Dems seem confused about Iraq - Page 3

Pro Street · 02-20-2007, 01:05 AM

by the way, it was never called a "slow bleed" strategy.

kinggovernor · 02-20-2007, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by Pro Street

Yes, but it's still Sadr City

and if there's one thing I won't ever debate with TKG, it's military matters in terms of tactics. He knows much more than I do.

what is going on right now has nothing to do with military tactics, the US military is vastly superior in MOUT operations than our opponent. It is the politics that need to be straightened out, shit like what to do with Sadr etc

kinggovernor · 02-20-2007, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by Pro Street

by the way, it was never called a "slow bleed" strategy.

it is less than a complete commitment to victory or withdrawing, thus it is a slow bleed. My personal feelings are that you are completely committed to victory or you should pull out

Pro Street · 02-20-2007, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

it is less than a complete commitment to victory or withdrawing, thus it is a slow bleed. My personal feelings are that you are completely committed to victory or you should pull out

What do you define victory as? a stable Iraq? an Iraq in which the ISF is in charge?

Right now both lead to those definitions of victory, a "complete commitment" in terms of stay the course or adding in a slow trickle of troops, has done nothing to bring us closer to this victory.

kinggovernor · 02-20-2007, 06:01 PM

Originally Posted by Pro Street

What do you define victory as? a stable Iraq? an Iraq in which the ISF is in charge?

Right now both lead to those definitions of victory, a "complete commitment" in terms of stay the course or adding in a slow trickle of troops, has done nothing to bring us closer to this victory.

a non-binding vote of nonconfidence will not bring us closer to victory.

Pro Street · 02-20-2007, 11:44 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

a non-binding vote of nonconfidence will not bring us closer to victory.

That's not what I asked.

kinggovernor · 02-21-2007, 01:01 AM

Originally Posted by Pro Street

That's not what I asked.

I thought we were talking about democrats here

Pro Street · 02-21-2007, 07:08 AM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

I thought we were talking about democrats here

We're talking about how nothing Bush has planned has worked to victory, and what's in store to achieve it.

kinggovernor · 02-21-2007, 07:48 AM

Originally Posted by Pro Street

We're talking about how nothing Bush has planned has worked to victory, and what's in store to achieve it.

Thread Title - Dems seem confused about Iraq
I thought we were talking about democrats

Donkey® · 02-21-2007, 08:28 AM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

Thread Title - Dems seem confused about Iraq
I thought we were talking about democrats

Since we're back on topic...let's give them some time. Bush changed his stance on Iraq many times before chosing his current stance (failure). So let's give the Democrats time to flip flop as well.

kinggovernor · 02-21-2007, 08:56 AM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Since we're back on topic...let's give them some time. Bush changed his stance on Iraq many times before chosing his current stance (failure). So let's give the Democrats time to flip flop as well.

how much time? They have had the same amount of time to draft a strategy as the republicans. I believe that they were banking on the Iraq Study Group to release a study that would tell them what the best course of action was, but when it turned out to be mostly what Bush and Co already were doing the democrats were back to square one. The fact that they don't have a plan for iraq and just write it off as "bush wmds people lied etc" or that we should have not gone in the first place, much like this thread

. It is too late for that type of thinking

Diesel66 · 02-21-2007, 09:42 AM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Say what? Iraq has nothing to do with the planet's situation.

because somalia hasnt affected the rest of the planet ? Not only did it reafirm that we are weak but the pirates operating out of country are attacking many ships that go through the Red Sea.

goldenponderbob · 02-21-2007, 09:50 AM

We are talking about the newly in charge of the purse people.

Elected to control events because appropriations are the single
most powerful tool in the constitutional arsenal.

Money authorizations begin with Nancy's peeps, so to speak.

So all about Iraq is all abou democrats and we're discussing
what they were elected to change.

They were elected to change what we are able to control in
Iraq, that point was decided cannot be up for debate.

The realization that many were hollering about is now on the table.

That is, the day after we pull out, whether next week or next year
is the day we find out whether any of the stuff we tried to do over
there worked.

And nobody, not Nancy, not George, not Obama, not Hill, has any
idea what will happen on that day.

So, they want to postpone it as long as possible, because they are
all drawing good pay and meanwhile they want to figure out how far
from the epicenter of responsibility they will be when the shit hits
the fan.

goldenponderbob

Pro Street · 02-21-2007, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

The fact that they don't have a plan for iraq and just write it off as "bush wmds people lied etc" or that we should have not gone in the first place, much like this thread . It is too late for that type of thinking

No, they have several plans, in fact you're talking about one right now.

Democrats have have put forth plans, and Bush dismissed them all. Bush's plan is to send in more, and if that doesn't work... well he won't say because he has no idea.

kinggovernor · 02-21-2007, 06:16 PM

Originally Posted by Pro Street

No, they have several plans, in fact you're talking about one right now.

Democrats have have put forth plans, and Bush dismissed them all. Bush's plan is to send in more, and if that doesn't work... well he won't say because he has no idea.

so they all agree on a slow bleed policy

RMNIXON · 02-21-2007, 07:47 PM

Originally Posted by Pro Street

Democrats have have put forth plans, and Bush dismissed them all. Bush's plan is to send in more, and if that doesn't work... well he won't say because he has no idea.

I keep hearing that. Are they being kept hidden because I never seem to hear them or see them? Other than to pull out now or pull out in August, or whatever.....and not one word on the consequences of doing that in the long term although Murtha has been saying everything will somehow be alright.

It seems rather odd that after all the talk a Bush being stubborn and just trying to "stay the course" it seems they are now complacent with that if they cannot force their withdrawl?

DosEquis · 02-22-2007, 03:14 PM

I have heard a variety of plans. Some include using our soldiers to secure Iraq's borders and letting the Iraqi's secure the capital, thus preventing foreign fighters and weapons from getting in to the country. Another idea via joe biden would be the eventual creation of 3 seperate states within the country.

Here is a map of Iraq in 1914.

Unimaps.com - Iraq at 1914

Thorgrim · 02-25-2007, 10:30 PM

He is saying they don't go hungry...they have the basic life neccesaties such as drinking water that won't kill them

You took the quote completely out of context

Pro Street · 02-26-2007, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I have heard a variety of plans. Some include using our soldiers to secure Iraq's borders and letting the Iraqi's secure the capital, thus preventing foreign fighters and weapons from getting in to the country. Another idea via joe biden would be the eventual creation of 3 seperate states within the country.

Here is a map of Iraq in 1914.

Unimaps.com - Iraq at 1914

What's the BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S plan?

SoFlaJDM · 02-26-2007, 11:32 AM

Originally Posted by Pro Street

What's the BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S plan?

victory... you didn't know that?