Iraq: Who Has the Right Plan?

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

The difference is that I have a report that tells me that 7 of 16 are going well. You simply have your skepticism to disbelieve that. Skepticism is usually very affected by emotion. I am simply pointing out that you say you "find it hard to believe" yet you gave no resaon why and I suspect it is because you don't really have any concrete reasons.

And where did I say it was going great? Good old fashioned misdirection with that comment if you ask me. Don't have a good argument, then just project an opinion into someone else's argument to weaken it I guess.

Look, I have no problems saying that I was against this war from the start. So yes, my outlook on what the Bush administration tells me is "progress" is a bit jaundiced. Especially when you consider that the "progress" they speak of comes with the price of blood spilled by American troops who never should have been responsible for Iraq's "progress" to begin with.

This never should have been our fight. Iraq posed NO threat to us whatsoever. Overthrowing Saddam upset the balance of power in the middle east. And instead of the misguided hope of making Iran and Syria shake in their boots at the strength and might of American military superiority in that region, they are licking their chops at the prospects of a weakened Iraq and all of their oil reserves.

No matter how they define "progress" -- it was still a dreadful foreign policy decision, it destroyed our credibility in the world, it has emboldened al Queda, increased their recruitment levels, spread our defenses way too thin, and cost the lives of over 3000 Americans and wounded nearly 30,000 more.

So, I stand by my statement. No matter the outcome, the "progress" has come at too high a price.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Beems,

I too was against the war starting, but that has nothing to do with what we need to do from here. I know you will probably reply with "well they were so wrong about the war, why should I trust them now?" To that I would reply (a) Petraeus is not "they" and (b) I don't quite follow the logic "They were wrong then, so they must always be wrong."

[dmek25]

i was going to start a new thread from an idea that beems gave me, but i might as well put it here. how would people around here feel if John Kerry, or Al Gore, had lead us into Iraq? somehow, i think the feelings would be alittle different

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by dmek25

i was going to start a new thread from an idea that beems gave me, but i might as well put it here. how would people around here feel if John Kerry, or Al Gore, had lead us into Iraq? somehow, i think the feelings would be alittle different

You're so right. The sentiment would have been Liberals are trying to prove they're warhawks by invading Iraq, when they're not. George Bush would have done things differently if he were in office.

But you know, hindsight is always 20/20.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by dmek25

i was going to start a new thread from an idea that beems gave me, but i might as well put it here. how would people around here feel if John Kerry, or Al Gore, had lead us into Iraq? somehow, i think the feelings would be alittle different

Republicans have always supported Democratic Presidents in times of war. Even when Clinton went into Bosnia, his strongest supporters were the hated neo-cons. Wilson, FDR, and Truman also had the support of Republicans in fighting their wars. The opposition of the Democrats to a President during wartime has been more common. They oppossed Lincoln in fighting slavery. They oppossed Johnson and Nixon in figting communism in Southeast Asia, and they have oppossed Bush in trying to bring Democracy to Iraq. So, yes things would have been much different.

[dmek25]

first off, the Dem's supported president Bush, when he made the decision to go to Iraq. and what i was talking about was the aftermath. the poor planning, no exit strategy, and the overall mis management of the war. I'm still not sure how Bush snookered everyone into invading Iraq, and forgetting about bin laden?

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by dmek25

first off, the Dem's supported president Bush, when he made the decision to go to Iraq. and what i was talking about was the aftermath. the poor planning, no exit strategy, and the overall mis management of the war. I'm still not sure how Bush snookered everyone into invading Iraq, and forgetting about bin laden?

So, what's your second point?

No one has forgotten Bin Laden. And the way Bush "snookered" them was to have the vote right before an election. He was counting on their well known cowardice and lack of conviction. Of course, they did not disappoint.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by dmek25

first off, the Dem's supported president Bush, when he made the decision to go to Iraq.

Dems will sell you down the river if it means their own personal gain will be boosted.

I'm still not sure how Bush snookered everyone into invading Iraq,

So by you thinking they were "snookered" you are saying 1- Bush is the smartest damn man on the planet as he can get all these seasoned politicians to see things his way (a relative nube). Or 2- Your democrats are a bunch of lemmings. (either way it doesn't bode well for the Dems if you really think they were snookered)

and forgetting about bin laden?

Are you serious? Who has forgotten about him? Didn't the country put the highest price on his head ever? Dead or alive? Has Bush not gone after Al Queda and gotten over 90% of the terrorists, a lot of which were known to be associated with Bin Laden? Have they not had full blown man hunts for him? I am sure there are still people on "secret missions" to try to find him. The fact that they can't leads me to beleive that he is already dead.

[dmek25]

Dem's are the only ones that will sell you down the river? all politicians, when put in a position for their own gains, will agree to anything. i think the biggest reason people agreed to invade Iraq was it would pretty much be political suicide if you disagree( at that time) and you say that bush has gotten over 90% of the terrorists, you have got to be joking? where in the world did you come up with that? for every terrorist that has been captured, or killed, there are 10 more waiting in the wings.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Beems,

I too was against the war starting, but that has nothing to do with what we need to do from here. I know you will probably reply with "well they were so wrong about the war, why should I trust them now?" To that I would reply (a) Petraeus is not "they" and (b) I don't quite follow the logic "They were wrong then, so they must always be wrong."

