Ronald Reagan was one of the greatest POTUS in history.

#51
#51
UT IE 95 said:
I would never support a policy or platform that does something just to spite Bush. The Bush admin was a tragic failure and I am ready to put it behind us and move forward with either McCain or Obama.
Click to expand...

So it was a tragic failure and you are ready to move on with either guy? Either of the guys that voted for the bailout plan Bush signed.
 
#52
#52
rjd970 said:
Just out of curiosity, what makes you think they will ever adjust to the rule of democracy? Left to their own accords, there is nothing to suggest they will keep themselves from voting in a full fledged theocracy or extremist dictatorship, with voting happening along ethnic and religious lines. We could stay there another 100 years and this wouldn't change. Even the Palestinians, practicing democracy, elected a Hamas government. Saudi Arabia, a "pro US govt" uses the Qu'ran as the state constitution.

This is why I think the Japan/Germany analogy is wrong. Taken as a whole, they wanted us there. They knew they needed us. There will never be a secular government in the Middle East as there is today with Germany and Japan. It doesn't take into account the ethnic and religious unrest in the region. When Sunni's and Shiites have been slaughtering each other for 1300 years, I don't think it is reasonable to assume they will ever be able to fully govern themselves in a western style democracy we would find suitable.
Click to expand...


I don't disagree with most of this. A lot of these conflicts can be seen in the Bible starting with Abraham Isaac and Ishmael.
 
#53
#53
allvol123 said:
So it was a tragic failure and you are ready to move on with either guy? Either of the guys that voted for the bailout plan Bush signed.
Click to expand...

That's our choice as it be. I'm not happy about the bailout plan at all.
 
#54
#54
UT IE 95 said:
I'll try this in simple terms. We're not fighting Iraqi terrorists in Iraq. We have nothing to "retreat" from. We need to go after and eliminate the origin of the problems terrorists in Iraq.

Quit treating the symptoms and go after the cause.

Make sense? It's not giving up, retreating, or quitting like the Bush admin keeps telling you. It's about going after the real problem with a plan.

I really wish McCain would move to this line of thinking. I'd jump on his wagon in a heatbeat if his war strategy lined up better with my analysis of the situation at hand. You know he wants to based on that pained look he has everytime he talks about support the party line and Bush's War.
Click to expand...

That is so ridiculous it's hard to know where to start. You can call it whatever you want, but when you leave before a job is done it's quitting, retreating, etc. There's no getting around this: it is what it is. The Al-Quaida leadership has clearly stated that Iraq was and is the new battlefront. Plus, as expected, you say nothing about having a presence there that is sorely needed. If you don't think that is strategically sound, you're either not paying attention or simply don't care.

Hope that was simple enough.
 
#56
#56
UT IE 95 said:
Shouldn't people fight for democracy rather than have it forced on them? What kind of timeline are we looking at for this democracy acceptance from Joe Iraqi? 10 years, 20 years, 100 years....
Click to expand...

As far as the timeline goes I am not sure but it certainly isn't six months to a year. Maybe in the next year you could see a very slow and gradual draw down in troop numbers but to pull out in significant numbers would be pissing on the progress our troops have made over the last year.
 
#57
#57
UT IE 95 said:
Agreed. But rather than watch the factors continue to build - shouldn't we wake up and reverse the trend?
Click to expand...

Yes, the biggest reason for our current situation is spending, we have to eliminate the pork spending which seems to be driving so much of our policy (see the bailout bill it passed because we threw money at special interests). This is not a dem or repub problem it is a government problem.

Neither one of these candidates is going to reverse this trend. We need a true reformer as president for this turnaround to happen. Neither one of these candidates are it!
 
#58
#58
Do you honestly think we are staying in Iraq to fight a war?

War is OVER! We won the "war" very quickly. You may have seen it on the news. We even hung the bad guy that was in charge.

We are still engaging in hostile actions with a small guerrilla insurgency, but that's not the main reason we are staying.

We now have a military base in the mid east, that we control. That base is named Iraq. We can launch covert air sorties, special forces operation, etc. All can be done from a very close proximity to our Arab enemies.

The Iran factor is another reason we are staying. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may talk a tough game, but do not be fooled. The significance of a large US military presence in his backyard, is not lost on him.

So, yes. Our continued presence in Iraq is fighting terrorism.
 
