So just what IS the Dems platform on Iraq???

[EAT MY ASSHOLE]

So yoou've got Murtha on one side essentially saying "Get out NOW, let them have thier inevitable Civil War, it's unsalvagable, LEAVE".

Then you have Joe Biden saying, "Let's turn this lemon into lemonade. Let's draw up a new map for the country, seperate by factions, distribute the oil revenue appropriately, and use our troops to maintain order during this transition."

Two COMPLETELY different views right there alone. Does the national interest entail leaving well enough alone or in attempting to clean up the mess that - facts are facts - Bush co created?

Elvis? your thoughts? (Couldn't resist)

[LoungeMachine]

Obviously I don't speak for the little village near Disfunction Junction called Democratopolis, but........



The WAR is over [was there ever one?]

The initial objectives have been met [harrumph]

The money for reconstruction has been spent/stolen

The country is in a low grade civil war

The consensus among those who should know is this CANT be won militarily.

The president declared mission accomplished years ago


So it's time to redeploy as quickly as is possible without jeopardizing troops in any way.

Let the government there govern.


Let them stand up as we stand down.

[EAT MY ASSHOLE]

So you side with Murtha's approach then?

[EAT MY ASSHOLE]

Judging from the lack of response to this thread, the only thing I can conclude is that the White house rhetoric DOES in fact have a grain of truth to it, and the dems DON'T have a platform.

There's a complaint going around that Dems wanted power for the sake of having power. I can see this. A lot of the libs here seem to just want the majorities of the house and senate to have the ability to (pointlessly) impeach the president. and, in blueturks case, to finally marry his life partner.

Since folks like FORD seem to be less pro-democrat and MUCH more anti-Bush, well, as the saying goes, res ipsa loquitur...

[ULTRAMAN VH]

Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
Judging from the lack of response to this thread, the only thing I can conclude is that the White house rhetoric DOES in fact have a grain of truth to it, and the dems DON'T have a platform.

There's a complaint going around that Dems wanted power for the sake of having power. I can see this. A lot of the libs here seem to just want the majorities of the house and senate to have the ability to (pointlessly) impeach the president. and, in blueturks case, to finally marry his life partner.

Since folks like FORD seem to be less pro-democrat and MUCH more anti-Bush, well, as the saying goes, res ipsa loquitur...

LOL, LOL CLASSIC!!!

[EAT MY ASSHOLE]

STFU.

[ULTRAMAN VH]

Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
STFU.

What is your problem?? I wasn't knocking your post, I liked it.

[knuckleboner]

the democrats DON'T have a unified position on iraq.

then again, at a minimum, it's been acknowledged by pretty much all that the current policy is having difficulty.

i think the democrats represented an opportunity to explore other options; whereas the administration, and the general republican concensus had simply been, "stay the course."


i'd prefer we examine other possible strategies. i won't agree with all of them (like i won't agree with immediately leaving in full and telling the iraqis, "your problem now.") but i don't agree with the current policy, either. and i'd hope the democrats seriously pursue reasonable alternatives to our current course.

[Lqskdiver]

Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE

Since folks like FORD seem to be less pro-democrat and MUCH more anti-Bush, well, as the saying goes, res ipsa loquitur...

It's official.

I have now coined the new phase.

FORDSHEEP

[Lqskdiver]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Obviously I don't speak for the little village near Disfunction Junction called Democratopolis, but........



The WAR is over [was there ever one?]

The initial objectives have been met [harrumph]

The money for reconstruction has been spent/stolen

The country is in a low grade civil war

The consensus among those who should know is this CANT be won militarily.

The president declared mission accomplished years ago


So it's time to redeploy as quickly as is possible without jeopardizing troops in any way.

Let the government there govern.


Let them stand up as we stand down.

Although you make some valid points, your last statement still sounds weak.

Allowing them to fend for themselves is equally saying we will help the insurgents and radicals.

Would you so recklessly abandon a state that way? You've really shown your lack of backbone is thread, Lounge.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Lqskdiver
Although you make some valid points, your last statement still sounds weak.

Allowing them to fend for themselves is equally saying we will help the insurgents and radicals.

Would you so recklessly abandon a state that way? You've really shown your lack of backbone is thread, Lounge.

The "insurgents and radicals" are nationalist Iraqis who want an occupying force to get the fuck out of THEIR country.

Therefore, if that occupying force leaves, they no longer have a purpose. Which means they'll probably jump into the sectarian civil war out of boredom. But the only to prevent that from happenning would have been to have NOT invaded in the first place.

Saddam, for whatever his other faults, at least had that shit under control. Much like the Commies did in Yugoslavia.

[Lqskdiver]

Originally posted by FORD
[B]The "insurgents and radicals" are nationalist Iraqis who want an occupying force to get the fuck out of THEIR country.

Curious, then why are they kidnapping and killing their own people. Target practice for us?

Therefore, if that occupying force leaves, they no longer have a purpose. Which means they'll probably jump into the sectarian civil war out of boredom.

And you wholly believe that will come to fruition? How about trying to help the established government fend off and maintain control on their own, instead of leaving them to this probable civil war that will no doubt leave more unrest in this region.

Saddam, for whatever his other faults, at least had that shit under control. Much like the Commies did in Yugoslavia.

Cue Cyndi Lauper's "True Colors".

Geez, way to praise a dictator.
For whatever his other faults!!! WTF!!!!
I guess you would compliment Hitler's regime tactics on controlling that "pesky" Jew problem, huh.

I can picture Saddam in his jail cell saying, "You damn right I had my shit together, Dave, before them Americans came and fucked it all up!"

[FORD]

There are no relevant comparisons between Hitler and Saddam.

However, you can say that Hitler had a good idea when he invented the Autobahn, or the Volkswagen, and that's a factual statement. it doesn't let him off the hook for killing 6 million Jews, because one had nothing to do with the other.

Saddam being able to keep warring factions separated and the region stable is a matter of historical fact. It doesn't excuse anything else he may have done, but it DOES prove that Chimp and PNAC did not consider the realities of the region's history before plotting their bullshit invasion.

[Lqskdiver]

Originally posted by FORD

Saddam being able to keep warring factions separated and the region stable is a matter of historical fact. .

Well, if you believe the ends justifiies the means, then we should prolly take some hints out of his textbook on "stabilizing" peace.

Lessee, where is that page on gassing your own people.

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
res ipsa loquitur...

That was for my benefit, I know it!!