You think 11 more years in Iraq will make any difference -- except to the thousands more bereaved families and whoever will carry the $3 trillion debt?

You would have thought that after 40 years of Democrat congress and 8 years of Bill Clinton that we wouldn't have any debt...all talk?

I didn't say I thought we needed to be there for 11 more years. I'm simply pointing out that your position is inconsistent with how long it has historically taken to form stable new governments.

The bottom line here is that you either are for doing what the Iraqi government is asking us to do (which is stay and help them with the insurgency for now) or you are for pulling out against the Iraqi government's wishes.

It won't necessarily take 11 more years. We just need to aid the Iraquis with infrastructure that will make them appreciate democracy. But we haven't yet done that because of the incessant insurgent problem, which, unfortunately, the hasty rush to war never took into consideration.

The Iraqi PM, al-Maliki condemned Israel, which flies in the face of U.S. policy, and as CNN reported, al-Maliki also has shown some favorable outreachings to Iran. Well, that's Democracy in action for you: sometimes you really can't pick your PMs even if you hold the puppeteer's strings.

Of course, Howard Dean only seeks to quell
the fire. :rolleyes:

Let's just kick 'em all out of DC. :mad:

Agreed with 90% or so of that. The exception is ....no war in history has ever been well planned.

Okay, so he condemned Israel, he has to live over there, and if Mr Schumer is so clueless as to not understand that, he should refrain from commenting. He is part of the problem, not the solution. If you don't talk to your neighbors, how are you going to solve anything, he has to talk to Iran.

So Rodeo, you are claiming there are no females in the Iraqui government, you are quite simply wrong.

We still have troops in Korea, 50 years later, and in Japan and Germany 60 years later. There will be American troops in Iraq for quite some time, if you believe otherwise, well, you are wrong about that too. It is going to take time for the Iraqui government to become more stable, and the US should support this, it is in our best interests.

No they are not going to do everything the way we want them too, it is a totally different culture, in case you did not notice. There has been big trouble in the middle east for what, a few thousand years? If it can't be done in 18 months we should not even try to do anything, that is what I get out of y'all.

The problem with Americans is they have these tiny little attention spans, and everything has to run on an election cycle. If we fail to get a positive, completed outcome in Iraq in 2 years, or 4 years, screw it, we will get out and leave the mess for someone else to work on. This stupid and short sighted plan of action is going to make things much worse, fact.

How about this idea, we just nuke Israel into glass, that way the Islamic terrorists will like us and we will be able to get along.

Schumucky Chucky is a NY lawyer Dem hack personified. He fits in with the most disjointed state gov't in the country.

I half-expected a thoughtful response from you. My bad.

We have been manuvered into fighting and dying for the enemy. When you grasp that concept, maybe there will be some hope for you.

Until then, hang on to your empty phrase "finish the job," without realizing who George Bush has us working for.

KingMaker?

Dammit, you beat me to it Lendaddy!!

Hey now, I could be wrong.....Rodeo, was I right? Is the answer "King Maker"?

Sadr's militia is alive and well ... but he's only one of the bad guys George Bush has our men and women dying to protect.

The country is run by bad guys. As soon as our usefulness has been exhausted (i.e., we consolidate power for them), they are the enemy. In the meantime, George Bush has made them our employers, and all the remaining Bushies on this board can do is repeat the mantra "finish the job."

Joke all you want. American men and women died yesterday. More will die today.

So the answer WAS kingmaker.

Dang it!!

KINGMAKER!! (Had to throw it in)

Someone owes me a drink:D

Rodeo makes a point (give him credit for that!!)and minimizing it doesn't make it irrelevant. It just shows ignorance of the seriousness of the situation. We cannot trivialize where we are and what we are doing. Our brave men and women are in a deep world of hurt and are doing the very best job they can, given the circumstances.

It might just be possible that we ARE being used by people we tend to underestimate in the area of smarts. Skullduggery is a way of life in the ME. They were doing the "Tom Sawyer" bit long before we were a country.

All of the great sounding phrases throughout the history of warfare are hollow jingoism. Let's define the "job" in easily understandable terms, devise a logical plan of action with latitude to change when and where necessary, and then proceed with extreme prejudice.

Keep in mind that the military exists to clean up the politician's messes.

The question that it all boils down to (which the anti-war folks have yet to answer honestly) is this:

Do we stay in Iraq until such time as the Iraqi government feels they can handle their country on their own or not?

That's a simple yes or no answer. If the answer is no, then fine, we should just pull everyone out now and let the chips fall where they may.

