At what point are you willing to admit we lost the war and get out of Iraq? Obviously your not there yet, I am. Over 2000 deaths and counting, with every sign of totally disaster and quagmire is enough for me thanks. Frankly, I don't believe "winning" this war in Iraq is possible and its harming the overall "war" against terror. Anyhow, I believe the "what point is enough" question needs to be serioulsy considered by everyone and everyone should have an answer. To me, I don't know is not acceptable nor is the I'll know when it comes; not when your sending kids over there who are getting shot at . . . the stay the course approach is ludicrous and that's what Bush has done..
Come 10 years down the road and 10,000 soldiers dead with no clear advancement are we still going to be saying we can win this thing . . . stay the course boys???
WE ARE NOT AT WAR IN IRAQ! We are in bloddy limbo as a policing body. We won the war when we invaded Iraq, a sovereign nation, and removed the dictator - arguably a poor decision. I think it is time to make definite steps towards turning the country over to the Iraqis and consider leaving the region. Doing this would not surrender the WAR ON TERROR. However, the one thing I wonder about is the very real possibility of full blown civil war in Iraq. Does anyone care about civil war in Iraq as long as our military is out of the way? Any constructive thoughts on this issue?
Tim: Now that's a real question, and a very tough one. And there is probably not a definite answer to that either.
I am obviously not the expert on resolving civil wars between a group. But, How does one go about dealing with something that was essentially created by them? First you have to start by being honest. Personally, I will ususally admit when I am wrong and then apologize for being a jerk. Well, we all know that Bush just isn't that type of guy, so that ones out the door. Not to mention, how do you go about apologizing for the death of 600,000 Iraqis -whether directly or indirectly commmited by the US? "Sorry, I thought it was a good thing to remove Saddam, but we didn't do our homework, or listen to other experts, and, ummm, well, sorry."
Then you would have to understand the reasons why these two sects are fighting against each other. And that is where it gets really complex, because you are talking about over one thousand years of sectarian conflict. The American military advisors knew that they were eliminating this Sunni dictator, Saddam, in a region where the majority of the civilians are Shi'a - who were greatly oppressed by a Sunni dictator...maybe they chose not to care about that...I dunno. I read this essay by Vali Nasr, who is a professor at the Naval Postgraduate School, a couple of months ago. It has a vast amount of information about this sectarian division and talks about the power struggle that is occurring right now. This issue also greatly affects all of the surrounding nations - Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon http://www.twq.com/04summer/docs/04summer_nasr.pdf
Marko, you bring some incredible arguments to the table. Thank you. Your patience for these morons (rushiswrong, CGMonger, cokbobber) is incredible. What shall we dub these three marimacho amigos?
The kung is strong in you my friend, I'm sure you are directing this energy out in the physical world as well. That's going to make a real difference this year.
I hope all of us fighting the good fight don't put too much energy into this silly forum. I think that is part of the neo-con ploy. Distraction.
While we are arguing on the buzz we could be calling 'on the fence' voters via move-on. Making dope posters like Flacos. Emailing pleas to our confused friends that were molested by preachers as children and thus ended up republican. And so on...
That is for you EL Flaco. You can argue with those folks about their stance on the IAVA. Good try and I must say I was a bit suprised by the IAVA. But just like every other Liberal stance you have to look a little deeper than what appears. The majority of IAVA stances are for Veteran specific voting not the entire stance on the war. This is rated as well off the stance of IAVA in relation to the Senators or Congressmen. So as you guys like to say IT IS OBVIOUS that the IAVA take the democratic side of things. Thanks for pointing them out that will be another group I will not be donating my money to.
No matter how much you want them to be; the party you vote for will never be perfect.
Next Issue.
To think that America cant and isn't winning this war is exactly why the right side is so adamant about staying the course. It has only been 5 years. As somebody mentioned they have been fighting for over a thousand. Taking a defeatist attitude shows the weak backbone of the left. Rather than abandon the people that want us there how about we all realize winning is the only solution. Winning is Iraq operating as a stable democracy that they see fit. Which doesnt't threaten its neigbors and torture its citizens.
I was insulted by Bill Clinton when he lied to America about cheating on his wife. I thought wow if he would lie to his wife about cheating to the American people what would he lie to me about. However I supported him when he used force towards other nation. The fact is regardless of the political side I think Americans should support their President. Charlie Range even stood up for the President when Hugo Chavez was in town. Maybe some of you might think of trying that one day.
What will it take for you to realize that compassion and understanding is not going to work against terrorists?
America will come together probably sooner rather then later. I wonder what exactly it is going to take? It will be interesting to see what side of the fence the majority of Americans will be on when that happens.
__________________
Such a long long time to be gone and a short time to be there..... GD
Wow..Just finished VOTING. Whew... Now that that is out of the way.
I think I figured out TB 1: HARD CORE or 2: An internet gamer thatÂ’s bored and between games right now or 3: a midlevel manager who should have my avatar (I'll sell it to you for $10) or 4: a disgruntled postal employee
I know we are between seasons and politics is hot right now. We need to consider the big picture. Terrorists are not going to give up just because Iraq becomes stable (any way it goes down). Jihadists will continue to hate the USA and any nation that proposes any ideal that they do not believe in. I bet we are at the top of their list, but they will strike any where. The only thing we can do to protect our country is to crack down on our boarders and strengthen our intelligence agencies in the right ways.
The occupation is going about it in the wrong way. The right insists that the course of action is the only way. They insist that if we "cut and run", we will empower the jihadists. I have to say that this is double speak. We only encourage them that the West is wrong and big, and powerful and we obviously hate them for their beliefs.
If I was a young Iraqi, Lebanese, Iranian, or Libyian... I would be pissed off to..at my own place in this world, at my government and at the USA for imposing their power. Put yourself in their shoes? I'm not saying it's right, but its the truth.
Matobs, point well taken. And while I am not the one doing the fighting, I am willing to stay the course, and I will do so on Tuesday. I don't see the benefit of leaving Iraq now for political popularity and expediancy. And Adrock, don't call me a moron, it is unbecoming of someone so in tuen with nature and Bra-ness to resort to name calling in order to exert their intellectual superiority. I think that my posts, and many of the thought provoking posts on this thread have revolved around a discussion of ideas and opinions, which are defacto not right or wrong. And as I have spent too many client hours posting my IMO's I bid you all a pleasant adieu, until the next time we get to argue about the same things again. Let's just not talk about it when I see you on the river.
Late,
Chris Morrison
Mark: I can't say that anywhere, in any literature that I've seen a body count for civilian deaths at 600,000. You must be talking hypothetical, after a civil war??? I would also disagree that we started a civil war(if it occurs), we were a catalyst for sure, but many other factors would contribute to civil war, namely Iran, Syria and Islamic extremist. I am concerned about carrying that burden if such a civil war occurs as islamic extremist have already established a revenge doctrine. I'm affraid UBL awakened a giant and the giant opened a can of worms. Now what? That's what I want from leadership. An answer or direction on what do we do now? I don't think GW is going to take us there because of all the negative issues surrounding his presidency. I don't have any answers, I'm a humble father, husband and paddler. I think we need some humble leaders to swallow some pride and work together for a change. That's what I think. But hey, I also would like to see 500% snowpack in the rockies and who knows, we might just get it this year.
Linear Mode
