Many Democrats want America to fail in Iraq

First, I take everything I read from Christian Science Monitor with a grain of salt. What I take at face value is first person accounts from friends who are on the sharp end of the spear.

When terrorists bomb a place, they kill more Iraqis than troops. No percision munitions or limiting colateral damage. They kill far more people than we do.

You can never TOTALY defeat terrorism is what I ment to say, my fault for not being more concise.

Polls are subjective. They can be made to say what ever the poller wants. Always consider the source. I could take a poll of Califorians and say that 97% support private gun ownership. I would of course take most of my sample-set here.

In ten years, if Iraq is still a stable democracy and the people are happy, then other peoples will want the same say in their government the Iraqis have. Thus a domino effect. Islamic fundamentalist governments pose the biggest threats of terrorism. By taking them out, you reduce the problem, not eliminate, but reduce. I am not saying it will be easy, but it is a worthy goal.
 
rh,
I linked to CSM because they printed the story. The facts are presented by the CSIS http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/060619_iraq_force_dev.pdf

When terrorists bomb a place, they kill more Iraqis than troops. No percision munitions or limiting colateral damage. They kill far more people than we do.
Click to expand...
You know that and I know that. But unless we convince the Iraqi people of that.....

Polls are subjective. They can be made to say what ever the poller wants. Always consider the source. I could take a poll of Califorians and say that 97% support private gun ownership. I would of course take most of my sample-set here.
Click to expand...
Yet somehow you still know that Californians are mainly anti-gun. Wait, how do you know that? :D
You can slice it any way you like. The Iraqi people don't like us. They don't want us there. They blame us (wrongly, but still) for their misery. They have a higher opinion of the insurgents than they do of us.
It might not be what we'd like and it might not make any sense to us. But we've got to deal with it anyway.

In ten years, if Iraq is still a stable democracy and the people are happy, then other peoples will want the same say in their government the Iraqis have. Thus a domino effect. Islamic fundamentalist governments pose the biggest threats of terrorism. By taking them out, you reduce the problem, not eliminate, but reduce. I am not saying it will be easy, but it is a worthy goal.
Click to expand...
I agree, provided that it doesn't destroy our ability to protect our security now and doesn't help our enemies. 10 years is a long time, but the threat we face is right now.
 
But you know...all of this is so far off the topic.
The Dems don't want Iraq to collapse and here's why: Right now they have zero control over what happens in Iraq between now and November, but it will certainly hold together at least that long.
They are hoping to gain control of Congress this fall and they *definitely* don't want Iraq to come unhinged under their watch.
This brings up 2 scenarios:
1) The Dems win in which case they want to save Iraq and paint it as "cleaning up the Republicans' mess" as publicly as possible.
2) The Dems lose in which case they are going to continue to sit back and loudly criticize everything that happens just like they've been doing. They need it to limp along until '08 in order for it to maintain relavance.
Either way, Iraq doesn't have to fail in order for it to be a useful club against the Republicans.

(edited to correct a typo)
 
Looks like Leif left, HMMMMM

It is a sad situation, (the media) If anyone denies the fact that they do turn the tide. They need to read a little more on the subject.

Look at Tombstone and the time of the OK corral fight. Right and left newspaper's carrying on like they are still doing.

One thing is very distrurbing is the casual relationship they seem to have with the persons that hate the "white devils/blue eyes".

In the 11th century there was a guy who was "the man on the mountain". He hated "Christians and Jews" then and they still do now. Pretty simple if you read at all.

HQ:cool:
 
Leif left because of what Leif said on the first page, as follows:

While we're waiting, do you want to post any evidence for your claims? I'll refrain from further comment within this thread until you post some evidence or I'm instructed otherwise.
Click to expand...

Saw no real reason to continue. :rolleyes:






From Busse knives to "Andy Griffith Show" characters, hmmm ... ;)
 
Leif,
I think you proved your point with Carbiner. I, at least, am interested in what you have to say about this.
I think you Dems just want to pull our troops out, let Iraq go to pieces, and blame it on the Republicans.
What say you?
 
