Will they, or can they?....I said before the real Democratic leaders were the ones before Nixon, and I don't mean that just because Truman had the nuts to drop the bomb when he had to...I mean the problem is we all have become so perplexed on what is important and that is the Bill of Rights! I have criticized Bush on several aspects such as Katrina, healthcare,...but I have supported the mindset of doing something against terrorism for which I feel largely the modern era Democratic leadership cannot...and still cannot. Success in Iraq Thinking on it, Iraq has always been a 2 part process before we even stepped there...Saddam, in my view was a bigtime destabilizing prescence,...connecting the dots was so transparent to myself in the realization he was a regional problem in a region that aimed to do us arm,...from the financial support of suicide killing against the Israelis (whom I don't disquise in admiring), to killing the kurds, embracing the ideology of terror against anyone, incredulous torture, invading another country without valid reason or at the least communicating grievance through international methods to attempt a peaceful resolution ... I will stand by the decision given the dots being connecting towards the dark path, and the regional significance as it related to the proximity to the homebase of religious terrorists against those in the U.S. or anyone else not muslim for that matter...regarding the overthrow of Saddam. The intelligence business fumbled and we cannot let that happen again! Let's improve it. Examine it, Put the right people in there to not gamble but be exact as it relates...The WMD intel. issue caused Saddam to go from a likely direct threat to a direct threat...but I'm going off base. The point is the 2 part process should have been examined as a strategy before the war started. The 1st part was the overthrow, the 2nd part was the reconstruction/rebuild. On the 1st part...mission accomplished! This is without a doubt. The 2nd part has not happened because I believe the modern era democrats refuse to allow it happen, and the incumbant Republicans can't plan right... In other words, one side has no plan, the other can't plan...Are we in trouble yet? Thinking on it, the 2nd part has the foundation to go right...We have instituted a government that works better or is suppose to work better once the violence stops...We have found incredible people on the Iraqi side that are noble, honorable, and willing to help rebuild Iraq..., Iraq's military has made better strides as time has gone on,...Women in Iraq are making more of a differance...There are some good things to build on.... The Problem? The problem is we have 2 problems: #1 How do you deal with low tech (yet effective) improvised explosives? This one aspect has accounted for a vast majority of soldier deaths... #2: How do you bridge people together of religious differing that segment themselves so greatly? These are two problems in which we have failed to realize the impact. To be successful in phase 2, we must deal with these two core problems which I feel have negatively affected the common American "joe's" feeling on Iraq... So what do both sides don't get?... One answer: the Bill of Rights...My view is that both sides want to pick on the parts they like most as more meaningful or more significant, while not realizing the red-headed step child rights should be just as important!... I think in the sad game of politics we forget that and play monkey see, monkey do....It's human nature after all, and I have fallen to this trap as well....To which I apologize. It's been said that 1/3 of us want to do something, 1/3 want to pretend nothing needs to be done, and 1/3 don't want to do anything... I pray for both sides to get it...more importantly, I pray for all of us to want to do something, realize something needs to be done, and to do the right thing. God bless us all...
while i dont disagree that the democrats have had no plan for the most part...at least not a unified one, your suggestion that democrats wont allow it to happen is absurd. the republicans with a unified congress and the unitary presidency had 4 years to handle this. and even now bush is able to do what he wants and the democrats won't stop him. the problem is that this administration of chickenhawks went into a war with our kids without a real plan. if they had a plan they would have a) not went into this war because it was unnecessary but more pertinent b) they would have put 300k troops. its too late now. you can't win with 20k extra troops for a few months.
I will agree moreso on the issue of troop buildup. Looking at WW2, we were successful in invasion only by force multiplier strategy...Certainly something that should have happened in hindsight. I don't think it so absurd on the question of modern era democrats not allowing it to happen because I was listening to the Steve Gill show (am radio) and a democratic rep. stated there is no democratic plan for Iraq...Why? My only summize on this is a ulterior desire for failure for short term political gain, long term loss for us all... I want a plan of action to the 2 problems I cited...Why not put aside the politics to make that a success for the good of the country?
ROX, I don't believe in god, but I'll take the benediction. Having said that, why are you so ardently convinced that, "The 2nd part has not happened because I believe the modern era democrats refuse to allow it happen, and the incumbant Republicans can't plan right..." Could you possibly paint with a broader brush? While I agree that incumbent Republicans can't "plan right," I would only apply that towards the GOP Congressional leadership and the Bush Administration. There are many Republicans who could do a decent job of planning, if they weren't frozen out of the planning/decision making process by the radical, bought and paid for Republican leadership which just had their heads handed to them by the American electorate, and the Bush Administration, led by the Decider, who still persists in the juvenile playground attitude of, "I'm the Decision Maker! It's my ball. Don't like it? GO HOME!!" Bellowing that mantra as their foreign policy disasters continue, while rehashed "strategies," the same that failed before, are foisted on us again under the guise of "something new!" We're literally being buried, still, under the incompetence of Bush and the consequences of the former GOP congressional leadership bending over for him, while they were busy picking up millions out of the gutter from lobbyists. The American people seem to think Democrats might be able to provide some leadership. 70% of them believe Bush's Iraq policies are wrong and doomed to further failure. You might search within yourself for a bit of confidence in the wisdom of America, expressed at the ballot box,and certainly damned late in coming, but the way our representative government works. Who knows... you might find yourself surprised. By the way, look into Senator Webb of Virginia. He's a Democrat, and a damned intelligent one. He's served and has a son serving today on the ground in Iraq. You might find yourself a Democrat you can relate to. D&D. Here We Are!