If the answer is yes, then all the discussions about how many lives is it worth and Rodeo's incessant talk about KINGMAKERS (just had to throw that one in...sorry) doesn't really address the point. You either decide that it is worth it to stay in Iraq or it isn't. Of course Iraq's government is filled with Islamic people, of course they are more conservative than we are in the western world. Their laws and they way they run their society will be vastly different from ours. If anyone thought we were going to charge into Iraq and set up Los Angeles east they were insane. Unfortunately Rodeo refuses to acknowledge that not everyone in the Iraqi government is al Sadr. Not everyone wants to blow up the US. The Iraqi PM just gave a speech in front of Congress praising the US sacrifice for his country for cripes sake (Rodeo probably boycotted it).

I believe that people have basic desires no matter which part of the globe they come from. I believe that Iraqi women want to be free of the oppression that Islamic law dictates. I believe that Iraqi men and young people want to be able to express their views without fear of being killed. I believe that a government which is elected by those people will eventually reflect their desires and beliefs. The question is will we stand by them and give them time to do so or will we allow another oppressive regime to take over the region and quash their dreams?

Not a simple yes or no, Rick...

Why do we continue to "solve" the problems of the ME? When do we force the governments there to clean up their own messes? Why do the Saudis want the US to broker "peace" in Isreal/Lebanon? Are they incapable or is it just easier to get us to do it and if something goes wrong they have the United States to blame for a "failed" policy? We have been suckered into cleaning up after them for decades. Why?

Is the effort in Iraq worth it? Let's be honest....the jury of world history is still deliberating. Are ALL of the Iraqis wanting to see us dead? Of course not. Same can be said of Iran. But when do the people who ARE moderate take over and stop allowing themselves to be led around by the nose? Can we help? You bet. Should we be involved militarily? Probably not. But we are there. We cannot, for stability's sake simply pack up and leave. But, we also require intelligent negotiators, more allies, and blowout patches on our image. It would probably be wise to directly confront (through non-military means) Iran and Syria. Ignoring them and leaving them "out of the loop" resolves nothing.

See? It is actually a simple answer. Your answer is Yes. You think that we cannot leave at this point. I agree. Now we can discuss ways in which we can try and make the situation better.

The first step is to determine that we cannot leave right now. I seriously doubt that we can leave within a year. I wish people like John Murtha and John Kerry were as smart as Moneyguy.

Reading cmprehension issues?

From my prior reply:
"Pull every American out. The sooner that happens, the sooner real government will happen."

I know you like simplicity, that's why you support George Bush, but life is not always simple. International relations and war are pretty much never simple.

We stay in Iraq if it is in our interests to stay. That includes a multitude of factors, one of which is that we broke their country and have some moral obligation to clean up the mess.

We support the Iraqi government if it is in our interests to support the Iraqi government. I have argued that it is not in our interests to support the Iraqi government, the latest reason being that it sides with Hezbollah.

You want to make that decision without knowing ANYTHING about the Iraqi government. Not one of you "finish the job" people has a clue whose "job" we are "finishing."

Well, I'm telling you -- we are finishing the enemy's job. Why do you insist we continue to help a government aligned with Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas? This is not a joking matter. Why?

We should be helping moderate states like Jordan and Lebanon, not proxies for Iran.

George Bush has been duped into building another radical Shiite state in the Middle East. Americans are dying to achieve that objective. And you want to "finish the job?"

last night on C-span was a policy discussion on what the answer is to Israel's prob. All 5 options were ng in part. Then the speaker offered #6.

Hold Syria responsible for any prob happening after Israel cleans up the mess. He said that holding Syria responsible has happened before and it worked when they had to toss out the brain behind a terrorist bombing.

Then Iran can't do its dirty deeds because Syria has the only access.

Thestey are both plenty smart, Rick, just have different ideas than many of us. Their ideas are not "right" or "wrong", just people looking at the problem from a diffeent perspective.

We have created a mess. We have put thousands of our finest in harm's way, and some ask "For What?" (I have no clear answer to this). Why we are there is no longer relevant. How we conclude the circus is our most urgent problem. Should other nations be involved? You bet. I am tired of saving Europe's a$$ economically and militarily. About time they sacrificed to assure they will HAVE a future.

We are a Suprepower. We won WW II. We saw the fall of the USSR. In both, the reason for collapse was due in large part to economic collapse. Think we can continue to shore up the ROW economically before we fall into ruin? How many domestic problems would $300 billion solve? Other posters have commented "screw the rest of the world". So, the question of our involvement becomes irrelevant simply because, alhough many of those posting with that sentiment are those who eschew the position of "We are there to establish a democracy", which sounds like nation building to me. So, yes.... We are there. No, we probably should not be. No, we cannot leave at the present time. Yes, we should extracate ourselve at the first viable opportunity and resolve to let the folks over there clean up after themselves in the future.

So, still no simple yes or no.

Did I miss something?

No, I think you are just putting a bunch of variables that occur after the fact into the original question.

The original question is a binary one. Either we pull out now or we do not. If we have one boot on the ground then we have not pulled out.

Once people answer the original question then they can have a discussion about where we go from here.

