Sen. Hagel (R) calls for withdrawal from Iraq

Thorgrim · 11-25-2006, 03:16 PM

The United States must begin planning for a phased troop withdrawal from Iraq. The cost of combat in Iraq in terms of American lives, dollars and world standing has been devastating. We've already spent more than $300 billion there to prosecute an almost four-year-old war and are still spending $8 billion per month. The United States has spent more than $500 billion on our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And our effort in Afghanistan continues to deteriorate, partly because we took our focus off the real terrorist threat, which was there, and not in Iraq.

It is not too late. The United States can still extricate itself honorably from an impending disaster in Iraq.

Chuck Hagel - Leaving Iraq, Honorably - washingtonpost.com

In the past, some Senators have hinted at a draw-down in forces, but I believe this is the first time a Republican Senator has called for something as strong as a phased withdrawal

A Republican, from Nebraska...and with the recent new lows of current violence, I suspect other Republicans are going to jump ship on this as well, and the Democrats will have the 60 votes to pass a bill on starting plans for a phased withdrawal without a filibuster

MoTaVa · 11-25-2006, 03:33 PM

We cannot and will not leave Iraq. This is pure political posturing. The dems screamed from the mountain tops they would bring our troops home and now they are backing away from that. They know we cannot just simply leave. But, it helped them get seats. Republicans are naturally going to take the same stance in prep for 2008.

Thorgrim · 11-25-2006, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by MoTaVa

We cannot and will not leave Iraq. This is pure political posturing. The dems screamed from the mountain tops they would bring our troops home and now they are backing away from that. They know we cannot just simply leave. But, it helped them get seats. Republicans are naturally going to take the same stance in prep for 2008.

What exact move did Democrats, plural, clearly state they were going to do, and then back away from...?

MoTaVa · 11-25-2006, 04:12 PM

The most vocal dems said they were going to end the war, and bring troops home immediately.
The slightly less vocals eluded to that by saying things like you should vote dem if your tired of our troops dying in a useless war.

Thorgrim · 11-25-2006, 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by MoTaVa

The most vocal dems said they were going to end the war, and bring troops home immediately.
The slightly less vocals eluded to that by saying things like you should vote dem if your tired of our troops dying in a useless war.

Vocal Dems are still trying to end the war, and less vocal dems are still going to push for a timetable, which would reduce the possibility of US troop deaths in Iraq.

DosEquis · 11-25-2006, 04:49 PM

I dont recall any democrats saying we need to bring soldiers home immediately. I heard phased withdrawl, which is not bringing soldiers home immediately. I heard phased withdrawl to other areas in the region, which is not bringing soldiers home immediately. I've heard stay the course from some and I have heard we need more soldiers from others. Hagel talks of a phased withdrawl, just as other democrats. I don't think anyone but Michael Moore would say we need to leave immediately, and thankfully he is not a representative in government.

RMNIXON · 11-25-2006, 04:49 PM

Failure is a bad thing. And in this world of uncertainties a very major possibility in Iraq!

But what makes me sick to my stomach is the people in this country who will celebrate that failure!

RMNIXON · 11-25-2006, 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Vocal Dems are still trying to end the war, and less vocal dems are still going to push for a timetable, which would reduce the possibility of US troop deaths in Iraq.

End the war with what? The first major Al-Qaeda victory since 9/11?

You think the deaths end with out troop withdrawl? Our world is not that big anymore!

DosEquis · 11-25-2006, 04:57 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

End the war with what? The first major Al-Qaeda victory since 9/11?

You think the deaths end with out troop withdrawl? Our world is not that big anymore!

Yes I envision the Al Qaeda navy and transport aircraft on the way to our shores with 200,000+ soldiers and their new SU-27 fighters from Russia as escort

Al Qaeda is not even a significant enemy in this country. The only thing these people involved in Iraq's civil war can agree on is that after they are done shooting at us they are goin to shoot at each other.

RMNIXON · 11-25-2006, 05:00 PM

They don't fight that way and you know it. Try again!

DosEquis · 11-25-2006, 05:03 PM

Home land security starts at home. Its to bad study after study shows the bush administrations steps, bloated government powers, and spending have not done anything to make us any safer than we were on 9/10. This includes the conflict in Iraq making us less safe.

Thorgrim · 11-25-2006, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

End the war with what? The first major Al-Qaeda victory since 9/11?

You think the deaths end with out troop withdrawl? Our world is not that big anymore!

What can I say, I guess you should go argue it out with Republicans like Sen. Chuck Hagel

Using your logic, Republicans are trying to give victory to Al-Qaeda and are inviting more American deaths

RMNIXON · 11-25-2006, 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Home land security starts at home. Its to bad study after study shows the bush administrations steps, bloated government powers, and spending have not done anything to make us any safer than we were on 9/10. This includes the conflict in Iraq making us less safe.

What studies?

I take your final point as worth the debate, but the first seems a major leap!

RMNIXON · 11-25-2006, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

What can I say, I guess you should go argue it out with Republicans like Sen. Chuck Hagel

Using your logic, Republicans are trying to give victory to Al-Qaeda and are inviting more American deaths

I don't kiss the behind of any Republican! I am conservative/libertarian in my leanings. If anything it is you sir who are the party defender on all issues. If you think that remark is to personal I apologise and will delete this post.

MoTaVa · 11-25-2006, 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Yes I envision the Al Qaeda navy and transport aircraft on the way to our shores with 200,000+ soldiers and their new SU-27 fighters from Russia as escort

Cute sarcasm, I love it. But, let me take it and shape it into a real vision of post premature withdraw. You will be dead and gone and your son/daughter will be taking his/her grandchild to the theater to see the latest 3D Disney movie where they will die by suicide bomber that crossed an open border.

