Want to know what Dems will do if they regain power?

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

The difference of course being that we're (republicans) are willing to fund and fight a prolonged conflict. The democrats are not. As the intel report says, and I believe it, if we win in Iraq, insurgents or terrorists or whatever you want to call them will come away disenchanted and less willing to 'fight' america.

Is too much to ask that there be sufficient cause? Democrats, Republicans, Americans had no issue with Afghanistan and were willing to go the distance. The Iraq occupation isnt as much a Repub versus Dems conflict as it has become a Right or Wrong conflict. As the mistruths are peeled away more and more Americans are coming there senses and asking Why are we there? and is it Worth the Cost?

I dont see a win for us. We have invaded and now occupy a country whose people have a much different culture and belief system. Is there a play book some where that gives us the right to force something on a society that doesnt want it? What is our goal here? What made any one think that we would not create more enemies by our actions? Freedom and Democracy can only be won by those fighting for it, it cannot be imposed and then expected to survive.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

Is too much to ask that there be sufficient cause? Democrats, Republicans, Americans had no issue with Afghanistan and were willing to go the distance. The Iraq occupation isnt as much a Repub versus Dems conflict as it has become a Right or Wrong conflict. As the mistruths are peeled away more and more Americans are coming there senses and asking Why are we there? and is it Worth the Cost?

That's hardly the issue now; what's more important is what we do with the current situation. We're there, we should fund and finish the job properly. Sufficient cause should have been something congress (including the democrats in office) should have wondered before we went to war.

I dont see a win for us. We have invaded and now occupy a country whose people have a much different culture and belief system. Is there a play book some where that gives us the right to force something on a society that doesnt want it? What is our goal here? What made any one think that we would not create more enemies by our actions? Freedom and Democracy can only be won by those fighting for it, it cannot be imposed and then expected to survive.

One thing's for sure; we DEFINITELY won't have a win if we cut funding and quit the war.

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

That's hardly the issue now; what's more important is what we do with the current situation. We're there, we should fund and finish the job properly. Sufficient cause should have been something congress (including the democrats in office) should have wondered before we went to war.

One thing's for sure; we DEFINITELY won't have a win if we cut funding and quit the war.

How do you fight a war that has no tangible army? How do win a war that has no tangible enemy?

Stop with the cut and run rhetoric, it isnt cutting and running. It is getting off the WRONG battlefield. We started this war, we need to end it.

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

That's hardly the issue now; what's more important is what we do with the current situation. We're there, we should fund and finish the job properly. Sufficient cause should have been something congress (including the democrats in office) should have wondered before we went to war.

One thing's for sure; we DEFINITELY won't have a win if we cut funding and quit the war.

I think that is still a huge issue. Because it's so unresolved. I think it needs to be corrected before history writes this in stone.

Congress didn't declare this war, Bush essentially did. They may have given him "power" to do so, but like most of the congress has said, that's not what they really voted for when they wanted to give him power to combat the enemy.

I think it's time for this Administration to admit it's wrong, and that way we can move on and try to solve this Catch-22.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

How do you fight a war that has no tangible army? How do win a war that has no tangible enemy?

If Iraq becomes a stable country without any other influence from surrounding countries wanting to take it over, that will be a great victory in this battle. That's what we should focus on.

Stop with the cut and run rhetoric, it isnt cutting and running. It is getting off the WRONG battlefield. We started this war, we need to end it.

It's not rhetoric, it's reality.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

I think that is still a huge issue. Because it's so unresolved. I think it needs to be corrected before history writes this in stone.

'Woulda-coulda-shoulda'...what's the point of regretting the past?

Congress didn't declare this war, Bush essentially did. They may have given him "power" to do so, but like most of the congress has said, that's not what they really voted for when they wanted to give him power to combat the enemy.

I think it's time for this Administration to admit it's wrong, and that way we can move on and try to solve this Catch-22.

The Bush admin has admitted mistake, but it hasn't (and will not) admitted the war was a mistake. Why exactly is that necessary to finish the job anyway?

[phreak]

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

Congress didn't declare this war, Bush essentially did. They may have given him "power" to do so, but like most of the congress has said, that's not what they really voted for when they wanted to give him power to combat the enemy.

what exactly did the members of congress vote for then?

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

'Woulda-coulda-shoulda'...what's the point of regretting the past?



The Bush admin has admitted mistake, but it hasn't (and will not) admitted the war was a mistake. Why exactly is that necessary to finish the job anyway?

Uh..... The Right brings up the past anytime it's time to talk about responsibility for 9/11, why wouldn't the past of the CAUSE of a WAR in which Hundreds and THOUSANDS have died be a relevent discussion?

Congress didn't declare war. That's really all that you need to know. Bush went to war.

That's the problem. The Bush admin admitted "mistake", but not that the "war" was THE MISTAKE.

It's necessary because they keep lying and changing their story. They need to tell the truth so that way they can be voted out, and we can get some competent people back in our Congress, and Executive Branch.

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by phreak

what exactly did the members of congress vote for then?

From what I understand, they voted to give the Executive Branch authority to wage a war on Terror. He turned that into Iraq.

We have no declaration of war on Iraq, do we?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

Uh..... The Right brings up the past anytime it's time to talk about responsibility for 9/11, why wouldn't the past of the CAUSE of a WAR in which Hundreds and THOUSANDS have died be a relevent discussion?

You know very well the 'past' we were talking about in this thread is limited to whether the Iraq war was right or not.

Congress didn't declare war. That's really all that you need to know. Bush went to war.

Bush didn't do anything congress didn't vote on.

That's the problem. The Bush admin admitted "mistake", but not that the "war" was THE MISTAKE.

There are many, including myself, that don't believe the war was the mistake.

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

If Iraq becomes a stable country without any other influence from surrounding countries wanting to take it over, that will be a great victory in this battle. That's what we should focus on.


It's not rhetoric, it's reality.

I agree that would be a great victory,,,, but surely you do not truly believe this is going to happen?? We are the country trying to take over. That is 2 strikes against them from the start. The surrounding countries do not want our influence there either. Our domination in Iraq only further aggrevates unrest in the middle east. I dont think we are going to want what we get even if we supposedly win. They are a completely different peoples, at what point are we going to be satisfied? We are already seeing resistance from the newly elected government. Will we eventually overthrow them? I see no true end here.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

I agree that would be a great victory,,,, but surely you do not truly believe this is going to happen??

Yes, I truly believe it can happen; cutting the funding and taking our troops out now will not do that. We STILL have a base between NK and SK. Why? To provide stability in that region. How long as it been there? Decades for sure. You think a couple years is sufficient in the most unstable region in the world? Get real...

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

The difference of course being that we're (republicans) are willing to fund and fight a prolonged conflict. The democrats are not. As the intel report says, and I believe it, if we win in Iraq, insurgents or terrorists or whatever you want to call them will come away disenchanted and less willing to 'fight' america.

There's a lot of coverage both for and against such 'reports,' so anything coming out of washington should be treated as factually suspect regardless of who is in power. Since no one's willing to define what winning means in this conflict, how would we ever see this utopia you're talking about? Does the republican party actually WANT it to end? I really do wonder because their campaigns are funded by a lot of powerful business organizations who stand to benefit greatly from a prolonged conflict at taxpayer expense. ..and as long as they can keep the conflict fresh in citizens' minds, the republicans can hold on to power. Pardon me if I don't take these 'intel reports' too seriously. There are many other sources saying iraq's on the brink of civil war. I hardly call that victory, nor a success story for 'nation building.'

Organizations like alqaida are not going to disappear, nor stop targeting america just because we 'win' in iraq. If anything, it'll make them more resolute than ever to overthrow the west. They view our presence there as an occupation. If someone invaded the US, would you stop fighting just because they managed to conquer a few states, or would you fight harder than ever to eradicate them?

