I see, so your saying democracy got what it voted for in Nov., a dog and pony show of NON-binding resolutions democrats plan to ride all the way to 2008, with no solution of their own to ever make an appearance. Enjoy the two years in the sun, it'll be over before you know it.
COWARDS GIVE UP ON GIS - & GIVE IN TO EVIL
- Thread starter AR182
- Start date
I see, so your saying democracy got what it voted for in Nov., a dog and pony show of NON-binding resolutions democrats plan to ride all the way to 2008, with no solution of their own to ever make an appearance. Enjoy the two years in the sun, it'll be over before you know it.
it`s simple....
January 11, 2007 --"" LAST night, President Bush gave us a candid overview of Iraq and outlined his plan to reverse the bitter course events have taken. The heart of the effort will be a modest surge in American troop strength - to give Iraqis a last chance to save their country.
Will the plan work? Maybe. It's a last-hope effort based on steps that should've been taken in 2003, from providing basic security for the population to getting young Iraqi males off the streets and into jobs.
The added 20,000-plus U.S. troops to be phased in over the coming months will make a tactical difference in Baghdad and Anbar province - but that may not translate into strategic success. Given that we're now committed to a strategy of sending more troops, a larger increase of the sort proposed by Sen. John McCain would make more sense.
Yes, deploying even 20,000 more troops strains our long-neglected ground forces; nonetheless, the number feels like another compromise measure for an administration and country still unwilling to accept that we're really at war.
Given all that, should we support the president's plan? Yes. The stakes are too high to do otherwise - the president's right about that. Iraq deserves one last chance. And I say that as a former soldier well aware of the casualties ahead.
The attempt to reclaim Baghdad from the terrorists, insurgents and militiamen - to occupy the city, neighborhood by neighborhood - will lead to serious combat. And combat means dead and wounded Americans.
All of this would have been far easier in 2003 or 2004. But we are where we are. And walking away from this fight prematurely isn't a solution.
That doesn't mean our commitment should be open-ended - and the president admits that now. As I've long argued, the Iraqis have to make significant strides in healing and defending their own country by the closing months of 2007. Or we should leave.
Encouragingly, the plan the president outlined was developed in cooperation with the Iraqi government and places far more responsibility on the Iraqis than in the past. If they live up to their part of this compact, we should stand by them no matter how long it takes. But if Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Iraq's security forces behave as ethnic partisans, we'll need to leave them to their fate.
Ultimately, it's the Iraqis, not the additional American soldiers and Marines, who'll decide Iraq's future. And the acid test will be their government's handling of Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army.
Paradoxically, a burst of fighting would be a positive sign, indicating that Maliki meant > yesterday's disarmament ultimatum to Muqtada's militia. But if the Mahdi Army just goes to ground and the prime minister claims that - poof! - it's no longer a threat, it will mean that he cut another deal with Muqtada.
The crackdown in Baghdad truly has to be non-partisan, comprehensive and uncompromising. And the big test isn't going to be the current struggle for Haifa Street - defended by Sunni insurgents and foreign terrorists - but the occupation, disarmament and ideological disinfection of Sadr City. If we and the Iraqis try to avoid Sadr City's challenges, you'll know the entire effort's a hollow sham.
And there's going to be another major problem that will require great fortitude on the president's part: Destructive fighting lies ahead in Baghdad, and the international media is going to blame us for every broken window and every Iraqi with photogenic wounds. We'll be accused of atrocities and wanton destruction, and the press corps will trot out the Vietnam-era clich? about "destroying the village in order to save it."
Our troops can stand up to any enemy. But I'm not as certain President Bush can withstand the onslaught of an enraged media - and any prospect that we might be turning the situation around will certainly enrage them. Media pressure will work through our allies, too.
Our troops will never surrender - but I'm afraid the White House might fold.
To a soldier, the most encouraging thing the president said last night was that there had been "too many restrictions" on our troops in the past. Rules of engagement must be loosened. We have to stop playing Barney Fife and fight. And the president has to stand behind our troops when the game gets rough.
As for the Democrats in Congress, they can't continue whining that they support our troops while threatening to cut off funding for those in uniform in wartime. They should be ashamed of themselves for even hinting at such a course of action.