#59
#59
rjd970 said:
Just out of curiosity, what makes you think they will ever adjust to the rule of democracy? Left to their own accords, there is nothing to suggest they will keep themselves from voting in a full fledged theocracy or extremist dictatorship, with voting happening along ethnic and religious lines. We could stay there another 100 years and this wouldn't change. Even the Palestinians, practicing democracy, elected a Hamas government. Saudi Arabia, a "pro US govt" uses the Qu'ran as the state constitution.

This is why I think the Japan/Germany analogy is wrong. Taken as a whole, they wanted us there. They knew they needed us. There will never be a secular government in the Middle East as there is today with Germany and Japan. It doesn't take into account the ethnic and religious unrest in the region. When Sunni's and Shiites have been slaughtering each other for 1300 years, I don't think it is reasonable to assume they will ever be able to fully govern themselves in a western style democracy we would find suitable.
Click to expand...

And this is the reason it has been so difficult for us in Iraq. We make progress and religious sect takes out reprisals on another sect and then bedlam breaks out. The key will be having the power spread out so those in the minority aren't bullied by the majority.

No matter how you look at it this is a very tough undertaking for them. And in the end it doesn't really matter if we find it suitable in the end, just so long as it works for the people.
 
#60
#60
volsforever27 said:
That is so ridiculous it's hard to know where to start. You can call it whatever you want, but when you leave before a job is done it's quitting, retreating, etc. There's no getting around this: it is what it is. The Al-Quaida leadership has clearly stated that Iraq was and is the new battlefront. Plus, as expected, you say nothing about having a presence there that is sorely needed. If you don't think that is strategically sound, you're either not paying attention or simply don't care.

Hope that was simple enough.
Click to expand...

This is actually very funny. You claim the job in Iraq is not done and thus we need to stay there. So what is the job in Iraq these days anyway? WMDs, Terrorists, Liberation, Military Jump Points, Westernization,.......?

And then you support staying in Iraq because Al-Qaida leadership says that's where the battlefront is. If they say so that may be good enough for you.

Yeah, I see exactly where you're coming from man.
 
#61
#61
UT IE 95, why don't you tell us what the ramifications of packing up and coming home now might be?
 
#62
#62
UT IE 95 said:
This is actually very funny. You claim the job in Iraq is not done and thus we need to stay there. So what is the job in Iraq these days anyway? WMDs, Terrorists, Liberation, Military Jump Points, Westernization,.......?

And then you support staying in Iraq because Al-Qaida leadership says that's where the battlefront is. If they say so that may be good enough for you.

Yeah, I see exactly where you're coming from man.
Click to expand...

Nah, let's just ignore all of that. Military strategy be damned. Someone may not like us.

I'll never see where you're coming from, and that also is a good thing. It's more sad than funny.

Again, why is it so hard for someone like you to admit that a presence is needed there, and leaving will simply makine an unstable region even more unstable? Is world popularity so important to you you're willing to give up any presence we need now or in the furture? That's a rhetorical question, I'm really not interested in what you have to say. Bush lied, pull out now, blah blah blah. It gets a little redundant.
 
#65
#65
SavageOrangeJug said:
Do you honestly think we are staying in Iraq to fight a war?

War is OVER! We won the "war" very quickly. You may have seen it on the news. We even hung the bad guy that was in charge.

We are still engaging in hostile actions with a small guerrilla insurgency, but that's not the main reason we are staying.

We now have a military base in the mid east, that we control. That base is named Iraq. We can launch covert air sorties, special forces operation, etc. All can be done from a very close proximity to our Arab enemies.

The Iran factor is another reason we are staying. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may talk a tough game, but do not be fooled. The significance of a large US military presence in his backyard, is not lost on him.

So, yes. Our continued presence in Iraq is fighting terrorism.
Click to expand...

This is probably the best case made for Iraq at this point. Ahmadinejad is the worst of the worst as far as threats to our interests and safety are concerned. He is a religious zealot who sees himself as the mechanism by which the end will be ushered in. For all those who think I am being dramatic just listen to what this man says and get back to me.

We have a force in between Israel and those who wish to drive her into the sea. If Israel is attacked we are drawn in to a conflict that has serious implications all across the middle east, both militarily and economically. If Israel is attacked it will not be one lone country trying to beat her door down. A line in the sand will be drawn and we will be at war along side her against most of the countries of the middle east, including those that we now consider allies to some extent.
 
