jeffdrummer

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...ail/components

So I guess you libs are all giddy that the likely Sec. of Defense says so... but I am happy too, because that means that he will try and find a way for us to win. Despite the fact that I disagree, I think it is good that he will at least try to win Iraq, and not be the DNC's lapdog.

40sondacurb

It doesn't always feel good to be right. Will you be dancing in the street when the democrats raise taxes? Didn't think so.

jeffdrummer

The Democrats said they will lower taxes (which was actually by a technicality(they will make school tax deductable)) typical misleading.

So you are saying tax increases are good and you will dancing in the street?

You might be surprised, but I will be dancing in the streets, because once they do that America will realize how stupid a mistake we made, and then we can have a Republican controlled government again.

Fr4665

well were losing the war and it cant be won so why even try ? thers no point on bashing on a country with such force of people and mind controlled robots by one religion, the extremist will turn others to extremists and the muslim extremist army will or is greater then any in the world. And they dont really have anything to lose but their lives ... they will do anything ,and i think we have seent that, to defeat us.

jeffdrummer

You sound like the typical American pre-Pearl Harbor. Everyone was saying, Hitler's army is too big, there is no point.

Trust me, if we didn't have to worry about a humanitarian effort in Iraq, we would bomb the crap out of it, and the war would be done in 1 day. We can win, just we are so afraid to do anything that will hurt anyone, and by doing that we hurt everyone.

In WWII we did whatever it took to win. We fire bombed cities filled with civilians, and I know that it is bad, but we have the ability to be far more accurate with our bombs now... Why can we just bomb anyplace where insurgents are coming in in large numbers (Sadr city, poorer Baghdad.)

Problem solved.

40sondacurb

Think about what I said jeff, just think about it. What am I trying to say to you there.

jeffdrummer

I knew already... I was just pushing it a little...

linderman

dude; are you an escapee from Waco Texas or Jim Jones sheep(the kool-aid children) ?????

I thought the only senario to make such a blindly loyal follower was thru quarantine & cultism

well you arent quarantined ?????? but I think the GOP has you in the mind bender!

can you never see any good done by the "other" side ????????? its generally a mix of the two that make the best offerings of government.

jeffdrummer

So either I have to disagree with George Bush and the GOP or I am playing into some imperialist plot?

Here is how I feel about Iraq:

It is a troubling scenerio. If I didn't think it through, I would want to pull out of there tommorow. In fact, I often think when I here about troubles there, why can't we just leave and let the Iraqis sort it out?
And I think that is common thinking. But then there are two things that say we should do to th contrary. First if the al-Qaeda manages to destroy our resolve, and we leave Iraq, it will be a resounding victory for them. They will recruit people saying, "look we destroyed America, now we must finnish the job there." That is why they are pouring every resource they have into Iraq, a loss for us there, would be a huge victory for the Islamic Fundamentalists.
Second people say we toppled a functioning government, and replaced it with (insert explitive). If we did indeed ruin a perfectly good government, should we not return them a functioning government? Or should we leave a Iraq a dysfunctional state? I would say the former.
These two things are the big reasons why we can't leave. Of course, there are 2-3 other equally as good reasons why we can't stay, but I personally feel that leaving has far graver consequences that staying.
Does anyone feel that this would actually not help and embolden the al-Qaida? Or would us surrending in Iraq somehow hurt the people who plotted and carried out 9/11?
Also would leaving Iraq in a state of chaos (which the left claims there is) somehow be beneficial to its people? If there was no civil war in Iraq before we arrived, and there is now, and nothing else changed except for us being there, are we not somehow responsable for delivering Iraq for this supposed civil war?
These are questions that are not rhetorical, but deserve full consideration, and not just a knee jerk reaction saying, "blame America, bring the troops home." If anyone can give me a resonably unbiased answer, which is reasonable, I am all ears. (And I know who the moderates here are )

jeffdrummer

The al-Qaeda is doing it too:

http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2424

bry623

It's kind of funny now. We have this commission with its 79 recomendations, and not one of them was "WE should never have been there in the first place!". I wonder if the dems who a year ago were totally against any involvement in Iraq have changed their tune now that they have control of Congress. The democrats are constantly changing their positions on issues based on their position of power. I think people are "Jeff Bashing" because he seems to unwaver in his belief and support of those who have like minded values. One of the great things about being a republican is that you don't have to come up with an explanation or definition of why your beliefs are what they are today vs. yesterday.