Now, now...let's let Leif answer this....
And don't think for a second that this lets you Republicans off the hook either...

[edit] edited to for fix the bad speeling...thing....[/edit]
 
Nixon was elected because of his promise "To Bring The Boys Back Home".
Eventually, he did. Lotsa bad things happened between his first election and the last of the troops getting back home tho'. Expect the same tact from the Dems this fall and in '08. "Bring The Boys Back Home!"

And, as some here like to blame the last administration for the present situation (some of which, is no doubt true), I'm sure we'll be hearing more of the same in the future (some of which, no doubt will be true) only with the roles reversed. Never trust a politician when his/her lips are moving. Come on people, you know this. Like the sun rising in the morning, it's inevitable that the minority is gonna badmouth the majority.

They don't want America to fail in Iraq... They want the Republicans to fail in the fall. (doh!)
 
You know, there's a difference between "I want America to fail in Iraq" and "I think America is going to fail in Iraq." One is a statement of desire, the other is a statement of probability.

I haven't heard anyone say the first. I've heard quite a bit of the second. And, depending on your definition of "success in Iraq," you can certainly find supporting evidence for statement #2. Especially if your definition of success involves a pro-American democratic state. Democracy != success, at least not by my math. Would you call a freely-elected, pro-Iranian Shi'a theocracy a success? Would it be worth thousands of American lives and a trilliion dollars? Not to me.

I personally believe that the Iraq war is the greatest American foreign policy disaster in at least 100 years. In fact, I can't really come up with a bigger one. Vietnam cost more lives, it's true, but the consequences of that screwup were concentrated in a part of the world that, strategically, never mattered that much. The Middle East is, other than the USA itself, the single most important region on earth. And Iraq's not over yet. We're there at least until 2009, per Bush's own words, and I doubt very much that the next CinC will be able to do anything about it in the first year or so. Realistically, we're looking at 2010 - 2011. What will the butcher's bill be by then, and what outcome do you see that would be worth it?

If you can't answer that, you need to rethink your position. It's about reality people, and reality won't fit on a bumper sticker.

--Shannon
 
I think you Dems just want to pull our troops out, let Iraq go to pieces, and blame it on the Republicans.
Click to expand...

Not busted. First off, I wont speak for all "Dems" because I'm not one, contrary to popular belief, though I have voted for their candidates on many occasions (also voted for a few Republicans at times, too).

Anybody who thinks that all Democrats want Iraq to 'go to pieces' simply to score some political points on their Republican adversaries is approaching this situation in an incredibly simplistic manner at best. Rather, Iraq is going to pieces regardless of American efforts, and was going to go that way the minute we entered the conflict (and yes, I've been saying this myself since the conflict began). This has nothing to do with partisan politics and everything to do with getting involved in a situation that the Iraqis should have tried to resolve for themselves in the first place. By going into Iraq, we set ourselves up for failure.

Now, the Republicans like to whine about how the Democrats have hampered their war efforts, but the reality simply is that is not so. Unfortunately, many Democrats initially supported the invasion of Iraq, and many continue to support the conflict by voting for the funding for it, either because they truly believe in the war or they feel that we can't pull out now because Iraq will 'go to pieces' (like it hasn't already). The Democratic leadership made very little political hay out of opportunities they could have exploited if they truly were inclined to impede the Republicans war effort; really, they could have been a far greater thorn in the side of the administration were they of a mind to.

The blame for the tragedy that is and will be Iraq cannot be laid solely at the feet of the Republicans - plenty of Democrats are to blame for it as well. Some of them are squirming and trying to shift the blame to their Republican counterparts, and certainly an argument could be made that the war is 'Republican' in inspiration (somehow I don't think Gore would have invaded Iraq, even after 9/11). However, no Democrat I know of actively wants massive civil instability in Iraq for any reason, let alone to make the Republicans looks bad.

