Democrats dishonest on Iraq

We need to compare occupation of Iraq to Germany and Japan.

Timelines should be "within reason" to maintain stability. Afghanistan and Iraq have never "had it so good" if you compare the number of torture/death scenarios AFTER the war to what they experienced in the two years PRIOR to war!

No sense in letting things slip back into that ugly picture that became a breeding ground for terrorism.

Also it is more than a little coincidental that Islamic radicals are blowing themselves up over there instead of over here.

Americans on a war time footing and ready to engage them in those countries - as opposed to the day care centers that the devoted terrorists would prefer to be attacking in the US.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I am not sure where that came from... The last time I was in this discussion I agreed to disagree..

Not sure exactly what you're talking about, I saw where me and Joseph had a difference of opinion, and we won't going to convince each other otherwise.

Since my response and conversations were not directly at you, I would suggest you keep your attempted grabs to yourself.

Your response also shows me how Christ like you are/aren't in my opinion.

Jamie

 

You get your wish. We're building four permanent bases in Iraq. We're going to be there for a long, long time to enjoy the benefits of occupation (cheap oil, a base for attacking other countries in the region, etc.).

 

If that was the reason for the war, then it is certainly a failure.

 

We may keep a handful of troops in Iraq for a few years(past 2007), but I think even those will be out before the end of the decade.

 

Is 'neocon' a real word? I mean really. This is very silly. Terry, I am very surprised at how your comments tend to evoke the vision of an underground shelter and a band of believers to start a whole new world after the war is over.

I read that diametrically opposed blather and think...ARE YOU KIDDING? Please tell me you are not tasting the koolaid.

Jamie, Hi, I dont care. Thanks. Btw, stop violating the rules of this board. You dont know anything about how Christ like anyone is...proven about 15 posts ago.

 

Yes, it is: LINK

 

So if Ive always supported smaller government, this means I am not one? Good. I dont like labels anyway.

Wikipedia always makes me laugh. You could find definitions of lyrics for snoop doggy dog's rap tunes in there, so this does not surprise me.

 

This is the leading neoconservatism publication:

www.weeklystandard.com

 

One can be a neo-conservative and still support smaller government when it comes to non-military and non-national security matters. The major premise of Neo-Conservatism can be found in the interventionism of Reagan and the current Bush in order to spread democracy, liberate the oppressed, and link it to national and international security. A good primer for neoconservatism can be found in the book The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror by Natan Sharansky.

It is basically the opposite of the immoral isolationist non-interventionist policies of Lindbergh, Buchannan, Peroutka, and the Constipation Party.

Joseph Botwinick

 

I don't agree with isolationism but to call it immoral is clearly beyond the pale.

 

Army Planning for 4 More Years in Iraq
By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer

The Army is planning for the possibility of keeping the current number of soldiers in Iraq — well over 100,000 — for four more years, the Army's top general said Saturday.

In an Associated Press interview, Gen. Peter Schoomaker said the Army is prepared for the "worst case" in terms of the required level of troops in Iraq. He said the number could be adjusted lower if called for by slowing the force rotation or by shortening tours for soldiers.
Schoomaker said commanders in Iraq and others who are in the chain of command will decide how many troops will be needed next year and beyond. His responsibility is to provide them, trained and equipped.

About 138,000 U.S. troops, including about 25,000 Marines, are now in Iraq.

"We are now into '07-'09 in our planning," Schoomaker said, having completed work on the set of combat and support units that will be rotated into Iraq over the coming year for 12-month tours of duty.

 

US military to build four giant new bases in Iraq

Michael Howard in Baghdad
Monday May 23, 2005
The Guardian

US military commanders are planning to pull back their troops from Iraq's towns and cities and redeploy them in four giant bases in a strategy they say is a prelude to eventual withdrawal.
The plan, details of which emerged at the weekend, also foresees a transfer to Iraqi command of more than 100 bases that have been occupied by US-led multinational forces since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

However, the decision to in vest in the bases, which will require the construction of more permanent structures such as blast-proof barracks and offices, is seen by some as a sign that the US expects to keep a permanent presence in Iraq.

 

Neither scenario you posted will happen, S&N. The American people won't stand for a long-term, major presence in Iraq. I don't what anyone says. Our military is almost to the breaking point. Mark my words, if we try to keep over 100,000 troops in Iraq for the long term our military will shatter and won't be the most effective in the world by the end of the decade. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just whistling past the graveyard.

The only way to keep that many troops in Iraq would be to reinstitute a draft. And that would only make that many more people against the war and could deliver such a body blow to the GOP that the Democrats might control the Congress and the White House for thirty years.

 

I think, in the interest ofpeace in that region, we must maintain a very long term presence. The minute we announce a timetable for withdrawal, the terrorists can hunker down in their spider holes and simply wait us out. Our current President knows that very well but he's only going to be in power 3 more years. A lot depends on us staying the course in Iraq and the Democrats will probably end up convincing us to withdraw, regardless of the consequences.

 

Well, I admit that if I like it, I'm less likely to question it, BUT an original source is always more valuable than an editorial chock full o' party talking points of the week (any party). Thanks for citing the pdf. However, it confirms my point, that al Qaeda agreeing to stop working against the Iraqi government is not a very convincing tie. Their agreement to cooperate in weapons developement in the future is definitely a red flag, but not a smoking gun (ah, clicheville). That is not proof that al Qaeda had ever worked with the Iraqi government, only that there was a strong possibility that the might in the future. Iirc from other accounts, bin Laden didn't trust Hussein as the former considered the latter unstable and unreliable.

Have you been reading about "Curveball" recently?

 

I agree, but 'we' could be an International peacekeeping force (UN) instead of the Coalition of the Willing (UK-US-Oz). That might be more acceptable to the Iraqi people.

Possibly.

 

emeraldcityangel,

Yes, neocon is a 'real' word that has been in use for several years now.

As for Wikipedia containing the lyrics of Snoop (which you know, how?), why not? That makes it more valuable as a source of knowledge, not less. This might make a good topic for a new thread.

 

No, but I just went to Google news about this. Sounds like more of the murkiness that has surrounded the WMD controversy.

Can't change the fact that we went in. Now we can only work on getting out quickly and as successfully as we can.

 

Daisy quote:
I agree, but 'we' could be an International peacekeeping force (UN) instead of the Coalition of the Willing (UK-US-Oz). That might be more acceptable to the Iraqi people.

The Iraqi people are delighted that we are there, overwhelmingly. It is our left leaning politicians and the news media that want you to think otherwise. For every soldier that comes out against our efforts in Iraq, there are a hundred that disagree. I've talked to several returning servicemen who attest to the good we accomplish and the gratefulness of the Iraqis.

The UN in it's current state is a sad joke, but a revised and cleansed one might be advisable.