And did anyone notice that this thread has been Hitlered?

linderman

Well hmmmmm some very valid points


First of all; how come the righties in here can never give any credit or acknowledgment when the Dems go with your team ???? "The Great Decider" brought forth Robert Gates to take over as Sec Defense he got approved by an overwhelming vote of approval (only two nays and they were both GOP boyz)?????? why arent you whipping the Dems for that >>>> arent they some of the ones approving him????? but on the converse; had they put up a fuss like the supreme court nominations; we would be back to "those damn liberals are stirring poo-poo again"


I agree we must stay involved now, just as Colin Powell warned before we plundered. Remember the pottery barn rule???? you break it; you buy it!

well we broke it; did we not?

We must stay commited now for reasons as stated above, but I am not a big believer that Alqaida is the real major nasty here. Certainly they are now contributing! I am a firm believer we are now faced with the meddling of Iran. The Irianians are in the same position as are we. The Iranians cant take the chance of a pro-US backed goverment in their back yard.

We have to buck up and swallow the pill; build some permenant military bases their and hunker in for the long haul.

One major problem as I see it; the current Iraq temp goverment is nothing but a puppet goverment. They have no stern policies towards disarming the mobs of armed militias; in fact I think they support them.

Why else was the temp government there sooo iinfuriated when our troops storm Sadr city and why is Al-Sadr not in prison for his actions? how can you hunt some terrorists and then make "deals" with others?


First and far most; until the masses of the population see their life as improved in comparison to the pre-war days stabilization will never occur without the support of the masses.

The quality of life their for the regular citizen is much worse than the pre-war level. Do some research into the electricity, fresh water, sewer situtations and see what your "feelings" tell you. If some other country came here to "deliver democracy" all the while you have little electricity, running water and sewer and no steady means of employment to support your family.

I dont think you would be satisfied either, you may even be willing to support a radical option when you are fearing for your life.


Our government isnt interested in restoring these things, its not our priority for being there. It wasnt then and it isnt now.

BTW: 18 of the 19 hi-jackers involved in the 911 disaster were Saudi's; did we invade the wrong country ????????????????????????????

You are sooooo correct; we cant afford to cut and run now or we will escalate and unite the entire mid east fanatics. However we do need to re-think our priorities and engage in a totally different strategy. I am sure that with 79 recommendations flying around, and a pile of senators that cant afford to hug the shirt tails of the great decider and his "my way" approach; all the while thinking about the elections in 2008 we just "may" receive some great bi-partsian ideas insted of this steady barage of "look" what the other guy did now! But! the ears must open and be willing to accept a different path too.

jeffdrummer

I honestly think you are one of those people who "just gets it." I think that your thoughts are some of the best that I have heard in a while.

But about Gates. I would have been with Santorum and that other Senator from KY. I don't like the guy, I think Bush chose him because he would be an easy pass because he is supposedly right up the middle. I think he is a decent choice, but I would have liked to see someone else, so I would have voted nay.

I think that delivering democracy as you put it is difficult, because you talked about sewage and electricity etc. But think of who is truly causing that? Who keeps killing the people that are bringing infrastructure? If it weren't for the al Qaeda, I think that they would have a fairly good system there. At least they would have constant electricy and not have to boil water.

You mentioned that al Qaeda is the root of our problem in Iraq. Did you know Nancy Pelosi said that the al Qaeda never was in Iraq. (Even though they had a division called al Qaeda in Iraq.) She said this about a week ago.

I agree with what you said about the support of the masses. But I think for the most part, we do have support, there is a minority (about 14,000 according to the al Qaeda) that are willing to die to be sure we don't meet our objective.

Speaking of the objective, I think that the biggest problem, is at this point, I don't know what the objectives are. I think that broadly, it is defeat the insurgency. But what else? I don't know.

I think Iran and Syria are a big part of the problem, and we should sit down and talk to them. After they change their views on the global Jihaad. For now they are our enemy because they hate our allies. Imagine saying, "lets sit down with Hitler and see what he wants in exchange to stop killing the Jews and to leave Poland."

yustr

The Baker/Hamilton report says that there are about 1300 Al-qaeda fighters in all of Iraq. Significant but hardly a major force.

