CUT and RUN ... the PLAN for AMERICAS FUTURE

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by Vietvet

I find it interesting that the guys who like to use phrases like "cut and run" usually turn out to be "chickenhawks" who have never seen combat. I have. I know Bush didn't. Neither did Cheney. It's easy to sit on the sidelines, wave the flag, and be a cheerleader. Men who have been in combat situations usually tend to have more horse sense than to shoot first and ask questions later. Like Bush and Cheney did. An old saying goes,"When you find yourself in a deep hole with no way to climb out, the first thing you should do is stop digging." These guys never read that. Most of you on the right don't read much anyway, evidently. It's a shame our troops are paying the price for that kind of stupididy.

That's a really good point.

[alan1000]

Originally Posted by Vietvet

I find it interesting that the guys who like to use phrases like "cut and run" usually turn out to be "chickenhawks" who have never seen combat. I have. I know Bush didn't. Neither did Cheney. It's easy to sit on the sidelines, wave the flag, and be a cheerleader. Men who have been in combat situations usually tend to have more horse sense than to shoot first and ask questions later. Like Bush and Cheney did. An old saying goes,"When you find yourself in a deep hole with no way to climb out, the first thing you should do is stop digging." These guys never read that. Most of you on the right don't read much anyway, evidently. It's a shame our troops are paying the price for that kind of stupididy.

Attacking me, when you do not know me is not helping your cause, and it is very convenient to assume that everyone on the right never served, which I am sure you yourself does not believe, and taking it one step further, the only reason most on the left who have served use the left for their own self interest, their benefits.

Now, whether you like the war or not is not the point anymore, we are long past that, we have a job to finish, and without pointing fingers at anyone, we must finish it. Bush's decision to go into Iraq will be a story history will write it is far to early to call his decision, right or wrong. We should not be led astray with the rhetoric and the chest puffing and who's right and who's wrong. be back to see you, you can be sure of it

Democrats only criticize, I have seen nothing from them other then mud slinging and inciting the terrorist. When they really want to come to the table and help then I will have a better opinion of their commitment to win for America

It seems Americas defeat is in their best political advantage, and for that I am sad.

And by the way, I am too a Viet Nam Vet, not a hero like John Kerry, just one of many who served and served proudly.

[avsp]

bonus points are likely to be awarded here i feel

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by alan1000

Attacking me, when you do not know me is not helping your cause, and it is very convenient to assume that everyone on the right never served, which I am sure you yourself does not believe, and taking it one step further, the only reason most on the left who have served use the left for their own self interest, their benefits.

Now, whether you like the war or not is not the point anymore, we are long past that, we have a job to finish, and without pointing fingers at anyone, we must finish it. Bush's decision to go into Iraq will be a story history will write it is far to early to call his decision, right or wrong. We should not be led astray with the rhetoric and the chest puffing and who's right and who's wrong. be back to see you, you can be sure of it

Democrats only criticize, I have seen nothing from them other then mud slinging and inciting the terrorist. When they really want to come to the table and help then I will have a better opinion of their commitment to win for America

It seems Americas defeat is in their best political advantage, and for that I am sad.

And by the way, I am too a Viet Nam Vet, not a hero like John Kerry, just one of many who served and served proudly.

If you served and you know how conflicts are, especially vietnam, surely you can recognize we have already won militarily. Sure you can recognize that Saddam Hussein is in jail, his sons are dead, and the republican guard has been killed, joined the new army, or joined the insurgency. Either way the republican guard does not exist. We have done everything we can with the military with the current policy. Surely you can recognize there needs to be some adjustment with our forces so we can help the Iraqi people win this politically. We have won everything we can win. THEY have to win the rest which involves training their people to maintain security and making sure they elect their own leaders. Only THEY can win that, we can't.

Your boys have painted any other strategy but theirs "cut and run" and you have bought it hook, line, and sinker. The only people who want to cut and run are Cindy Sheehan and Mike Moore. Neither of them are elected officials nor do they make policy. Therefore, although they have a right to an opinion, really do not matter when you go to the polls. Nobody has said we want a complete withdrawl of our soldiers immediately. John Murtha's plan has soldiers in the region, Joe Bidens plan has soldiers in the region, and other democrats are buying Bush's approach... democrats like Lieberman and Hillary Clinton. You have James Baker essentially recommending the same plan as John Murtha said months ago yet John Murtha, a vet such as you and vietvet, was labeled a coward and "cut and run" by people who never served nor have they ever wanted to serve and went out of their way NOT to serve.

Cut and run is a bullshit sean hannity/dick cheney/neo-conservative talking point and is not valid in any context but to those like Sheehan and Moore, who are not elected officials. Read between the lines sir, and thanks for your service.

[DosEquis]

And further what the democrats are doing is not provoking the terrorists. I am sorry you bought that talking point too. There is nothing more significant in provoking terrorism than occupying a country and torturing those that are captured. Imposing democracy by the barrel of a gun provokes "terrorists". There is nothing like creating more terrorists by promising stablity and then having those promises fall through month after month after month. People then feel like they have no choice but to fight.