But it's not just the war. It's the Katrina disaster, appointing incompetents like Alberto Gonzales and Mike Brown ... Trying to get Bush's own personal lap dog, Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court ... "Looking into Vladimir Putin's soul" ... giving control of the ports of our country to an Arab state ... signing the most agregious attack on the First Amendment by supporting Campaign Finance Reform ... steadfastly refusing to secure the borders at the same time they keep telling us that we are still a target ... appointing what turned out to be a corrupt, mafia-influenced thug to head the Department of Homeland Security ... trying to deny rights of Habeas Corpus to American citizens ... bankrupting Medicare by adding prescription drug coverage to an already over-burdened budget, grossly miscalculating its costs (including the costs of the war) ... giving us disasters like No Child Left Behind, the Patriot Act, and Faith-Based Initiatives ... a Vice-President trying to convince us that the Office of the Vice President isn't a part of the Executive Branch ... "Bring 'em on" ...

Past performance is the best indicator of future performance. So you'll have to forgive me if I have trouble believing anything else this inept bunch of buffoons tries to tell us about anything.

Oh, and 70chip, you and I come from basically the same political philosophy. You HAVE to believe that Limbaugh, Hannity, and all the conservative pundits would be calling for the heads of Clinton, Kerry or Gore if they'd have given us the things I've listed here. You're a conservative, right? Can you honestly stand there with a straight face and defend this administration? Especially when they've gone out of their way to demonstrate how unconservative they really are?

[KLHJ2]

[70Chip]

I've always thought that Patton speech was illuminating in the context of this war. Good post.

And Beem, I still believe that removing Sadam was the right thing to do. Mike Brown was perfectly competent to handle the hurricanes that ravaged Florida in 2004. New Orleans was, is, and probably always will be a hopeless cesspool of corruption and vice. If I may quote the great Kid Rock, "People get what they deserve."

I defend this administration because I don't believe in making the perfect the enemy of the good. The Democrats are going to take over and run thing for good long while. They just made a transgendered something or other the police chief of San Fransisco. These are their values. This is what matters to them. No conservative in his right mind should acquiesce to the acendency of such a worldview so that his ideological purity can be maintained. Politics is about compromise. I accept Bush and all his failings becauseI honestly believe the alternative would have been and will be catastrophic.

[dmek25]

politics is about compromise? i agree, but explain to me when this administration has shown that quality

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by dmek25

politics is about compromise? i agree, but explain to me when this administration has shown that quality

They passed Ted Kennedy's education bill. They were going to make 12 million Hispanics into voters overnight. Huge expansion of Medicare. Abortion still legal. Prayer in public still illegal. And, worst of all, they have not formed the death squads I wanted. This President has been much more of a centrist than Reagan was. This is why so many conservatives feel no loyalty to him.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

I've always thought that Patton speech was illuminating in the context of this war. Good post.

And Beem, I still believe that removing Sadam was the right thing to do. Mike Brown was perfectly competent to handle the hurricanes that ravaged Florida in 2004. New Orleans was, is, and probably always will be a hopeless cesspool of corruption and vice. If I may quote the great Kid Rock, "People get what they deserve."

I defend this administration because I don't believe in making the perfect the enemy of the good. The Democrats are going to take over and run thing for good long while. They just made a transgendered something or other the police chief of San Fransisco. These are their values. This is what matters to them. No conservative in his right mind should acquiesce to the acendency of such a worldview so that his ideological purity can be maintained. Politics is about compromise. I accept Bush and all his failings becauseI honestly believe the alternative would have been and will be catastrophic.

At first, I was optimistic when the Republicans were in control of everything. Finally, I thought, for the first time ever, we get a chance to see what conservatism can do for the country with a majority in all three branches of government, slim as it might be. Six or seven years later, the best we have to show for it are tax cuts (which will not be made permanent) and Roberts and Alito. That's it. Contrast that record with what might have been done if the Democrats had complete control. Scary.

As I look back, it actually might have been better if Kerry had won in '04, or even Al Gore in 2000. At least there would have been a determined group of Republicans in Congress standing guard to check whatever harmful socialist policies Kerry or Gore would have given us. Instead, they went along with the socialist-lite policies of Bush. There was a dreadful "team" mentality which permeated government, and Republicans cast aside their conservative principles because the man in the executive branch shared the same letter "R" after his name that they did. More sickening was the blind loyalty shown by guys like Limbaugh, Hannity, Fred Barnes and other supposedly conservative icons despite the Rockafeller-Republican results Bush and his band of buffoons were able to produce.

Then there's the war. You and I will part ways with this one. I've always been of the non-interventionist nature. The same principle of getting the government out of the lives of the American people should be applied to the internal affairs of other nations. For some reason, today's 'conservatives' have lost that outlook. Was Saddam a horrible person? Yes. But so what? When did it become the duty of American troops to oust dictators of other nations especially when our national interests weren't close to being harmed? Just as you believe this government shouldn't enable the poor by shoveling money in their face which only further fosters dependency, the same should be held for the oppressed people caught in despotic regimes across the globe. Those people are responsible for themselves. And not you nor I or any other American has an obligation or a responsibility for them.

I've never understood why that conservative tradition doesn't hold in both domestic and foreign policies.

"No conservative in his right mind should acquiesce to the acendency of such a worldview so that his ideological purity can be maintained. Politics is about compromise."

What Bush has done isn't the same as compromising -- it has been outright major steps backward into the pit of socialism. No conservative in his right mind to acquiesce to this brand of "compassionate conservatism". And it's not idealogical purity we're talking about here. Why is it that when one complains that his principles aren't even being strived for, someone else chastises that person for expecting ideological purity? We're not even CLOSE to that -- in fact, we're moving in the opposite direction.

Wow. I've gone on and on here. Looks like you've struck a nerve!