Personally, I don't believe it makes a difference at this point in time whether we leave Iraq tomorrow or in ten years. Sorry if this is rambling, I'm very tired this morning - not a very good defense of my position. Besides, tube_ee put the case more eloquently than I can at the moment.
 
Leif,
I think you make your point quite well. Before I move on to badgering me some more Republicans, let me ask you a question:
If Iraq falls to pieces, what might the long-term consequences be for us?

Here's the reason I ask: I envision Iraq becoming a Shi'ite Theocracy if we don't intervene, allied with Iran and Syria. If that comes to pass, I imagine the enemy we face will make us long for the 'good ol' days' when Saddam was just a minor irritant.

What are your thoughts on this?
 
Dubyah and the Republicans have pretty much gotten everything they wanted with regards to the war in Iraq. The majority of Democrats voted to give him all the authority he needed. The Democrats have voted for appropriations bills for this war. We witnessed Cheney saying that we would be hailed as conquering heroes in Iraq. We watched Bush say " Mission Accomplished" and bring it on. We witnessed the lack of planning by the disolving of the Iraq Army then the classic V8 moment when the thought occurs we shouldnt have disbanded the Iraqi Army we could have used them. The Democrats moan and groan but overall they have given Dubyah whatever he asked for. There is a place the administration can go to see what has possibly caused the problems in Iraq....

It's called a mirror.
 
Last edited:
GoSlash27, thank you. I think the scenario posted by Marko Kloos within the WMD thread (http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=214087) is quite likely:

We will be in Iraq for another few years, well into the next administration, and possibly the one after that. We will lose another 5-10,000 troops before the last American pair of boots leaves Iraq, and as soon as they do, the place will turn into the battleground for a lengthy civil war between Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. When the smoke clears, Iraq will be either ruled by Iran via proxy, have a homebrewed Shiite or Sunni theocracy, or be ruled by a new strong man which will be a Saddam sequel.
Click to expand...

I think a three-way split is entirely possible, with Kurdish, Sunni, and Shiite statelets all in varying levels of hostility with each other and with neighboring countries playing each off of each other to further their own ambitions.

I don't know, but I'm not optimistic. I fear we engendered more instability in the region than stability. I hope that I'm very wrong. :(

Badger when ready, sir! :-)
 
Did i miss something here? Democrats arnt anti- America, just because they dont like the war doesnt make them anti-American. Just about every war has brought mixed opinion in America. During the war of 1812 Northerners actualy talked of suceeding because their industry was being hurt, the first world war was hugely unpopular in the states, Vietnam, well we dont have to mention any more just the name... people have always had mixed reactioins, that doesnt make them anti-American, no one wants the see our soldiers come home in boxes, thats the point. How many American lives is it worth to win this thing, im only 18, but have seen my 3 best friends join up and move out, Does anyone realy see the war in Iraq comming to an end in the next say 10 years, can you see us "winning" this thing, there will always be a large group their that hates us, we cant magicaly move in and change their views, i just cant see what Americas finest are giving up their lives for... 20 years from now when its all blown over will it all have been worth it, whats the count right now: 2000 American soldiers and another 40,000 Iraqy civilians.. these are lives, think of how many people that realy is, each person with a job and their own life... The deomcrats arnt anti-america, I think they just dont want these lives lost in vein
 
Badger when ready, sir! :-)
Click to expand...
Okay :D
You Republicans:
I think you don't have a plan for how to *win* the war in Iraq, you just want to make a big show of *fighting* the war in Iraq. I think you just want to see how many Arab Muslims you can kill before it falls to pieces.
What say you?
 
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable condition.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."
Click to expand...

Even Bush's Defense Department is parroting the leftist moonbat line now. ;)
 
"Before I move on to badgering me some more Republicans,"

At least you recognize that your behavior is unfriendly and counterproductive.

John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top