this is the problem with you, you don't see the big picture. those who criticize bush are for democracy, you and this administration are for fascism. my blood doesn't run red like yours, it runs red, white and blue. long live the united states of america. and look, even if a stable, demcratically elected iraqi regime is the result of this fiasco, and i hope with all my being that it is, the manner in which we entered and conducted this war should be vilified and criticized to avoid another step backwards in the ultimate goal of world peace.
lol yeah. I was originally gonna put that in, but I was afraid not many peopel would get the WoW reference. If you think about it, thats exactly what he did
I personally am in favor of defeating the terrorists. Something the CIA has the power and capability to do. Even if they are not wiped out the CIA and other intelligent elite forces have the capability to contain and control them. They have always done that, growing them when it suits us and shutting them down when it suits us. We are fighting a war against insurgents in Iraq. Nothing surprising about insurgents fighting against our armies in Iraq. If you want to defeat the insurgents just develop a proper exit strategy and then destroy their leadership. Remember what happened when we withdrew from Lebanon and turned it over to the CIA- the war went away and so did the terrorists. We know what we are doing. If we are fighting the war it is not because we can't end it very soon in victory, it is because we have agendas that you and I cannot know. Our intelligence capabilities are the very best and most powerful the world has ever seen. These terrorists don't stand a chance. The CIA and it's various fronts and groups are precise, very powerful and deadly. I don't doubt for a second that the war on terror can be won. If that is our agenda. America is a Super Superpower. You must have more faith in the power we have amassed as a world power. Nothing is going to happen by accident. We have too much at stake. At this point in history no army can stand up to us and our special intelligence forces are beyond match. All this conservative vs. liberal bickering is part of the show. Our troops are fighting bravely, they are following orders with loyalty, nobility and courage; and they believe that the cause is just and right. We should support them, pray for them, and stop demeaning them in any way. I choose to see the obvious. We currently are at war with an insurgency. One we created mind you, but at this point what good is it to argue that. We will fight until we accomplish our objective. I choose not to be so bothered anymore by the fact that none of us has a clue as to what that objective is. The elite power brokers know why we have armies all over the middle east. There gonna sort it out like they want anyways.
Ah ha. A common debate tactic is limiting the respondent to two choices. One which he is opposed to since it is the source of the debate in the first place and the other an unfeasable polar opposite that is impossible to agree to. It is a varient of the strawman that you love to throw out there. Most people have enough sense to recognize that the world is not black and white and thus there is always more than two alternatives. The answer to your question is neither. Obviously quitting on Iraq now is not going to happen and no one on this board has advocated it. In fact, it is a myth. A right wing talking point in reaction the Murtha resolution that was bastardized and sent before the floor. Murtha did not advocate a cut and run and you know it. He called for a withdraw of the troops at the "earliest practical date". The following is the Murtha resolution: Section 1. The deployment of United States Forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date. Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S. Marines shall be deployed in the region. Section 3. The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy. The Reublicans in the House changed it to read: ' Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately. 1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately. ' On the other side of the argument, what does stay the course mean? If I simply say that it is to win the war on terror I am playing the same game. That is too broad and even the President has admitted that the war on terror is unwinnable. You can't win a war against an idea. Wars are fought against defined enemies with a specific purpose. The President in the past has stated that the purpose of the Iraqi war is democratic regime change in the Middle East. If that is the goal I personally believe it is a mistake. There is simply no way that we should commit troops for as long as it will take to change the entire or even majority of the Middle East into a democratized region. They simply are not going to go for it, at least not the way we want them to. Ok, what about just democracy in Iraq? While it is true that the Iraqis just voted in a general election it can easily be argued that they will vote a fundamental Islamist Theocracy into power. I doubt very seriously that they will allow complete freedom of and from religion, press, assembly, right to bear arms, criminal defendant rights including not allowing cruel and unusual punishment, jury trials, etc on a level that we enjoy. Those that see Iraq as a little slice of America are seriously kidding themselves. It seems to me that the Bush administration has no plan for victory at all. They simply move crisis to crisis, defining each issue narrowly enough to claim victory at each turn. Our goal should be to turn the ownership and running of Iraq back to the Iraqi people as soon as possible and get our boys the heck out of there. What that does not mean is setting up bases in Iraq to watchdog their government or protect them from outside influences. We cannot afford to be the constables for the world.
