Democrats: The Surrender party

[Nylo]

Please make me understand how one can not be ashamed by the rhetoric coming from the democrats. As a democrat myself, I'm having a hard time understanding just how my lackluster leadership is advocating anything but surrender when they say they're going to "end" the war.

How many people actually think that by "ending" the war, we're making progress?

[emmytee]

From my point of view thats just selfish, racist bullshit. If you pull out now Iraq goes down the toilet and probably millions of people will die. the only justification for that is "American life > Iraqi life". You/we made this mess regardless of party ties, so we should bloody well clean it up.

[UWDarDar17]

What rhetoric are you talking about? Almost every Democrat I know of, including myself, is calling for a slow withdrawal of troops, not an all-out tactical redistribution. As the Iraqis organize a decent security force, we withdraw troops, leaving a few to deal with terrorists and act as advisors and trainers. It's not as if we're saying, "Well, it's been fun. Loved the shwarma. Gotta go, don't forget to write!"

I for one think that we should have a slow withdrawal so that the Iraqi government is not caught off-guard. Many politicians and military men, both Republican and Democrat, feel that the reason that the Iraqi government is taking forever to get organized is because we are there- they feel that they don't have to do much, since the Americans will take care of everything for them. Gradual withdrawal will hopefully get their asses moving.

I don't think we're surrendering. After all, we'll still have troops there. But now troops will be at home, and abroad.

[HighlyIllogical]

Ending the war is the most financially and ethically acceptable thing to do. If we tried to continue the war as it is currently going, there would be no possible way that we could win. If we had done it right from the beginning and it were only going downhill slghtly, then I wouldn't care, but since we started the proccess improperly and have only gotten worse, it's time to END the war.

[SolInvictus]

At 4/28/07 08:27 PM, Grammer wrote: Because as Vietnam taught us, surrender is the quickest way to "win".

the sad part is that technically Vietnam wasn't a loss. :S

[SuperDeagle]

At 4/28/07 08:37 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 4/28/07 08:27 PM, Grammer wrote: Because as Vietnam taught us, surrender is the quickest way to "win".

the sad part is that technically Vietnam wasn't a loss. :S

But it also wasn't really a win.

His cancer seems to be in a tie.

[orochimaru556]

no...there is still lots of violence....and abductions..

[SolInvictus]

At 4/28/07 08:43 PM, Grammer wrote: Our job was to secure South Vietnam from communist North Vietnam, am I correct? Did we accomplish this goal?

=/

it was some strange thechnicallity. the US had to do something and they did, then they saw the North hawling ass so they were like "well we did our jobs; time to go home boys!".

[SyntheticTacos]

Well, I do not think invading Iraq in 2003 was a wise decision. However, I also question the ethics of just getting up and leaving from a mess you created. Yes, the government screwed up. Does that mean we should abandon the terrible situation that has emerged? Do you really think that after we leave the sectarian violence will stop? Saddam Hussein kept the country from tearing itself up by being a terrible authoritarian dictator. Now it has descended into a cycle of sectarian violence, and if we leave we only make it easier for the atrocities to increase.

But while I think about this I also wonder how much we can do by staying. What I do think is that a retarded half-in half-out strategy in Iraq is inadequate. It seems much more logical to either use overwhelming force or give up and get out. Getting out is a problem because it's abandoning the mess we made. Using overwhelming force is a problem because of the massive resources it will take and whether it will actually work or not. We're in between a rock and a hard place here, and I acknowledge that.

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 4/28/07 08:14 PM, emmytee wrote: From my point of view thats just selfish, racist bullshit.

How is insulting Democrats "racist"? Stop throwing that term around at everything you disagree with. It makes you look ignorant and stupid—probably because you are.

---

Nylo: What "progress" is being made in Iraq now? What "gains" have been achieved?

Swapping a violent, bloody dictator for a violent, bloody insurgency? What difference have we achieved?

What's the worst that can happen by withdrawing from Iraq? The nation becomes a hot bed for international terrorism? So what? Iran's sitting right across the border, and they're a much, much larger threat than Iraq ever was or ever will be.

What's the difference in 3,000 Americans getting killed over there, and 3,000 Americans getting killed over here?

[SyntheticTacos]

Forgot something.

How about dividing the country into three? Iraqi Kurdistan (I don't see why they shouldn't be independent, at least they function well), a Sunni state, and a Shiite state.

As for Vietnam, there the U.S. had one side they were supporting, in Iraq we don't support the Shiite or the Sunni terrorists. Vietnam was a bit more clear cut.

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 4/28/07 09:05 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: Forgot something.

How about dividing the country into three? Iraqi Kurdistan (I don't see why they shouldn't be independent, at least they function well), a Sunni state, and a Shiite state.

As for Vietnam, there the U.S. had one side they were supporting, in Iraq we don't support the Shiite or the Sunni terrorists. Vietnam was a bit more clear cut.

Kurdistan, I could perhaps see. It seems to be a stable part of the country, and least violent.

However, dividing the country among Sunnis and Shi'ites would just cause more violence, in my opinion, and further destabilize the region. How do you think you would get the two factions to agree on a border? And even if representatives agree, there'd still be those violently fighting to "take back what's theirs", so you'd end up with a continual near-war condition, similar to that between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

[SyntheticTacos]

At 4/28/07 09:09 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:

Kurdistan, I could perhaps see. It seems to be a stable part of the country, and least violent.

However, dividing the country among Sunnis and Shi'ites would just cause more violence, in my opinion, and further destabilize the region. How do you think you would get the two factions to agree on a border? And even if representatives agree, there'd still be those violently fighting to "take back what's theirs", so you'd end up with a continual near-war condition, similar to that between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

You make a very good point. I think the most poignant issue there is who gets Baghdad or how it would be divided. Problem is it already looks like civil war anyways. :(

[Altarus]

At 4/28/07 09:05 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: How about dividing the country into three? Iraqi Kurdistan (I don't see why they shouldn't be independent, at least they function well), a Sunni state, and a Shiite state.

No one would be able to agree about oil sharing. That is why that plan is all but impossible.

[Nylo]

At 4/28/07 08:19 PM, UWDarDar17 wrote: What rhetoric are you talking about? Almost every Democrat I know of, including myself, is calling for a slow withdrawal of troops, not an all-out tactical redistribution. It's not as if we're saying, "Well, it's been fun. Loved the shwarma. Gotta go, don't forget to write!"

That's simply not true. Back in 2005, Hilary Clinton was
calling for troop withdrawls to begin in 2006. Barak Obama is currently running on, and I quote "It's time to bring our troops home. ...no amount of American lives can resolve the political disagreement that lies at the heart of someone elses' civil war. I have a plan that will bring our troops home by March of 2008 ." Does it look like we're at the stage where we need to begin phased withdrawls? We're making progress, but there's still work that needs to be done. This civil war is raging on the way it is because we interfered. The democrats are saying we have no responsibility to the state of anarchy Iraq is in; and that's wrong. Dead wrong.

I for one think that we should have a slow withdrawal so that the Iraqi government is not caught off-guard. --they feel that they don't have to do much, since the Americans will take care of everything for them. Gradual withdrawal will hopefully get their asses moving.

The problem with gradual withdrawl is that it puts our forces at a higher risk of being attacked. The reason we had the troop surge was because there weren't enough boots on the ground to keep people from rioting. Whether the democrat leadership wants to admit it or not, we are fighting the very soul of modern terrorism in Iraq. Failure in Iraq is failure for everyone.

I don't think we're surrendering. After all, we'll still have troops there. But now troops will be at home, and abroad.

I don't mean this in a smart-ass way, but it matters very little what you or I think. It matters what international politics thinks. What the radical jihadist insurgents think. What Syria thinks. What Al Qaeda thinks. I can tell you exactly what they would think of a troop withdrawl: a massive victory attained by attacking a newfound Achilles heel in Western Civilization.

[Altarus]

At 4/28/07 11:08 PM, Tal-con wrote: The Iraqi parliament has at least been trying on that, but w/e

The parliament is the only means that Sunnis have to influence oil sharing in the first place. I do not think Sunnis are going to let most oil fields fall under the control of a separate Shiite nation with the hope that Shiites will share fairly.

[JakeHero]

No no, Nylo, dems only want to cut-n-run when it's a republican in leadership and if the world doesn't like the war.

[fli]

Mmmm--
And staying in Iraq is any better.

New Republican motto:
"Our troops are dying to win."

[SolInvictus]

At 4/28/07 09:07 PM, Grammer wrote: Ok, well, um, since after we left the North Vietnamese came in and pretty much took over...

|

i know; i stopped trying to understand it a long time ago.

[Nylo]

At 4/28/07 09:01 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: Nylo: What "progress" is being made in Iraq now? What "gains" have been achieved?

The costs due to leadership fumbling the ball have been high. But bad starts shouldn't overshadow the results we've accuired at that great cost. Al qaeda's functionality and chain of command is crippled. Terrorist organizations are trying to recrute as fast as they can, this was always a danger when President Bush took the country into Iraq. Most America agrees that going to war was unethically deviant, but history will judge him for that.

Swapping a violent, bloody dictator for a violent, bloody insurgency? What difference have we achieved?

What's the worst that can happen by withdrawing from Iraq?

The risk is huge that the violence in Iraq cold spill into surrouding regions. Destabilization of governments causes huge rifts of anarchy and armed violence. Leaving Iraq the way it is is like a billion dollar project to turn a country into a mulching ground for armed violence forged in the fires of radical islam.

[Exblade]

At 4/28/07 11:56 PM, JakeHero wrote: Something Stupid

well well well, attacking democrats again are we? no the democrats donot want a cunt-n-run they simply just want to help the troops out but they do want to end the war quicker, there have been organizations that have been giving supplies to soldiers that are run by some Democrats. For example, Cell phones for Soldiers, and i could name a few others.

[Dr-Worm]

At 4/28/07 08:08 PM, Nylo wrote: How many people actually think that by "ending" the war, we're making progress?

How many people actually think that by "continuing" the war, we're making progress? 'Cuz I sure as hell don't.

[Memorize]

At 4/29/07 12:41 AM, fli wrote: Mmmm--
And staying in Iraq is any better.

I like how you leftist forget your own quotes.

"1 American Life is equal to that of 1 Iraqi life". Lets withdraw...

"We're just creating more terrorists". We'll... lets withdraw, give them a major victory and in thus create more terrorists.

Gotta love it.

[Altarus]

At 4/29/07 01:56 AM, Dr-Worm wrote: How many people actually think that by "continuing" the war, we're making progress? 'Cuz I sure as hell don't.

"The U.S. Army general in charge of the Iraq war says that it is 'the most complex and challenging' he has ever seen. But, speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, Gen. David Petraeus said that U.S. forces are making progress. He also said that conditions in Iraq may get worse before they get better."

Source: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?
storyId=9852756

"'I am not being pressured by the president to say anything,' Petraeus told reporters after 3 hours of back-to-back briefings of House and Senate members on the situation in Iraq. 'I am not going to be pressured by political leaders of either party.'

Petraeus said he 'tried to give an accurate assessment of the situation in Iraq' to lawmakers. He reported that sectarian murders were down significantly inside Baghdad itself, while adding that the security situation in Anbar province, the heart of the Sunni insurgency, is also improving.

He rattled off a list of insurgent 'networks' that have been rounded up, including some responsible for IED attacks and car bombs."

Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/25/pol itics/politico/thecrypt/main2729962.shtml

Nah... we aren't making any progress in Iraq...

[Sigma-Lambda]

Really, I think the parties fit more as;

Democrats: The Do nothing party
Republicans: The Fuck everything up party

[emmytee]

At 4/28/07 09:01 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:

At 4/28/07 08:14 PM, emmytee wrote: From my point of view thats just selfish, racist bullshit.

How is insulting Democrats "racist"? Stop throwing that term around at everything you disagree with. It makes you look ignorant and stupid—probably because you are.

No, you're the dumb cunt who misinterpreted my post. Read the rest of it.

[SuperDeagle]

I'm really getting tired of this shit.
"Oh my gods dudes another person has dieds we needs to pulls outs!"

Insert other recent things democrat party leaders have been saying.

[Julyjoe]

well seeing as im a dem and seeing as how i am now portrayed as a person who has no balls and is seen as anti american, and a pacifist. personally id like to take in a little course in how things have been twisted over the years 101 first with some defanitions:

no balls = pretty intelegent dosent go with the crowd; see heroic

Anti - american = protector of the BOR (bill of rights) and the constitution as a whole, a troop suporter who just wants the best for the boys and hates funerals; see Thomas Jefferson or honest Abe

Pacifist = belives in all out diplomacy and not in violence, will only use troops to protect country not to invade, belives in mohatmid gandi; see Indian revolt and Cuban missile Crisis

all in all a democrat isent all that he apears to be and due to propoganda thiese hard working people are seen as horrid individuals who are the opposite of what they are.

remember the constiution was made for a porpose as well as your military use both wisely and they will last for generations.

[bahamutzer03]

oh, se we're the cut and run party, hm? no one here is at liberty to say anything. republicans to me seem to shoot first, ask questions later, then find ways to make money. plus, you follow mr.pet rock here...

[bahamutzer03]

or perhaps THIS is your leader....