Do not forget that one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. In a region that hates us, that is powerful in recruiting more and more. Setting up a time table for goals (James Baker also recommends..and Rumsfeld said this last week they are considering doing) does not embolden any terrorists more than they already are.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

And further what the democrats are doing is not provoking the terrorists. I am sorry you bought that talking point too. There is nothing more significant in provoking terrorism than occupying a country and torturing those that are captured. Imposing democracy by the barrel of a gun provokes "terrorists". There is nothing like creating more terrorists by promising stablity and then having those promises fall through month after month after month. People then feel like they have no choice but to fight.

Do not forget that one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. In a region that hates us, that is powerful in recruiting more and more. Setting up a time table for goals (James Baker also recommends..and Rumsfeld said this last week they are considering doing) does not embolden any terrorists more than they already are.

I am sure that the Afghani "freedom fighters" as we called them in the 1980's were called terrorists, insurgents, or Geurillas, by the Russians.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by alan1000

what else would I expect from the enemy!

Why are we thier enemy?


ibtheirreligiontellsthemtokillus

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by alan1000

I never framed it, your party did, and it is the general attitude of the extremist of your party that this would be the direction, and the extremist seem to be running your party, assuming the democrats are your party.

As long as DEMOCRATS refuse to PUBLICALY announce a plan, we can then only assume by the screeching of the LEFT, that they really mean "CUT and RUN" cause the alternative is to support the WAR, and that DEMOCRATS stand miles from

They have publicly announced plans and how's the whole Republican "plan" working out for you?

[SoFlaJDM]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

ibtheirreligiontellsthemtokillus

no. they hate our freedom

[Diamond Cross]

I'm kind of tired of that statement. I'd like hard evidence to prove it.

It's not our freedoms, it a religious conflict.

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Do not forget that one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. In a region that hates us, that is powerful in recruiting more and more. Setting up a time table for goals (James Baker also recommends..and Rumsfeld said this last week they are considering doing) does not embolden any terrorists more than they already are.

I thought this was worth another read...

It amazes me how we have allowed ourselves to be so easily persuaded by "the rhetoric". From the very beginning of this war any and all resistance has been termed "terrorists" & "insurgance", both considered enemy combantants. If the position were reversed and it was my country that had been invaded and now occupied, I'd call that a Rebel! Im sure there are some Rebels in that part of the world.

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

I'm kind of tired of that statement. I'd like hard evidence to prove it.

It's not our freedoms, it a religious conflict.

Its not a religious conflict, it is an excuse to feed war and grow fat from the proceeds of that war.

[RMNIXON]

Somalia is the Al-Qaeda playbook. You must consider that.

"Cut and Run" is rather simplistic, but no more than the way the left has defined "stay the course" as being stubborn and inflexable. The politics has cut both ways and I don't like it at all. Not at wartime.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

I'm kind of tired of that statement. I'd like hard evidence to prove it.

It's not our freedoms, it a religious conflict.

They hate us because we won't leave their countries alone.

[Diamond Cross]

In many cases we're acting on behalf of their government who asked us to bed there, such as the case of Saudi Arabia, and it is usually the fringe, or the extremist that hate us.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

In many cases we're acting on behalf of their government who asked us to bed there, such as the case of Saudi Arabia, and it is usually the fringe, or the extremist that hate us.

That doesn't look any better in the eyes of the people. How would you feel if our government let China come in here to deal with Mexico? We don't allow any other countries military in here for a reason, no?

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Somalia is the Al-Qaeda playbook. You must consider that.

"Cut and Run" is rather simplistic, but no more than the way the left has defined "stay the course" as being stubborn and inflexable. The politics has cut both ways and I don't like it at all. Not at wartime.

The difference is the administration is the one that labels their policy "stay the course" and the administration is the one that says we must keep things the way they are and stay there no matter what, while they use words like "resolve" and "courage".

They have labeled everything else that opposes that as "cut and run". Democrats are not running around giving speaches that say "we must cut and run, it is in our best interests".

[SICKGUY]

Originally Posted by alan1000

Are we as a nation going to allow the NEW CULTURE of APPEASMENT to dictate what AMERICA does in the future......????

Are we going to surrender everytime we lose our will to defeat the enemy, cause it cost too much, and they are not bothering us now.

SURRENDER seems to be the new AMERICA!

the fact that you even say "cut and run" means you are a total sheep, and have no valid opinions of your own.

is santa coming to your house this year too?

[Diamond Cross]

It's not the people who don't want us there in the Middle East, many of them want us there along with their official government. It's a fringe element that wants us gone. Osama has never been supported by his government, he's taken on the role of vigilante in order to attempt to force us out.

He has no real authority to do so.

I'm curious, have you ever read his Fatwah against the United States, if you haven't I'd recommend it. That outlines what he says is his grievances against America.

Here's the link:

Osama bin Ladin's Fatwah

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross