Democrats better do better than this at explaining their pullout plans *video*

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

Bullshit... and this term "slow bleed" needs to stop.

If anything the current plan is a "slow bleed".

We are slowly bleeding lives and money (well not so slow with the money) away on a civil war in another country. Let's help the Iraqi's help themselves. Pull our troops out to the borders and they need to worry about themselves. We will continue to help them, but not at the levels we are now. They need to learn how to work out their own problems.


Funny that Republicans have an issue with financial assistance to people in this country, but don't care that we are supporting an entire nation in the ME.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

Bullshit...

We need to have a pullout date, or at least REDEFINE OUR ROLE in the country just like we did after WWII.

The only way you can make sure shit gets done is to set a date.

In other words the only plan the Dems have is attempting to set a date for pullouts... which is what I said. How is what I said bullshit when your post says the same thing worded friendlier and attempts to justify it?

The Dems have no plans for ground forces in Iraq. All they're doing it working out costs and sheer numbers of troops and pull out dates. They have not attempted anything resembling a plan for Iraq, but rather trying to micromanage cost/troops levels forcing the administration to adapt.

The problem is when your sole plan is to set a date and you hold a press conference and you don't know your time table. The whole "it's changing" excuse I don't buy. Write the dates down on an index card. It's not hard. Nobody should be citing decades earlier or missing dates by full years. I don't believe their plan is that adaptive to where they're off by entire years. If your plan is to pull out this summer we shouldn't have senators saying next year. July 1st or 31st I can excuse and chalk up as being an idiot. But, not knowing the year your plan takes place makes you completely ignorant and completely unfit to be a spokesperson for the issue. And if these are the people they've chosen to portray the plan to the media, it seems they have some serious problems going on.

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by JaJae

In other words the only plan the Dems have is attempting to set a date for pullouts... which is what I said. How is what I said bullshit, when your post says the same thing worded friendlier and attempts to justify it?

The Dems have no plans for ground forces in Iraq. All they're doing it working out costs and sheer numbers of troops and pull out dates. They have not attempted anything resembling a plan for Iraq, but rather trying to micromanage cost/troops levels forcing the administration to adapt.

The problem is when your sole plan is to set a date and you hold a press conference and don't know your time table, there's a problem. The whole "it's changing" excuse I don't buy. Write the dates down on an index card. It's not hard. Nobody should be citing decades earlier or missing dates by full years. I don't believe their plan is that adaptive to where they're off by entire years. If your plan is to pull out this summer we shouldn't have senators saying next year.

No, jesus christ are you trying to play devil's advocate or do you really not pay attention to what's going on?


the democrat's plan in bullet points:

- increase ISF funding and maintain funding for current troop levels
- redefine our role as a support force and not an active combat force
- relocate the majority of forces over time to the outskirts of metro areas.
- set a tentative date for withdraw of the bulk of forces.
- around the time, assess situation and see if it needs to be extended
- gradually pull out the bulk of troops
- leave a significant support force there to step in at the request of the Iraqi Government
- once the Iraq Government has more control, request UN peacekeeping troops to assist in keeping the peace



there's so much more than that, to simply reduce it to " pull out asap" is an insult. The current date is sometime around the end of next year, not this summer.



and nobody will no a date because a single bill hasn't been placed on the floor just yet, there are only committee bills with several dates.. this is how congress works.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

No, jesus christ are you trying to play devil's advocate or do you really not pay attention to what's going on?

the democrat's plan in bullet points:
there's so much more than that, to simply reduce it to " pull out asap" is an insult. The current date is sometime around the end of next year, not this summer.

Read your points. Your entire points are nothing more than spending agreements and setting troop limits on the administration with emphasis on pulling out... asap.

It has nothing to do with having a plan for ground troops or a strategy to help our troops/the Iraqis. It has everything to do with setting a plan for a pullout and restricting the levels of troops available to the president. It's just a dressed up way of gaining the votes for a pullout without sounding like a complete "cut and run" which won't get enough votes. The entire purpose of this strategy as admitted by Democrats (who wrote the bill) when they don't know the cameras are rolling is to get enough votes to pull our troops out Iraq as soon as possible. It really boils down to that.

The Democratic plan is a pullout strategy, and has nothing to do with the daily operations of Iraq or actually trying to help the Iraqis. Their plan is simply to get enough votes to limit the number of troops at the disposal of the president (as Pelosi has been threatening for some time now). They have absolutely no plan for Iraq other than to pull out as soon as possible.

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Read your points. Your entire points are nothing more than spending agreements and setting troop limits on the administration with emphasis on pulling out... asap.

Not pulling out, it's redefining our role to a postwar support force.

and not asap, it's determined upon whether we can or not.. right now even democrats agree we cannot pull out. However that's no excuse to add mroe troops.

It has nothing to do with having a plan for ground troops or a strategy to help our troops/the Iraqis. It has everything to do with setting a plan for a pullout and restricting the levels of troops available to the president. It's just a dressed up way of gaining the votes for a pullout without sounding like a complete "cut and run" which won't get enough votes. The entire purpose of this strategy as admitted by Democrats is to get enough votes to troops out Iraq as soon as possible. It really boils down to that.

you're not even reading what I write.


you're just spouting the same crap without even looking into the issue. It is not "cut and run" and it is not "slow bleed" it's a plan to stabilize and move our forces into more of a support role to allow the ISF to take charge of its country instead of us being a primary combat force there.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

Not pulling out, it's redefining our role to a postwar support force.