What does the president's plan have going for it? A sound tactical concept for security in Baghdad; significant Iraqi commitments (we'll see what they're worth); an overdue integration of Provincial Reconstruction Teams - the moneybags guys - into our combat units; a core of genuine Iraqi patriots; a refreshingly tough stance with Iran and Syria, and an extremely capable American commander en route to Baghdad, Gen. Dave Petraeus.
There are no guarantees that this plan will work, but it deserves a chance. Surrender isn't a strategy, and cowardice won't save us from the deadly threats we face.
The president's new plan will have a painful human cost. But the cost of defeat would be incalculably higher.
Our president deserves our support. One last time. """
Ralph Peters is a retired U.S. Army officer .
hope that helps,shane...
I gave you a couple of examples but you gave me none. The one that you used to cite was proven to be false. I am sorry if every weapons inspector who went in Iraq said they found no evidencxe of weapons before and after the invasion. Why do you always have to attack liberals about this mess in Iraq. You had had complete control and blew it. Blame nobody except the people that YOU back for this mess.
that just isn't what they're good at. they'd rather blame half of america and basically insult our democratic process. scapegoating and spinning is more their specialty.
Smurph then how do they get people to fall for it? I mean this isn't hard to see so how come people can't see it?
Weasel: No matter what that guy's opinion is, my point to AR is that he's not a credible source. He could make cases for all my beliefs, but it still wouldn't change the fact that he's not a credible source.
you're kidding right....
he has spent some time with the troops in the battlefield, he has served time in the military, & has been very critical of the bush administration in their handling of the war....to me that makes him probably more qualified than anybody sitting in wash....on either side of the aisle. just because you or murphy don't agree with what he has to say does not make him to be not credible.
what makes him "not" credible?......certainly,he`s articulate...his points are fleshed out and explained.....well thought out....he has an eminant military background....
certainly he`s not some neocon that`s inflexible in his backing of bush and the war......he`s critical of the way bush has conducted the war.....
not credible is a bunch of suits in washington backing a useless non-binding resolution for political gain........
a nonbinding resolution is virtually identical to a u.n.resolution,isn`t it?......
tell you what i`d like to see a republican do..call their bluff.......time for a real resolution....some republican with some sac needs to introduce a bill for immediate withdrawal of funding and put it up for a vote.....
get these turds on the record....
lord knows they`re to afraid to do it themselves....
so the dems have a mandate from the people?....
o.k.....then,if that`s the case....,if they truly are concerned for our boys....and the american people are behind them....., get `em out...pull funding and bring `em home...
why won`t they do that?.....(sound of crickets).....
i`ll tell you why...because they be run out of office....it`s so much easier to criticize the president...cripple the defense dept and take no responsibility whatsoever....
they don`t give a shit about the troops...
gw...
it seems that if some posters here don't agree with a person's point of view...they then become not credible.....
it seems that if some posters here don't agree with a person's point of view...they then become not credible.....
what about the facts that everyone under the sun, including multiple people in his own administration have spoken AGAINST THE SURGE, he continues to stubbornly stumble along.
WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE HAMILTON/BAKER COMMISSION? ANOTHER JOKE LIKE THE 9/11 FRAUD COMMISSION.
WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE HAMILTON/BAKER COMMISSION? ANOTHER JOKE LIKE THE 9/11 FRAUD COMMISSION.
for the 3rd time in this thread--and still with no answers---
What part of thread was incorrect and why?
Surely there is one of you that will step forward--getting ready to tune in 60 minutes--To see how they present ,the other Iraq--I am sure if we all view we will have those that view with pride and then there will be-"those others"--
What part of thread was incorrect and why?
Surely there is one of you that will step forward--getting ready to tune in 60 minutes--To see how they present ,the other Iraq--I am sure if we all view we will have those that view with pride and then there will be-"those others"--
DOGS, what answer are you waiting for? I'm confused. I am waiting for this dam golf to end to watch 60 minutes also. I just find it disturbing that everyone including Hamilton/Baker advise against surge, yet Bush pushes forward.
SPEAKING OF COWARDS...what part of the service did Dick Cheney serve ???
Geroge McGovern flew his 35 missions of WW II
received a silver sta and the Distinguished Flying Cross
Geroge McGovern flew his 35 missions of WW II
received a silver sta and the Distinguished Flying Cross
Who knows, Dogs - perhaps the 20,000 is the way to go. The point is - we are a democracy and we've collectively decided that it's probably not wise to send more troops.