Tech: Ok, my bad, I will put you squarely in the pull out now group...

You have all be avoiding the answer for months now, i guess I should not be surprised that you continue to do so.

Eleven Americans dead this week in Iraq.

Keep making your "kingmaker" jokes. Our men and women will continue to die fighting not against the enemy, but for them.

KINGMAKER!!

(you asked for it...)

yuk yuk

you need to move along there, Rick, Rodeo won.....

Dang it!! And here I thought I was ahead heading into the 2 minute warning.

Thanks for the tip.

Rick

Binary?

That could be (forgive me for the "ad hominum" attack) construed as a simplistic solution.

There are multiple variables involved and all must be worked into the equation.

Hardly.

Th

No it isn't a solution at all. It is the beginning of a discussion of a solution.

You just want to throw all the variables in at once and then throw up your hands and say "What a mess". The key to unraveling any problem is to boil it down to a simple core question and answer that first. Then you can proceed to the next question in the line. You can't make sense out of a jumbled ball of string unless you follow one thread at a time.

Anytime you're ready ... the question awaits.

Rick:

Did I say that? Did I say "give up and come home?"

Occam's Razor doesn't work well in geopolitical situations.

Identify the variables.
Examine each variable for relevance.
Concentrate on those with the most impact on the problem.

And for God's sake, get rid of the "Stay the course" rhetoric, since the course has never been fully defined!! "Victory" is only a word. Political victory? Social Victory? Economic Victory? Military Victory? Which one? How is each defined? If more than one, in what order and which is most important? These are questions for the diplomats, not the military. Where ARE the diplomats?

Sorry, Rick, our goals may be the same, but our approaches are quite different. I see multiple problems, multiple opportunities, multiple possible solutions and outcomes.

Perhaps I think too much, but my world is a complex place with no simple answers, no matter how much I may wish this were not the case.

1). I have never said "Stay the course". That's Rodeo's favorite line (besides....well....you know).

2). I disagree that breaking complex problems down into components and talking about each component "doesn't work" in geopolitical situations. It works in every other complex situation.

To Rodeo:

Why should we help the Iraqi government? We should help them because they are the duly elected government of Iraq and they are VASTLY preferable to the people who would take over the country were we to leave. As long as there is democracy in Iraq, there is a chance for slow remodeling of that government. Again, I think to expect a people who have known nothing but oppression and Sharia law, who's information has been filtered through a totalitarian government for decades and who's main source of knowledge is the teachings of their radical Imams to create a western style democracy right off the bat isn't realistic. I think that if democracy takes hold in Iraq (admittedly a big IF), then it will slowly evolve just like the Western world has slowly evolved. If we leave now, you allow the radicals to take over the country. Are radicals currently in positions of power in the Iraqi government? Yes, but one of the basic tenets of democracy is you can remove those who don't govern the way you want them to. I look at it like a patient in the ICU in critical condition. Things are bad, but you have to either pull the plug and allow the patient to die or give them time to heal. I don't think Iraq needs Dr. Kevorkian just yet.

If that were true I might agree with you, but I don't think it is. i think its pure specuation on your part.

If the Sunnis re-gained power in Iraq, the Iran/Hezbollah/Hamas connection to Iraqi government would be broken. At the very least, we would know that we were not building another Iran.

Then you should support billions in aid and American soldiers protecting the Hamas government. Are you in favor of that?

Why not?

When the patient gets better, is he going to team up with the healthier patients and attack you? Burn down the hospital?

We know where this patient is going when he gets well.

Right for your neck.

Interesting. Now susbstitute "Lebanese" for Iraqi and "Lebanon" for Iraq. Because Dr. Kevorkian is at work in Lebanon right now.

And to borrow an analogy from "The Perfect Storm," if Lebanon is the juvenile delinquent of the family, trying to change its ways, Iraq is the older brother that has already served two strecthes in the joint and is headed back for a third.

Much of Lebanon is moderate and pro-western. Iraq is ruled by repressive Shiia that enforce religious laws at gunpoint.

Which patient do you want to save?

Yes, Lebanon and the Lebanese people are currently feeling the ill effects of their past actions.

Rodeo, the error in your position is that you have already assigned the government of Iraq as terrorists. You see them as no different than Hamas or Hezbollah. You see them as no different than the insurgent terrorists currently in Iraq. I do. I have not seen the elected government of Iraq behead innocent people, launch missiles into towns or blow themselves up in busy markets. I see them standing up and fighting the insurgency in Iraq, trying to bring peace to their nation. I see their Prime Minister talking with American legislators and diplomats about how to make things better.

You seem to think you KNOW how the Iraqi government will turn out. Maybe you will be right, maybe you won't. The difference between us is that I am willing to give them a chance.

and then just cut off any aid if they don't elect the right government. ;-/

Good policy. Let's start with Israel.