I dont recall any democrats saying we need to bring soldiers home immediately. I heard phased withdrawl, which is not bringing soldiers home immediately. I heard phased withdrawl to other areas in the region, which is not bringing soldiers home immediately. I've heard stay the course from some and I have heard we need more soldiers from others. Hagel talks of a phased withdrawl, just as other democrats. I don't think anyone but Michael Moore would say we need to leave immediately, and thankfully he is not a representative in government.

Early on in their campaigns the dems said immediate withdraw. As election time got closer and the polls began to show that immediate withdraw was unpopular, they shifted to phased withdraw.

The dems and their weird unrealistic view of the world and its radical threats scares the ever living crap out of me. We have been under attack by radical islam since the 1970's. Our borders are OPEN, where do you intend to withdraw to? There is no where to go friend. We fight there or we fight here.

Go look at this Obsession
Scroll down and read all the attacks against us and our friends. What does it take to make people understand that they seriously intend to take over the entire planet. They are not kidding around.

MoTaVa · 11-25-2006, 05:35 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Home land security starts at home. Its to bad study after study shows the bush administrations steps, bloated government powers, and spending have not done anything to make us any safer than we were on 9/10. This includes the conflict in Iraq making us less safe.

Evidence? Where are these studies? Who did them? Where did they get their info? What are they judging it against? I can produce a hundred studies and they would mean nothing. I suggest people put less faith in this or that study. We should put to use the lessons we learned as small children about bullies.

How can you say the conflict in Iraq makes us more unsafe. We weren't in Iraq on 9/11/01. It doesn't get anymore unsafe than that. I guess you think they were satisfied with that attack and wont ever do it again if we ask nice.

Thorgrim · 11-25-2006, 05:40 PM

You honestly think terrorists, looking at a self-sustaining Iraqi insurgency run by Iraqis, refuse to send a few Al-Qaeda across the Mexican border because...they just HAVE to be in Iraq, I mean, if they weren't there total peace would overwhelm the region

Al Qaeda is trying to attack America as much as it can right now, not in Iraq, but we have our own counter-terrorism force that is meeting them head on like never before...remember 9/11 was almost uncovered, in their most organized operation they were still sloppy

It's about counter-terrorism, not Iraq

DosEquis · 11-25-2006, 07:06 PM

Originally Posted by MoTaVa

Evidence? Where are these studies? Who did them? Where did they get their info? What are they judging it against? I can produce a hundred studies and they would mean nothing. I suggest people put less faith in this or that study. We should put to use the lessons we learned as small children about bullies.

How can you say the conflict in Iraq makes us more unsafe. We weren't in Iraq on 9/11/01. It doesn't get anymore unsafe than that. I guess you think they were satisfied with that attack and wont ever do it again if we ask nice.

Iraq did not attack us on 9/11. Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda on 9/11. The Al Qaeda presence in Iraq on 9/11 was minimal at best. Invading Iraq has nothing to do with retaliating for the attack on 9/11.

What invading Iraq has done is create the ultimate recruiting tool for groups like Hamas, Al Qaeda, and Hezbullah in Lebanon. They have thousands dying every month. Invading Iraq has done significantly more to make us less safe than any other action in this war on a tactic used by militant groups.

I dont have the links to the studys on this computer, but i do at work. There are plenty of examples, such as a border which is not secured, ports not secured, airports still have significant vulnerabilities (other than no shampoo in your carry on), 9/11 commish ideas not followed, etc. We are no safer today regarding our security measures at home, and with this ultimate recruiting tool we call Iraq we have more and more muslims buying the terror card.

DosEquis · 11-25-2006, 07:32 PM

Originally Posted by MoTaVa

Cute sarcasm, I love it. But, let me take it and shape it into a real vision of post premature withdraw. You will be dead and gone and your son/daughter will be taking his/her grandchild to the theater to see the latest 3D Disney movie where they will die by suicide bomber that crossed an open border.

Ah yes, stay in Iraq or your kids will die from terrorism. No other solutions are available... like stay out of their countries and quit buying their oil.

Early on in their campaigns the dems said immediate withdraw. As election time got closer and the polls began to show that immediate withdraw was unpopular, they shifted to phased withdraw.

The dems and their weird unrealistic view of the world and its radical threats scares the ever living crap out of me. We have been under attack by radical islam since the 1970's. Our borders are OPEN, where do you intend to withdraw to? There is no where to go friend. We fight there or we fight here.

Go look at this Obsession
Scroll down and read all the attacks against us and our friends. What does it take to make people understand that they seriously intend to take over the entire planet. They are not kidding around.

You ask for links to studies, i want a link to a democrat like Howard Dean quoted saying "We must have an immediate withdrawl". You will also need to read a little bit about the middle east, start with post ww2. Read about how the jewish state of israel was imposed by the UK regardless of how the palenstinians felt about it. Then read about what we did to Iran starting with the Eisenhower administration. Then also read about how we provided money, intelligence, and weapons to Saddam the same time he was gasing his own people and killing Iranians in the Iraq/Iran war.

After all of that you'd understand why they want to attack us. They also use terrorism because that is the most powerful weapon they have. They have no navy, no airforce, they have left over shells to make IEDs. They can't take over the entire planet, they do not have the capability. Even if we disbanded our entire military and said "Come on over and take over" they couldn't do it because they can't even afford airline tickets for more than 20 people to get here, and they don't have the planes or boats to get here.

A bigger threat to our nation is ourselves and the people who actually think warrantless spying on US citizens is ok.