Redefining our role by taking forcing the vast majority of our troops back to American soil is pulling out. Pulling out isn't necessarily a bad thing. In fact, I might be inclined to go along with it if done properly. But, we need to come to terms with what it is.

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Redefining our role by taking forcing the vast majority of our troops back to American soil is pulling out. Pulling out isn't necessarily a bad thing. In fact, I might be inclined to go along with it if done properly. But, we need to come to terms with what it is.

how is the democrat's plan not a good plan? please quote it and cite what you think is bad.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

how does it portray their strategy?

It's very descriptive, and very visually stimulating. It's a nice description

oh, thanks for ignoring the rest of my post.

I'm sorry, are you offended that I don't care about everything you write? I addressed what I wanted to address

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

how is the democrat's plan not a good plan? please quote it and cite what you think is bad.

Limiting troop numbers without setting a plan on the ground is dangerous. Democrats need to work more closely with generals and less with organizations like Code Pink before they start limiting troops. That's my problem. You can't just pull troops out arbitrarily. The plan is basically show proof Iraq is getting better by this date or we're going to start pulling troops out. Anytime you can't show proof of progress by a date, troops come home.

No matter what happens in this plan, all troops are out of Iraq in Aug '08. Regardless of progress, all troops come home next year.

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Limiting troop numbers without setting a plan on the ground is dangerous. That's my problem. You can't just pull troops out arbitrarily. The plan is basically show proof Iraq is getting better by this date or we're going to start pulling troops out. Anytime you can't show proof of progress by a date, troops come home.

No matter what happens in this plan, all troops are out of Iraq in Aug '08. Regardless of progress, all troops come home next year.

That's not in any of the bills, that is Pelosi hawking...the troops wouldn't leave until it is deeped appropriate by the Generals on the field.


The difference is that hopefully a General won't be fired because he disagreed with the Bush Administration.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

That's not in any of the bills, that is Pelosi hawking...the troops wouldn't leave until it is deeped appropriate by the Generals on the field.


The difference is that hopefully a General won't be fired because he disagreed with the Bush Administration.

Are you saying the speaker of the house doesn't know the strategy?

She and others have very clearly been stating regardless of what happens by March 1st, 08 they start the 180 days pullout. That is their strategy, no matter what progress is made everyone out by summer of '08.

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Are you saying the speaker of the house doesn't know the strategy?

She and others have very clearly been stating regardless of what happens by March 1st, 08 they start the 180 days pullout. That is their strategy, no matter what progress is made everyone out by summer of '08.

Not according to the language of the bills.. I quoted it once before but I'm doing work now and don't have the time to pull it up.

[lew]

Just watched the video.




That's just as hilarious when Bush makes an ass out of himself.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

Not according to the language of the bills.. I quoted it once before but I'm doing work now and don't have the time to pull it up.

I think you are mistaken
Democratic bill would have troops out of Iraq by fall 2008 - CNN.com

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Democrats in the House and Senate pushed legislation Thursday that would have U.S. combat troops out of Iraq by August 2008, or sooner if certain benchmarks of progress aren't met, but the White House said the president would veto any such proposal.

The troop withdrawal timetables in the House are embedded in appropriations legislation that provides money for care of wounded troops, for better equipment and training, and for expanded operations in Afghanistan.

The Dems are using the GOP tactic here, putting this crap in a bill for spending on wounded troops. The Dems set a date. March 1, 2008. Regardless of progress troops start coming home, all of them are to be out by the end of August. They're trying to slip this in with a spending bill to help wounded soldiers.

[Pro Street]

That's the proposed bill, but I don't believe it will end up without being pulled.

I also don't believe that any bill passed would not include a review prior to beginning withdraw

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

That's the proposed bill, but I don't believe it will end up without being pulled.

I also don't believe that any bill passed would not include a review prior to beginning withdraw

So in other words, it is the bill. But you believe they'll take it out despite Pelosi and the Democrats flaunting it and bragging about it? How can you keep saying I'm wrong when you now say what the bill says?

When you called me out on bullshit that this was nothing more than a pull out plan, was that also not based on the actual bill but rather what you believe the final bill might say?

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by JaJae

So in other words, it is the bill. But you believe they'll take it out despite Pelosi and the Democrats flaunting it and bragging about it? How can you keep saying I'm wrong when you now say what the bill says?

When you called me out on bullshit that this was nothing more than a pull out plan, was that also not based on the actual bill but rather what you believe the final bill might say?

Where's the bill?

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by JaJae

"when this surge shows to be ineffective"... "no plan", etc

The Republican plan is to do peacekeeping, train Iraqi security forces and slowly allow them to take over their country. They have been moving in and out of more hostile territories lately trying to give the people a taste of freedom without the faction groups around.

They have been attempting to control the militant groups attacking each other and protecting the Iraqi civilians as well as continue to rebuild the infrastructure and aid in setting up a government.

The Democratic plan is simply to pull out as soon as America/Congress would be willing to vote on it. And they can't even get their dates right. They want to initiate a slow bleed strategy and let the GOP adapt to it. The Democrats don't really have a plan, other than a pull out. And they want the GOP to rearrange what they've been doing to accommodate their time line, yet they have little to no understanding of what amount of time is reasonable and acceptable. All they care about is finding the magic date where they can get enough votes to pull people out. How it happens and the result of it isn't their concern. That they're leaving to the GOP. The actual logistics of fighting the war the Democrats have never attempted to get involved in. They just keep claiming there is no plan. Well our troops aren't doing nothing. If they were, we wouldn't be asking for a troop surge...

it boils down to this: The Republican party is listening to those on the ground and the Democrat party are using dates and ideas that sound good to civilians