War on Terror?

Plan for Withdrawal LINK

 

==Let's bring this back to planet earth for one moment, ok? The fact is that it would be immoral for the United States to pull out of Iraq before the job is completed. The cut and run plan you promote will result in millions of people falling into the hands of religious extremists who will use violence and death to control them. That is not an acceptable sollution. It is sinful, immoral, it is wrong. We cannot do that. We broke, now we must fix it. We cannot break it and then because it is too hard stop trying to put it back together. By pulling out before the job is done we show ourselves to be immoral, two-faced cowards, and we cast a shadow over all the Americans (and others) who have died in this war. We cannot cut and run.

Martin.

 

If we go economically bankrupt(which your open-ended commitment would likely lead us to) then we really won't be of much use to the Iraqi people. </font>[/QUOTE]==Finishing the job is not an open-ended commitment. So I reject your strawman.

Martin.

 

By the end of 2007 we will have been in Iraq for almost 5 years. I don't consider that to be cutting and running.

 

At what point would you consider the job finished so that we can cease paying for President Bush's mistake with American blood and treasure?

 

By the end of 2007 we will have been in Iraq for almost 5 years. I don't consider that to be cutting and running. </font>[/QUOTE]==It is leaving before the job is completed. That is cut and run.

Martin.

 

At what point would you consider the job finished so that we can cease paying for President Bush's mistake with American blood and treasure? </font>[/QUOTE]==This is not about Bush so please stop playing the silly game of politics. This is about human life. We cannot allow millions of innocent, non-military, civilians to be enslaved and killed in Iraq because we are to cowardly to finish the job. The job is completed when the Iraqi military/police can keep its public safe from extremists and other criminals.

Martin.

 

We disagree on the definition of the phrase.

 

How much safety is involved in "keep its public safe" according to your definition of "finishing the job"? No terror attacks, less than 1 per day on average, or what?

 

We disagree on the definition of the phrase. </font>[/QUOTE]==No we don't. You want to leave before Iraq can stand on its own two feet again and I don't. You want to cut and run and I say we must stay and complete what we started. It is that simple.

Martin.

 

How much safety is involved in "keep its public safe" according to your definition of "finishing the job"? No terror attacks, less than 1 per day on average, or what? </font>[/QUOTE]==We have finished the job when the Iraqi military/police can keep its public safe from take over by the extremists. Let's not play games with numbers because we both know that is silly and unrealistic. When the Iraqi military (etc) can keep the extremists from taking over.

Martin.

 

If Iraq can't stand on its own two feet after almost five years at the end of 2007 and thousands of U.S. deaths and tens of thousands of U.S. wounded, then I seriously doubt that Iraq will be able to stand on its own two feet if we stay there five additional years and end up doubling the number of U.S. dead and wounded.

 

Then five years should be sufficient for that. If not, then I doubt that they will be ready if we stay for another five years.

 

So, Ken H., my question again is what have you done?

 

I am providing our American armed forces with equipment, body armour, munitions, supplies, etc.

What have you done, saturneptune, for our armed forces in Iraq?

 

Place a limit on the spilling of American blood in that support. </font>[/QUOTE]As soon as you place a limit of the shedding of Christ's Blood for sinners. </font>[/QUOTE]This is a good example of the real problem.

America=Christianity

Christianity=America

Americans winning in battle=Christ winning on the cross.

 

1) Iraq was not involved in the attacks on 9/11/2001.

2) Iraq has never invaded the United States. </font>[/QUOTE]You would be quite a fool to continue to believe that.

Ties between saddam and alqaida have been exposed for years now. It is not whether or not saddam had invaded, it is that he would have if he were able.

Even if it weren't for the evidences that saddam was working with them, it is still worth it all to see justice served against a tyrant just as it will soon be to serve justice upon Iran as soon as they ask for it hard enough!

You can play this skint chicken game all you want, but if we don't move forward with this war on terror, as is justified, and it is! We will see one or more of our cities engulfed in a radioactive killing cloud. I cannot believe anyone can be so blind to the facts!!! </font>[/QUOTE]If Castro could have invaded the U.S. and defeated us, there's no doubt he would have done so.

 

At what point would you consider the job finished so that we can cease paying for President Bush's mistake with American blood and treasure? </font>[/QUOTE]==This is not about Bush so please stop playing the silly game of politics. This is about human life. We cannot allow millions of innocent, non-military, civilians to be enslaved and killed in Iraq because we are to cowardly to finish the job. The job is completed when the Iraqi military/police can keep its public safe from extremists and other criminals.

Martin. </font>[/QUOTE]Don't worry. The Neo-Cons plan is to occupy Iraq for the forseeable future. We've built four permanent U.S. military bases there. The name of the game is OIL. This has nothing to do with democracy for Iraq. In fact, with the radical Shi'ites winning the election I look for them to try to ally themselves with Iran forming a radical Islamic partnership in the Middle East. We, of course, will do everything possible to prevent the Iraquis from exercising their democratic freedom to do so.

 

If Iraq can't stand on its own two feet after almost five years at the end of 2007 and thousands of U.S. deaths and tens of thousands of U.S. wounded, then I seriously doubt that Iraq will be able to stand on its own two feet if we stay there five additional years and end up doubling the number of U.S. dead and wounded. </font>[/QUOTE]==Five years in Iraq? That places the invasion before 9/11! The invasion of Iraq occured on March 19, 2003. That is not five years it is almost three years. What has been done in those three years? We have, slowly, set up a government and are starting setting up a police force and army. These things are being done very slowly. I think this is for several reasons: 1. The administration had no clear post-Saddam plan. Recent reports serve only give more support to this. 2. The administration was not planning on heavy insurgent activity. 3. The Iraqi people have not "stood up" like they were suppose to. So while it is going very slowly there is progress. If that progress continues, and if we don't cut and run like a pack of cowards, a slow pull out can take place in the next few years. But there can be no sudden pull out in '06 and '07 without horrible results. We must only pull out slowly and as the Iraqi army/police can protect its government and citizens from take over by the extremists. It is really that simple. This is not a tv show, this is reality. It will take time, money, effort, and yes lives. However we started this and now we must finish it. Just because we did not properly count the cost before we got into this is no excuse to cut and run.

Martin.

 

At what point would you consider the job finished so that we can cease paying for President Bush's mistake with American blood and treasure? </font>[/QUOTE]==This is not about Bush so please stop playing the silly game of politics. This is about human life. We cannot allow millions of innocent, non-military, civilians to be enslaved and killed in Iraq because we are to cowardly to finish the job. The job is completed when the Iraqi military/police can keep its public safe from extremists and other criminals.

Martin. </font>[/QUOTE]Don't worry. The Neo-Cons plan is to occupy Iraq for the forseeable future. We've built four permanent U.S. military bases there. The name of the game is OIL. This has nothing to do with democracy for Iraq. In fact, with the radical Shi'ites winning the election I look for them to try to ally themselves with Iran forming a radical Islamic partnership in the Middle East. We, of course, will do everything possible to prevent the Iraquis from exercising their democratic freedom to do so. </font>[/QUOTE]==Yes, the wonderful catch all phrase: We are there for oil! The evil "o" word. I don't know that we are there for oil but if we are we failed. However last time I checked oil is very important to our way of life.

Martin.