#66
#66
BigPapaVol said:
UT IE 95, why don't you tell us what the ramifications of packing up and coming home now might be?
Click to expand...

We'll let our pro US government lead Iraq to the democracy the people are so hungry for.

We don't pack up an come home, we pack up and fight the war on terror against terrorists in their camps and homes. We eliminate them from the roots, not fighting the terrorists as they relentlessly enter Iraq. It's a great strategy for terrorists organizations to keep us focused on Iraq - since they are not building and planning in Iraq.
 
#67
#67
UT IE 95 said:
We'll let our pro US government lead Iraq to the democracy the people are so hungry for.

We don't pack up an come home, we pack up and fight the war on terror against terrorists in their camps and homes. We eliminate them from the roots, not fighting the terrorists as they relentlessly enter Iraq. It's a great strategy for terrorists organizations to keep us focused on Iraq - since they are not building and planning in Iraq.
Click to expand...

You don't believe this is happening?

:blink:
 
#68
#68
UT IE 95 said:
We'll let our pro US government lead Iraq to the democracy the people are so hungry for.

We don't pack up an come home, we pack up and fight the war on terror against terrorists in their camps and homes. We eliminate them from the roots, not fighting the terrorists as they relentlessly enter Iraq. It's a great strategy for terrorists organizations to keep us focused on Iraq - since they are not building and planning in Iraq.
Click to expand...

So basically we should fight everywhere BUT Iraq? Makes sense. Also, would you support what Obama said and let the military invade for "humanitarian reasons"?
 
#69
#69
UT IE 95 said:
We'll let our pro US government lead Iraq to the democracy the people are so hungry for.

We don't pack up an come home, we pack up and fight the war on terror against terrorists in their camps and homes. We eliminate them from the roots, not fighting the terrorists as they relentlessly enter Iraq. It's a great strategy for terrorists organizations to keep us focused on Iraq - since they are not building and planning in Iraq.
Click to expand...

I have asked you this question more than once......

How do you intend to do this without invading every country in the middle east and beyond? This policy would dwarf any perceived blunder by the Bush administration by leaps and bounds. We would be at war with every last country in the middle east, and a large portion of the far east.

And you call Bush policy reckless?
 
#70
#70
KB5252 said:
I have asked you this question more than once......

How do you intend to do this without invading every country in the middle east and beyond? This policy would dwarf any perceived blunder by the Bush administration by leaps and bounds. We would be at war with every last country in the middle east, and a large portion of the far east.

And you call Bush policy reckless?
Click to expand...

All I want to know is if he believes we are only fighting terrorism in Iraq and Afghan....
 
#71
#71
OrangeEmpire said:
You don't believe this is happening?

:blink:
Click to expand...

No, he stated in another post he would openly fight terrorists on their soil, where they are.

Most of what we do now in most countries is covert or by proxy.
 
#72
#72
UT IE 95 said:
We'll let our pro US government lead Iraq to the democracy the people are so hungry for.

We don't pack up an come home, we pack up and fight the war on terror against terrorists in their camps and homes. We eliminate them from the roots, not fighting the terrorists as they relentlessly enter Iraq. It's a great strategy for terrorists organizations to keep us focused on Iraq - since they are not building and planning in Iraq.
Click to expand...
but what happens in Iraq? not some fantasy about how the government is going to lead them. what actually happens?
 
#73
#73
volsforever27 said:
Nah, let's just ignore all of that. Military strategy be damned. Someone may not like us.

I'll never see where you're coming from, and that also is a good thing. It's more sad than funny.

Again, why is it so hard for someone like you to admit that a presence is needed there, and leaving will simply makine an unstable region even more unstable? Is world popularity so important to you you're willing to give up any presence we need now or in the furture? That's a rhetorical question, I'm really not interested in what you have to say. Bush lied, pull out now, blah blah blah. It gets a little redundant.
Click to expand...

Dude, you're sputtering and rambling. I understand we will always have a presence in Iraq. In fact I reference you way back to 12:23 today and post 32 in this thread.

People like you have to simplify understanding world leadership into words like "popularity". You might really understand the difference one day.
 
#74
#74
OrangeEmpire said:
All I want to know is if he believes we are only fighting terrorism in Iraq and Afghan....
Click to expand...

I can't speak for him but I get the impression he wants US troops on the ground destroying camps where these people live and train.

Sounds good but in order to accomplish the mission as he described would be to go into holy places and kill those who advocate extremists actions.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top