..and again, I ask you, what is this great republican 'plan' you speak of? Stay there indefinitely? How is that any better? I suppose at this point there is no answer that won't have serious repercussions for our country, and situations like that tend to happen when the higher ups were too narrowminded to think things through all the way.

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by R-Type

There's a lot of coverage both for and against such 'reports,' so anything coming out of washington should be treated as factually suspect regardless of who is in power. Since no one's willing to define what winning means in this conflict, how would we ever see this utopia you're talking about? Does the republican party actually WANT it to end? I really do wonder because their campaigns are funded by a lot of powerful business organizations who stand to benefit greatly from a prolonged conflict at taxpayer expense. ..and as long as they can keep the conflict fresh in citizens' minds, the republicans can hold on to power. Pardon me if I don't take these 'intel reports' too seriously. There are many other sources saying iraq's on the brink of civil war. I hardly call that victory, nor a success story for 'nation building.'

Organizations like alqaida are not going to disappear, nor stop targeting america just because we 'win' in iraq. If anything, it'll make them more resolute than ever to overthrow the west. They view our presence there as an occupation. If someone invaded the US, would you stop fighting just because they managed to conquer a few states, or would you fight harder than ever to eradicate them?

..and again, I ask you, what is this great republican 'plan' you speak of? Stay there indefinitely? How is that any better? I suppose at this point there is no answer that won't have serious repercussions for our country, and situations like that tend to happen when the higher ups were too narrowminded to think things through all the way.

OR...they had this in mind all along. War is the most profitable export we have. Or is it import? Doesn't matter. War makes alot of money for our country. I believe they called it "Industrial War Complex".

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by R-Type

Since no one's willing to define what winning means in this conflict, how would we ever see this utopia you're talking about?

Since this is the crux of your argument (and because it's very easy), I will answer it;

We need to and will (I hope) stay in Iraq until the government, people, and country are stable, secure, and safe enough to thrive on their own without threat of another country taking over, or even a faction in their own country taking over. They will not need us for security purposes; our presence will merely be enough to thwart any adversary, as is done in Germany, Japan, and especially in SK. That, my friend, is what it means to 'win'.

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Since this is the crux of your argument (and because it's very easy), I will answer it;

We need to and will (I hope) stay in Iraq until the government, people, and country are stable, secure, and safe enough to thrive on their own without threat of another country taking over, or even a faction in their own country taking over. They will not need us for security purposes; our presence will merely be enough to thwart any adversary, as is done in Germany, Japan, and especially in SK. That, my friend, is what it means to 'win'.

What if the "faction" is voted in? And we don't like the "faction"? That could very well happen too, and has happened before we when have installed "Democracy" in other countries.

I think all this stability you speak of, we haven't even achieved that as a country, and now we are going to export it elsewhere? Hmmm.....

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Since this is the crux of your argument (and because it's very easy), I will answer it;

We need to and will (I hope) stay in Iraq until the government, people, and country are stable, secure, and safe enough to thrive on their own without threat of another country taking over, or even a faction in their own country taking over. They will not need us for security purposes; our presence will merely be enough to thwart any adversary, as is done in Germany, Japan, and especially in SK. That, my friend, is what it means to 'win'.

Is this worth the sacrifices we've made here at home, both financially and politically? What do you mean by 'adversary'? After all, countries like germany and japan are secure and peaceful, and most importantly, they don't object to our presence there, at least I have not heard of any.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

What if the "faction" is voted in? And we don't like the "faction"? That could very well happen too, and has happened before we when have installed "Democracy" in other countries.

I think all this stability you speak of, we haven't even achieved that as a country, and now we are going to export it elsewhere? Hmmm.....

What if they ARE voted in like they were in other countries? Did we go in and oust them? Of course not...

[ballz2wallz]