put up with that or ignore it, I choose to ignore it. But it has little to do with what I would rather do.
Click to expand...

We were disucussing the issue.

You said that insurgent groups were not fighting each other - they were unified.

I posted multiple credible sources, showing that not only were various insurgent groups fighting each other, but that insurgents were fighting foreign al qaeda fighters. No suprise there: it's a civil war.

I simply pointed out that you were wrong, and then you want to put me on ignore for doing so? :D
 
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/22/iraq.ap/index.html

October the bloodiest month yet for Iraqi civilians.

Hey Dixie.... aren't you PROUD of what you and your stupid administration has unleashed upon the Iraqi people?

I wonder if the families of the nearly four thousand Iraqis that died last month are glad that we crammed a Jeffersonian multicultural democracy shining like a beacon on hope down their throats at the point of a gun?

I SWEAR... because of this incredibly boneheaded debacle, your party should NEVER be given the keys again. You have started us down the slippery slope into the abyss and I am not sure ANYTHING can stop it now. May you all rot in hell.
 
Hey Dixie.... aren't you PROUD of what you and your stupid administration has unleashed upon the Iraqi people?

Hey Maine... aren't you PROUD of what your DEMOCRAT controlled Congress continues to fund and support?

Let's get something straight... your days of sitting on the sideline heckling the home team, are over. Your party controls Congress, therefore, they control the war. It's just as easy for me to play the 'emotive appeal' card and lay the blame on the Democrats now, so if that is your answer and solution to the problem, we can just sit here and point fingers at each other and act like 10-year-olds.

I think most people are tired of listening to your shit, and expect you to start leading and stop bitching. You were doing pretty good in this thread, until you started losing the debate, then you reverted back to the old "Blame Bush" mode, and that simply will not work for you anymore, your party is in charge.
 
In answer to your question. I think America ought to always act first and foremost to further her own enlightened self interest.

This wasn't an answer, it was a dodge. But that's okay, it clearly indicates what your real sentiments are. You don't feel particularly compelled to stand up for democracy, and you think America should remain neutral on such issues. That's how I figured you felt, I just needed to ask the direct question to clarify it. Your decision to give some meaningless platitude, instead of answering the question, tells me all I need to know. Thanks.
 
"aren't you PROUD of what your DEMOCRAT controlled Congress continues to fund and support?"

You do understand that Democrats don't control anything until January of 2007, correct?

And it isn't "just as easy" for you to lay blame on the Democrats at this point. You can in your own head, but very few people would buy that. This was was Bush's baby, and you & yours did plenty of cheerleading along the way. The blood is on your hands. I'm hoping the Democrats can help extricate us from Iraq with as little further loss of life as possible; at this point, that's all I can hope for.
 
It's just as easy for me to play the 'emotive appeal' card and lay the blame on the Democrats now,

Not when it was your golden boy who initiated it.

If you create a debacle, and then someone else takes over, you can't blame them for causing the debacle.

That's called shirking responsibility..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top