******* Democrats

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
You didn't answer the question.

I'll ask again:

Should we allow the Iraqi people to choose their own government, even if that government is not friendly to US policies?

They can do whatever the he!! they want, BUT NOT WITH OUR MEN, WOMEN AND MONEY.

Not really a difficult concept. The question is not what will we ALLOW them to do, it's what will we HELP them do.

[Nathans_Dad]

Ok, so let me push the issue a bit further.

Should we try and prevent Iraq from being overrun by Islamic extremists and terrorists in order to allow the duly elected Iraqi government a chance to get on its feet?

[Rodeo]

Here's where the "plan" comes in ... you know, the "plan" that supposedly the Repubs have but the Dems don't.

We don't have the time or bandwidth to settle on an actual "plan" here, but suffice it to say, IT DEPENDS. If the "duly elected Iraqi government" can't condemn Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists, the answer is no. Fcuk em' That's what Schumer said today, in senator-speak.

They are playing us for suckers, dude. So is Iran. And Syria. They have us destroying the Sunni terrorists so the Shiia terrorists can take over!

We need to THINK about these things. Our idiot president may be fine with "finish the job" as a "plan," but intelligent people ought to be thinking about what exactly "the job" is, and whether it's one we WANT to finish.

[CamB]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
Schmuckler is playing politics with the war on terror. This recent tactic of his was devised by his high paid defense lawyers, his Johnnie Cochrans...He is pandering to the Jewish vote and trying to paint the picture that Iraq is a failure...Good play, scumbag play, but good play if you are a scumbag.

FFS, if Schmuckler and the Dems hadn't jumped on this bandwagon, you'd be queuing up for it. Let's summarise the facts:

- Iraqi PM condemns Israel's disproportionate response
- but not Hizbollah's attacks.

Generally you'd be frothing at the mouth over such behaviour. Suddenly confronted with Dems taking "your" terroritory, you're dismissive of this as a ploy.

I mean, either you're for "pro-Israel anti-Hizbollah", or you're against it.

[nostatic]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
Ok, so let me push the issue a bit further.

Should we try and prevent Iraq from being overrun by Islamic extremists and terrorists in order to allow the duly elected Iraqi government a chance to get on its feet?

yes, until the duly elected government decides they don't like us, at which time we should install a new one to replace the defective one. It's kinda like DME relays...

[MichiganMat]

Originally posted by nostatic
yes, until the duly elected government decides they don't like us, at which time we should install a new one to replace the defective one. It's kinda like DME relays...

Funny you should mention that because, if history repeats itself, we'll have our own little version of South America right in the heart of the mid-east. Have you read "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" by chance?

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by nostatic
yes, until the duly elected government decides they don't like us, at which time we should install a new one to replace the defective one. It's kinda like DME relays...

That's actually pretty funny, but I personally don't think that is with the "ideals" of America.

I still say that if we do not allow the Iraqi people to form their own government because that government isn't to our liking, then we are not liberators at all.

Maybe it is naive and idealistic to think that the US is truly in Iraq to free the Iraqi people, but I think it is a noble goal.

[creaturecat]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad

If we are just in the business of invading and installing governments that we like, what is different between us and the former Soviet Union or Nazi Germany?

So, what is the difference? - seriously - no Mullisms allowed.

[techweenie]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
Maybe it is naive and idealistic to think that the US is truly in Iraq to free the Iraqi people, but I think it is a noble goal.

Noble goals like that should be "sold" to the American people on their own merits. And many Americans would have supported an invasion of Iraq to 'free the Iraqi people.' And that's a fine thing, because we are an idealistic people. We enjoy our freedoms and we want everyone to have 'em.

The problem arises when 'freeing the Iraqi people' becomes the third fallback position stated after the first two turn out to be inventions.

We elect leaders and give them huge sums to plan the expenditure of American blood and treasure so that the costs are minimized against the gains. This is an instance where the leaders failed us -- both in not trusting us with their true intentions and also in failing to foresee what so many before had clearly foreseen (Bush1 included) that the vacuum of leadership in Iraq would hurt the region and cause huge loss of life.