Deck, I realized the brush was broad. certainly there are Republicans smarter than Bush who can plan much better. Internally and externally...Certainly there are Democrats who can come up with something that approaches my 2 points that cause us problems... the problem is that on the left, someone such as a Harold ford Jr. who said "Yes I voted for the Iraq War!", but I think a new direction is needed (this was stated before Rumsfield deservedly got the can in favor of someone better),...and Iraq may need to be divided along religious ties...It is obvious at least one democrat has the idea to think of success in Iraq, even though it may ease outlook on Bush...At least he stated he won't infringe on the bill of rights as Bush has, and he will see that towards the 2nd admendment as well...It pisses me off that you have someone that can match what he does and says unlike Kerry, can match the charisma of Obama (who has impressed me none because of his non-independent style), but the modern era democratic machine does not give Ford the recogntion...What a shame for democrats and all of us for that matter.... Between him and Bob Corker was very difficult as I stated in my thread about it during voting, and TraderJorge brought up a good point that led me to fear he comes with integrity and leaves influenced by the democratic modern era established for all that is wrong...My hope is that those that seethe voting democrats see leadership that I exampled and change the system...That will be long term success for the democrats...pre Nixon style.
Harold Ford barely lost in a campaign rife with racism from his opponent and the RNC, in my opinion. Considering the state Ford was running in, you should be encouraged, not discouraged, that he ran as well as he did. November saw a landslide for Democrats, and many of them were progressive centrists. John Kerry has been discredited as a candidate and withdrew from consideration for '08 the other day, in a speech lasting 17 hours and 42 minutes, during which he compared Kansas favorably to China, and San Diego to Japan, while inadvertently saving a member of the press corp from future peril, his sleep apnea being diagnosed on the spot. He isn't the "face" of the Democratic Party. I think one could argue that there was a fundamental shift towards the center in the Democratic Party in November. I think this development has been good for the Democratic Party, and it's electoral success in the future. My own politics are more to the left on most issues, but I want my party to win elections. And I think someone can be strongly in favor of national defense, and strongly disagree with Administration policy in Iraq. I would argue that Iraq has weakened us, not made us stronger. Time to get stronger. D&D. Expecting to Fly.
This is a good point from you, except I think with better direction Iraq can be an advantage. The good news is we are starting to get better leadership...I'm one of those weirdos that think there can be good leadership from both sides as evidenced by my salute for Ford Jr. and preNixon Democratic Presidents that I feel respected the bill of rights better and could deal with defense better...I was High on Bob Corker as well, and felt it was a no-lose situation, but bittersweet no matter what. I hope the shift means that democrats should recognize the shift on being more central, and republicans realize to do there jobs better...That would be ideal.
You think that Iraq is in a state of civil war and is unable to form a coherent society: "because modern era democrats refuse to allow it to happen" That's so stupid it's not worth a serious response or actual discussion. It displays such a profound sense of ignorance of culture, history, reality that it's almost unfathomable that any knowledgeable individual would make such a point. Why don't you go back into exile like you did after the elections?
I would suggest that part of your acceptance of older Democrats has to do with their distance in time from you and the general tendency to nostalgia. I think if most of them were around now you would hate them vehemently. As an example, I used to be really fond of Teddy Roosevelt until I began to notice how many of his decisions reminded me of decisions made by ‘W’ that I consider ill-informed, reckless, and arbitrary. Looking at him from a distance, it is easier to overlook some of the things that I consider mistakes of judgment or his usurpations of power because I did not live through them and great time and effort has gone into to correcting many of them between then and now.
Iraq is in a civil war because of problem #2 which I stated as such...I believe for the most part modern era democrats don't offer a plan to contend with such... There are examples of those that do (I gave one example involving Ford Jr.)...but the "big dogs" can only pronouce "get out"...from your neck of the woods...
No, no, no. You have it all wrong. You can't say "that is a valid point" because that's a sign of weakness. We're all supposed to respond to views different from our own with such clever responses as: ..and of course the classic:
It has nothing to do with weakness, and everything to do with the fact that there's a dearth of valid points, tending to come from the same individuals (actually you might be one, come to think of it). Most of them already know this, insofar as making valid points isn't their reason for posting, however, so it's really no big deal, so your comments really are a bit superfluous here. Though they do give you the oh-so-cool appearnace of being "above the fray".
I'm not above the fray. I'm guilty of it, too, sometimes. It doesn't mean it's the right thing to do, though.
I'm surprised that you would fall for the same trap you accuse ROX of falling for. If you take into account the time period in which TDR was President, he wasn't like George W. Bush at all. Hell, it would be hard to find a President less like Bush than Teddy Roosevelt. TDR was a great man. Little Bush couldn't shine his shoes. D&D. Keep Your Shoes Shined... or Not.