The real battle is between Shia and Sunni. Which two neighboring countries have large populations of one or the other? Yup, Saudi Arabia (Sunni) and Iran (Shia). It is highly probable that Iraq is or soon will be a war between S.A. and Iraq. Throw Syria and Jordan into the mix and boom, boom... boom...

Why do you think the Saudi's remained silent for so many years with Saddam just to their north? Now how do you hawks feel about having 140,000 boys and girls, sons and daughters, husbands and wives, there for at least another two years???

It makes me cry...

linderman

Two years! hell I would rejoice in the streets naked if I thought we could be out of Iraq in two years.


We will be there for decades now, just like the bases in the Japan, Phillipines, Germany Korea etc

We will not have 140,000 men involved for ther duration but I would be willing to bet that will be a nesting ground for 40,000 a rapid deployment force to respond to large scale sectarian war as well as "trying" to monitor the borders for infiltrators.

I dont see the currently majority Shite goverment as being alot better than Saddam. There have been many reports of mass killings performed by the security forces while our forces stand back and watch.

Just leaving a character like Al-Sadr on the loose while in control of such a large militia shows there is no real law in the country and I dont see civility looming on the horizon either. Their culture has been involved in such sectarian battles since the days of the bible, I dont see that changing in two years.

In actuality I think Saddam demonstrated what you have to do to control Iraq and how you have to do it.

No president not even a Democrat can afford to totally leave Iraq, it would have a disasterous result. Even the democrats know that once we fully leave the public would never go for returning when needed. Once we left Iraq any where near completely there would be an immense power struggle. Iran would like a a wolf waiting for the Cow to step aside from the calf.

as they say "in for a penny; in for a pound" none the less we are all IN

bry623

Hilter was from Austria. Perhaps the wrong country paid for the holocaust.

jeffdrummer

Even further Germany never attacked us.

linderman

BRY:


I take it you dont read much in the news????? Today there was a large write up originating from the new commision of which we have heard sooo much.

It has been reported and verified by the US Military huge amounts of money are pouring into Iraq to fuel the insurgency from Saudi Arabia; correct me if I am wrong; but Saudi Arabia is not democraticly run and controlled, therefore any people rich enough to send mega millions of dollars to the Iraq insurgency must be related to the ruling party ????? yes / no ???

or do you suppose the common man is able to become a multi millionaire in such an atmosphere????

The bottom line is; Saudi Arabia supports terrorism, they do little to twart it at the very least.

Why arent we doing anything about this ????? We could certainly trace these funds and freeze them, if our nation was really serious about it.

This discussion is just a realization that "winning" the war in Iraq is not going to be any two year or five year endeavor.


This is going to be a tough and expensive proposition.

jeffdrummer

If we invaded SA, we would be having this discussion about Iraq. I think that it is a lose/lose with the MSM. No matter what we did, we did it wrong.

I am confident if we left Iraq, Screacher of the House Pelosi would say, "Bush gave us bad intell, now the Iraqis are being slaughtered without us being there. Impeach!" I am quite confident that no matter what we do with Iraq, the left will be mad. The Democrat Party won on Nov 7, and they are still whining. Actually I think the RNC is more charged and happier than the DNC... weird huh?

linderman

It has always been my experience from my career; when you give up some of the control to the customer of the project, and keep them involved in the decision making.

You have a quite and engaged partner for fixing the problems and sharing responsibility. As well as less horn blowing.

But on the converse; when you have an entity like the Great Decider that wants to rule with authoritarian style and has the majority in his favor; you must expect when things go wrong there will be plenty of horn blowing and finger pointing.

That was one of the things that truely impressed me about Ronald Reagan, he reached across the isles and had no problem dealing with the Dems. He was a good negotiator and knew when to back-off.

The style that has led me to despise the Great Decider is his "I will tell you what we are going to do" he thinks he is a Czar but in reality he has a "boss" too; just nobody ever told him.

But now the boss (american voters) has gotten the point across. I think JEB got the same message.


I was appauled by the arrogance of him during the Ports Contract debacle. He was going to ram Dubai Corporation down our throats regardless if the people liked it or not, Thank god Dubai managment had far more common sense than GW and withdrew.