58 percent want Iraq withdrawal by 2008 or sooner

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by macatak911, Mar 13, 2007.

Page 3 of 5
  1. USMTiger

    USMTiger Founding Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,668
    Likes Received:
    167
    So how about the other end of the discussion: is this a wise political move for the Democrats? Is there historical precedence for this type of tactic and was it successful?

    I personally think this tactic could backfire and in the end will not even pass a majority of Democrats. I see this bandwagon getting wrecked very quickly as the vote nears (anyone know when they vote, btw?)
     
    USMTiger, Mar 13, 2007
    #21
  2. USMTiger

    USMTiger Founding Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,668
    Likes Received:
    167
    But the concern is not soldiers lives to me. They are soldiers. Their occupation is to blow **** up and kill the enemy. In return they are also blown up and killed. It is sad and I love and respect all of the members of our military, but the whole "soldier's lives" thing is a deflection for the real motives of the anti-war politicians, which is defeat for Bush and power for themselves. If we used the "how many more soldiers must die for a futile war" criteria for our strategy, we would have never taken Iwo Jima, Okinawa, or Normandy. The key to this is shaping what the end game of this entire war will be. If we pull out we have chosen the end: defeat. We have also chosen to withdraw our influence from the most vital region of significance to the world, in terms of oil supply and counter-Jihadsm. If we stay in and continue to fight we may be defeated, but then again, we may not.... My experience has been that when America wants to win it usually does.

    BTW in case I get lumped into any group, I think Bush is a giant douche.
     
    USMTiger, Mar 13, 2007
    #22
  3. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    The democrats are walking a fine line. They must show the people that elected them that they heard the cry and they are actively taking measures to end the war.

    On the other hand, they don't really want to become a partner with the administration in the debacle that is coming. They want the war failure to be entirely in the hands of the republican party in 2008.

    They expect this bill to fail. They just want the record to show who was for the war and who was against it for the 2008 elections. The republicans that blindly follow Bush down this road will have a lot to answer for in 2008. Many of them aren't goin to ride the hellbound train.
     
    red55, Mar 13, 2007
    #23
  4. USMTiger

    USMTiger Founding Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,668
    Likes Received:
    167
    How is the fact that Iran will be control of Iraq if we withdraw now "blindly following Bush"? I can't stand Bush or most of the Republican Party but I see the logic in staying in Iraq for as long as it takes. I would build a massive permanent base in the heart of Baghdad if I was President.

    The big picture in this whole thing does not involve anyone named Bush.
     
    USMTiger, Mar 13, 2007
    #24
  5. DRC

    DRC TigerNator

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    4,745
    Likes Received:
    374
    You mean the 20% that want to withdraw from Iraq immediately? :lol:
     
    DRC, Mar 13, 2007
    #25
  6. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    It's a matter of what we get for our sacrifices and who the enemy reallly is. We could still be babysitting a civil war in Lebanon, but Reagan wisely knew that it wasn't our fight. So we left. Quitting a war is not losing a war. We didn't lose Vietnam either. We quit it because it was in our best interests to do so. Sometimes you win a political situation by leaving it.

    I ask you. What constitutes victory in this occupation. We won the frickin' war in 21 days and sacked Baghdad. What are we still doing there? It's a political fight between the Sunnis and the Shiites and it ain't our fight. It can't be won militarily, the commanding general said so just last week! I repeat, What constitutes victiory? And do you see any progress at all towards this?

    No we haven't, not in the least. We have air and ground bases all over the middle east and a big fleet, too. We have bases in Egypt, Turkey, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman, the UAE, Bahrain, Afghanistan, Diego Garcia, Dubai, Djbouti, the UAE, and Qatar. We have for a long time and will continue to militarily domante the region.

    We are in no way abandoning the middle east or the war on terror by extricating ourselves from this quagmire in Iraq that is clearly hurting us militarily, economically, politically and diplomatically.

    We can win any war, we've already won this one. How the hell do we win an occupation? There is no enemy that will stand and fight. Neither side of this civil war supports us and both sides are trying to kill our troops. An occupation cannot be won. We can either:

    A. Keep occupying the place. or

    B. Stop occupying the place.

    There is no victory to be had in an occupation. Like Vietnam, it is in our best interests to simply end this occupation. It doesn't mean we have to retreat to Kansas. We don't have to go any further than Kuwait, where they love us. And from where we can still handle any military threat.
     
    red55, Mar 13, 2007
    #26
    1 person likes this.
  7. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Sure. They balance out the 20% republicans who apparently want to stay there forever!
     
    red55, Mar 13, 2007
    #27
  8. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Not going to happen. Iraqis have been enemies of Iran for millenia. They just finished a 10-year war with them in 1991. Iraquis are Arabs, Iranians are Persians. Irans will not take over Iraq. An Iraqi Shiite probably will, but he won't be Iranian. In any case we are not pulling out of the middle east. Iran does not want a war with us, no mater what their bluster.

    It would be the stupidest place in the world to build one. We already have far superior bases in the area.

    On this we can agree.
     
    red55, Mar 13, 2007
    #28
  9. Sourdoughman

    Sourdoughman TigerFan of LSU and the Tigerman

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    12,326
    Likes Received:
    575
    Untrue.
    I don't like polls for one thing because you can get a yes or no by changing
    one word in the question.
    Any president who rules by public opinion is not a leader but a follower.

    The general public is probably wrong more than right.
    In this case the customer isn't always right.
    Look at Harry Truman and Abraham Lincoln, two of the greatest presidents
    in history that weren't popular towards the end of their presidency.

    USMtiger is probably the smartest poster on this thread.
    This whole thing won't have anything to do with Bush in 3 years and he can
    see the vacuum left if we cut and run and our enemies will be in full control
    of Iraq.
    You are playing politics or a fool if you don't believe our enemies would take
    over Iraq if we ran away like the example of the Soviets leaving Afghanistan.

    One reason I turned on Bush is we didn't use enough force.
    Man, Pakistan, Syria and Iran and any country aiding our enemies in Iraq would've been extinct by now.
    I also love the idea of having a military base in the middle of Iraq.

    People on the left are intolerant once again when they claim to be tolerant.
    Can you imagine if CNN would report 3000 American Soldiers died in a training exercise getting ready for DDay of today?
    They would say that it would be insane and that DDay today would be suicide.
    What were the odds of that mission succeeding including Battle of the Bulge when we were low on food and ammo?

    Priorities please?
    People are fighting a war and dying and we are complaining about pot holes?:cry:
    I'm sure this country can handle both at the same time!:grin: :lol:
     
    Sourdoughman, Mar 13, 2007
    #29
    1 person likes this.
  10. Sourdoughman

    Sourdoughman TigerFan of LSU and the Tigerman

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    12,326
    Likes Received:
    575
    And who is going to stop an army from Iran or terrorists from taking over Iraq,
    or an enemy of the USA from taking over Iraq?

    According to your liberal networks Iraq doesn't have much of a police force or
    army to stop an invader and they sure is hell don't have ammo since we have
    blown it up.

    I don't care what the liberals say.
    Most people are unhappy with the way the war has been handled and not because we are there.
    Americans don't have the instant fix they are use to.
    America sure is hell aint for losing a war or for a cut and run job like Vietnam
    Can you imagine a world with no microwaves or instant fixes
     
    Sourdoughman, Mar 13, 2007
    #30
Page 3 of 5

Share This Page