This Peters asshole has the nerve to start calling people cowards and accusing them of helping evil. That makes no sense, especially given the obvious bad strategy of the last 4 years.
We are a mature nation. It's quite insulting to have someone (who himself I don't think ever served in war, by the way) call the likes of Senator Webb a coward. It's total bullshit, in fact.
It's not very responsible to only like democracy when it agrees with you. This vote against the President should be no surprise to anyone whose paid attention to anything the last 4+ years. When you totally F things up, you tend to (or at least should) stop getting everything you want.
WE DON'T HAVE TO BE ON THE GROUND IN IRAQ TO PROTECT AMERICA AGAINST TERRORIST. ANYONE WHO THINKS THAT DOES NOT HAVE A BRAIN. WE HAVE 3 OPTIONS: Stay and sacrifice our men for nothing. Stay and sacrifice our men, so that the people that can't stand the fact that we screwed up and can't win this battle can live with themselves and say we did not quit and empower the enemy. Stay and send more men so that we can become better targets than we already are. If we want to stabilize Iraq, the violence would go way down against Americans if we left. It would go down for the people of Iraq also. We are the most powerful Country in the world, we have special forces and an Air Force and Intelligence. All we have done is level the playing field. To all the people that want a military victory, there is only one way. We have to do something that we are not prepared to do. If we want a surrender,we have to Hiroshima / Nagasaki the mother****ers. That's right, we have to drop a bomb. I know that sounds crazy, but it's about as crazy as where we are right now. We are trying to nation build, try to set up a democracy in the middle of a country that has 20 different factions. I know all you guys that talk shit and wave the flag don't want to empower the enemy but, HELLO; our President has already done that. Yes I understand these people are evil and they want all of us dead, and we are doing one hell of a job helping them. If we pulled or ground force out and went back to the good old days when we had Iraq contained, how would that make us less safe here at home ? What ever anyone does in life, you have to look at the risk and the reward. I don't see the upside. The only reason we are still there is because we have to win. WIN WHAT ???? Win some pie in the sky, the will happen when it never snows in Syracuse NY again. The left can vote on this and the right can call them names. It's all bullshit, both parties signed off on this war when they knew it was shit. In the shadows of Sept 11th, these people that most of us never voted for, did not have the balls to do the right thing and stop the greatest military mistake in the history of our Country. We are where we are because of the incompetence in our government during the Clinton and Bush years. It seems that we have the leaders that we deserve. It's a crying shame, the most patriotic and bravest among us have to suffer for nothing. That's right, nothing. Some say that we are fighting them over there, so that we don't have to fight them here. I think maybe most Americans need to see some blood in the streets, so that they will get involved and take our country back from the knuckleheads that run it. Whats it going to take ? 3000 killed in NYC wasn't enough for Americans to take a close look at who's selling us down the road ? What do we need ? 3,ooo,ooo in middle America dead , so that Americans will demand that Our Country be run the way it should be. Our Government is supposed to protect the people. They didn't on Sept 11th & they damn sure aren't by hanging Our Boys out to dry.
Weasel & AR: Since you guys forgot about my original post in this thread.....THIS IS WHY HE IS NOT A CREDIBLE SOURCE!
AR182 Says:
Gardenweasel Says:
If you wrote for a credible newspaper and made your argument by quoting the made up thoughts of a group of people, you'd get fired. Does that make sense?
Wake up.
oh i see....because he writes for the ny post that makes him non-credible. i get it.
do me a favor & list all of the newspapers that you think are credible so this way i'll make sure that i just read those.
also while you're at it...check a thread that i think kosar started about a column that peter's wrote being highly critical of the bush administration.you'll see that he is not just one sided....
no...gmroz...
you're just as narrow minded as you accuse gw & dtb of being....
i think you should wake up & read other things than the left leaning newspapers & web sites....
and btw i'm probably more open minded on issues than you are......no go back to bashing christianity...you'll make all of the liberals proud that you're one of them.
do me a favor & list all of the newspapers that you think are credible so this way i'll make sure that i just read those.
also while you're at it...check a thread that i think kosar started about a column that peter's wrote being highly critical of the bush administration.you'll see that he is not just one sided....
no...gmroz...
you're just as narrow minded as you accuse gw & dtb of being....
i think you should wake up & read other things than the left leaning newspapers & web sites....
and btw i'm probably more open minded on issues than you are......no go back to bashing christianity...you'll make all of the liberals proud that you're one of them.