I fully understand what the speech tonight was about, as you said, "staying the course." "Finish the job,", "hand the country over to terrorists," all very cute catch phrases yet hollow and completely undermining the complexity of the situation. What exactly is this job that you say if it were to be accomplished would result in a victory? This query has been posed to you numerous times and you have continuously dodged it. Is the mission to stay until the Constitution has been ratified in its entirety and Iraq has become stable? Not only is that an overwhelming and unrealistic expectation (it takes years for fledgling nations to gain some level of stability) but it also contradicts Bush's mantra of "defeating the terrorists so we can be safe at home." So answer my question: what is "the job" that you want to finish? Don't just regurgitate catchy punch lines. You are fine with maintaining a military presence in that country for upwards of 50 years? If as many Iraqi squadrons are trained and ready as Bush trumpets, why is our presence necessary? Strange, isn't it? Most importantly, how are we eliminating terror? For every "Osama Bin Laden's 2nd in command!" who is killed, another is ready to step into his shoes and carry on the endless cycle of violence. Do you really mean to tell me that if we were to somehow exterminate every Muslim fundamentalist male and claim we had defeated terrorism, that their orphan sons would sit by placidly under our installed governments with no want of vengeance? You are delusional if that is the case.
What does that mean even?? The CIA has acknowledge that Al-Qaeda isn't some collaborative network but rather a loosely confederated one. This notion that every Muslim in the world who blows himself up or plants a bomb did it from orders from Al-Qaeda or similar groups is ridiculous. If some lunatic in Iraq is disgruntled and decides to blow himself up, it doesn't mean he's part of some terror network or got his orders from Zarqawi. He is just a foolish man who was inspired by Al-Qaeda's actions and thinks he'll go to heaven if he does this action. Bottom line, you can't defeat terrorism with war or bombs. The only way you can do that is by a mass genocide of the Arab nations and ethnically cleansing every Muslim male off the map. Obviously, that is an unethical solution. There is no set number of terrorists in the world. Terrorism is a sentiment that can only be combatted with dialogue.
Here, Here!!!! Strangely this is a foreign concept to some people. It's a Vietman mentality of body counts to some people, not realizing that often you create more terrorist by the number of bombs dropped.
This would be funny if it weren't so sad... ---------------- Iraq damaged credibility of US intelligence: Bush Faulty assessments on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction damaged US credibility and forced a worldwide revaluation of intelligence-gathering practices, President George W. Bush said. At a news conference here, Bush acknowledged that the false reports on Iraq's weapons capacity that justified the 2003 US-led invasion could hurt Washington's efforts to convince the world of Iran's nuclear arms ambitions. "No question that the intelligence failure on weapons of mass destruction caused all intelligence services to have to step back and re-evaluate the process of gathering and analyzing intelligence," Bush said. "And so, there's been a lot of work done to work with other intelligence agencies, to share information about what went right and what went wrong as well as to build credibility among all services." Bush said the bad intelligence on Iraq made it harder to convince the general public that the Americans were correct in their suspicions about Iran's nuclear program which Tehran vehemently denies. "People will say, you know, if we're trying to make the case on Iran, you know, well, the intelligence failed in Iraq, therefore, how can we trust the intelligence in Iran?" Bush has admitted intelligence estimates that deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction were wrong. But he insists Saddam hoped to develop such arms and the move to topple him was justified. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/2005121...1xjS6qtOrgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-
can't believe this guy.. he's still deflecting the blame to inteliigence angencies away from his own administration the problem was not in the gathering and analysis, but how the white house presented the "facts" to the congress, american people, and the world.. just ask colin powell..
