So, I was watching Meet the Press yesterday with Tom DeLay - Page 4

motivez · 03-19-2007, 05:17 PM

I notice you ignored my other posts which destroyed the logic being used for the "argument" being made, as well as the substance of my previous reply.

ballz2wallz · 03-19-2007, 05:20 PM

Originally Posted by CrackSeed

why?

Because on the other side is your goal...your target. It's too far to turn back.

In the case of the war, what is it you want us to do? Quit? The benefits in the long run will be what?

ballz2wallz · 03-19-2007, 05:20 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

I notice you ignored my other posts which destroyed the logic being used for the "argument" being made, as well as the substance of my previous reply.

Good observation!

motivez · 03-19-2007, 05:26 PM

I suppose when the argument you've made has been completely destroyed there's not much left to say.

ballz2wallz · 03-19-2007, 05:30 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

I suppose when the argument you've made has been completely destroyed there's not much left to say.

Yeah, that must be it.

Ok, I'll address it:

Originally Posted by motivez

These analogies are stupid. The logic of what you're saying is indefensible when analyzed, we don't need analogies to situations that will never fully articulate the complexity of this situation to do it.

I agree!

...that it's far too complex to use such simple analogies with? That it's far too complicated to just 'turn around' and quit? That it's far too complicated for any one of us to understand, and we are in it for good, so we might as well make the best of it?

Yeah, I don't respond to every thought, because frankly I don't always have something to say. Glad you point it out every time though!

Linzyhop · 03-19-2007, 05:32 PM

i just don't understand why we're still there when the overwhelming consensus of the people of Iraq is for America to go home. What are we fighting for? Our freedom? another ally? Oil? Terror? Saddam's legacy? Osama?

discuss amongst yourselves.

grembert · 03-19-2007, 05:59 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Because on the other side is your goal...your target. It's too far to turn back.

In the case of the war, what is it you want us to do? Quit? The benefits in the long run will be what?

When you are talking about never turning back and fighting to the end, you are forgeting that we are in Iraq, trying to keep groups of people from killing each other. We are not fighting an enemy like Hitler in an open field. In all this debating back and forth, nobody mentions that we should hold the Iraqi people and Iraq government more responsible for what is happening there.

Linzyhop · 03-19-2007, 06:03 PM

Originally Posted by grembert

When you are talking about never turning back and fighting to the end, you are forgeting that we are in Iraq, trying to keep groups of people from killing each other. We are not fighting an enemy like Hitler in an open field. In all this debating back and forth, nobody mentions that we should hold the Iraqi people and Iraq government more responsible for what is happening there.

good point.

Roonie · 03-19-2007, 06:14 PM

I think it goes back to the original question what do you mean by "winning" this war. What would that mean to you? What exactly are we going to win in Iraq?

ballz2wallz · 03-19-2007, 08:34 PM

Originally Posted by Roonie

I think it goes back to the original question what do you mean by "winning" this war. What would that mean to you? What exactly are we going to win in Iraq?

Stability. That's all we need so that our forces can leave. Once the Iraqi government is in control and able to control the insurgents, we can pack up and leave.

That also includes the ability to defend themselves from other possible invading countries. I'm sure you can thikn of a few.

That to me, is a victory. Easy enough, yeah? I think so, and the only thing needed is patience.

Diesel66 · 03-19-2007, 08:52 PM

Originally Posted by lew

But I guess he doesn't consider himself a traitor during Bosnia.

Clinton set the pull out date, "our boys will be home by christmas" then failed to do it.

Any similar claim from Bush about Iraq?

Originally Posted by motivez

You have to define what a "win" looks like.

It can easily be determined that there is no traditional "win" and "lose" with Iraq.

stable country with a govt protecting the people's freedoms. The method of govt isnt as important.

Leaving right now makes Iraq a worse place then it was in 2002. Good job America. It also gives more backing to our enemies, all you have to do is give them a bloody nose and they leave.

IminWonderland · 03-20-2007, 03:27 AM

Originally Posted by CrackSeed

why?

Ego.

nbiggershaft · 03-20-2007, 04:18 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Since when has the war become a sporting event?

Fair-weather fans suck in sports, and they suck in war too.

I'd say the ones concerned about 'winning' and rooting for the team are the ones who make a sporting event of it, rather than looking realistically looking at the situation.

If you want to defend staying in Iraq for it's individual merits, so be it. But to say we should stick around and for the purpose of going for the win is pretty obnoxious. Even moreso to say that those who question are unpatriotic

, that kind of rhetoric belongs in Imperial Japan, not here.

DosEquis · 03-20-2007, 12:25 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Stability. That's all we need so that our forces can leave. Once the Iraqi government is in control and able to control the insurgents, we can pack up and leave.

That also includes the ability to defend themselves from other possible invading countries. I'm sure you can thikn of a few.

That to me, is a victory. Easy enough, yeah? I think so, and the only thing needed is patience.

I agree that stability is the ultimate goal. However, conservatives such as yourself act like the only options we have is stay or leave completely. Other than Edwards, the leading democratic candidates have plans that do not call for immediate withdrawl. Hillary Clinton would have soldiers there for a long period of time, and so would Biden or Murtha. The difference comes in the role they will be playing. Withdrawl is at the end of their plan of course, but withdrawl is also at the end of Bush's "plan".

Most of the alternatives want to pull our soldiers out of the capital and control Iraq's borders to keep foreign fighters and interests out. This is an Iraqi problem and only Iraqis can fix it. Pat Buchanan has signed on to the idea of 3 states and a federal system, the same plan Joe Biden has been advocating. People shit on that saying how they need a united Iraq. We have 50 states, united states, why can't they have 3? Let them have their own states as a way of seperation until the war smooths over.

There are other plans out there, bush's "plan" hasnt worked, does not appear it will work, so we need to try something else. We need to get every middle east expert to put their opinion in on the matter. We need to listen to some things like the Baker report. We need cooperation from every one of Iraqs neighbors. Boots and bullets are not going to fix this on its own.

Anyway instead of rambling on, the point is that there is more than just Bush's plan or pull out completely.