[Rodeo]

Lets take this even one step further. If our leaders had been straight with us and said "we want to invade Iraq to free the Iraqi people," then there would have been a national discourse about that course of action.

In the context of that discourse, you think someone would have asked the question, "what will they do when we free them?" Will they form a government friendly to America and free of Iranian influence? What steps do we take to make sure the secular moderates get a fair shot? Is the risk that we will spill American blood to hand Iraq to Islamic zealots worth taking?

That discussion never took place, the American people never got to make those judgments.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by Rodeo
That discussion never took place, the American people never got to make those judgments.

With today's Democrats one would not be able to have an honest debate anyway. The reacquisition of power colors every position they take. Their sole intention, at the expense of our national security and economy, is to unseat Republicans.

What was Sandy Berger stealing from the National Archives?

[CamB]

Mul - all you just said was, to paraphrase:

"The Dems are worse, so what the Republicans did is fine. Sandy Berger".

You know, it's ok to think critically of Bush. You need to find your moral compass on this one. The test isn't "better than Democrats" - the test is "good".

[Nathans_Dad]

Again, Tech and Rodeo are talking about what has happened in the past. I agree that the post-war era has been handled badly. That does not mean we should abandon the post-war effort that is currently going on.

It sounds like you guys are saying "Well, Bush handled it badly before so we think we should just forget the Iraqi people".

How about we talk about whether it is noble and good to support the Iraqis NOW instead of always resorting to the old "misled us to war" mantra?

[techweenie]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
Again, Tech and Rodeo are talking about what has happened in the past. I agree that the post-war era has been handled badly. That does not mean we should abandon the post-war effort that is currently going on.

It sounds like you guys are saying "Well, Bush handled it badly before so we think we should just forget the Iraqi people".

How about we talk about whether it is noble and good to support the Iraqis NOW instead of always resorting to the old "misled us to war" mantra?

Fine. It makes no sense to risk more American lives in a civil war in Iraq. Out now.

[Rodeo]

Its not a risk ... 18 Americans dead this week.

More Americans will die tomorrow, and the next day, and the next, until we are out of that hellhole.

I'll say it again, since you continue to ignore the basic point. We have been outmaneuvered by Iran and its allies. They have us fighting Sunni terrorists to make Iraq safe for Shiia terrorists.

Why would you want to continue doing that?

[Nathans_Dad]

Ok, so if both of you are saying "out now", then are you saying that we should not allow the Iraqi government time to get onto its feet and fight the terrorists on its own?

You really can't have it both ways. Even according to the Iraqi Prime Minister in a speech today he doesn't want US troops "out now". You either commit to stick it out until the Iraqi government and Iraqi troops can survive or you allow Iraq to be overrun by the terrorists. No one on either side of the debate is suggesting that the Iraqis can handle this insurgency on their own right now.

[techweenie]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
Ok, so if both of you are saying "out now", then are you saying that we should not allow the Iraqi government time to get onto its feet and fight the terrorists on its own?

Three years is enough. They won't "get on their feet" if we hang around, confusing the issue.

They will have to give birth to their government the way most everyone else has -- through armed struggle.

[Nathans_Dad]

Three years? Which government are you referring to?

The Iraqi elections were held last winter. Al Maliki was appointed to his post a few months ago.

I am all for them giving birth through armed struggle. Let's just make sure we aren't sending a 100 pound pipsqueak into the ring with a 500 pound gorilla.

[techweenie]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
Three years? Which government are you referring to?

The Iraqi elections were held last winter. Al Maliki was appointed to his post a few months ago.

I am all for them giving birth through armed struggle. Let's just make sure we aren't sending a 100 pound pipsqueak into the ring with a 500 pound gorilla.

Saddam has been out of power for over three years, Rick. forming a government isn't voting. it's everything leading up to and following voting.

100 lb. pipsqueaks cant' run governments. That's why your concept is wonky.

Pull every American out. The sooner that happens, the sooner real government will happen.

[Nathans_Dad]

Interesting. The Revolutionary War began in 1775. The Continental Congress convened in 1787 and the Constitution of the United States (which formally formed the US government) was ratified in 1789.

That's 14 years. You think 3 years is good enough for them though...