Subject:
|
Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 25 Jan 2007 20:26:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3546 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
| |
What you’re saying, in essence, is that if Democrats can’t come up with a
quick fix for a disaster that Bush has spent years creating, then somehow
the Democrats are at fault? Sorry, but it doesn’t work that way.
|
I don’t see an upside of leaving at this time, but I see a big downside.
What’s the rush? I think it is driven more by hatred for President Bush
than it is for a desire for the overall security of the US. Because the war
is a policy of President Bush, the left and dems (with a few noted
exceptions) must knee-jerkedly oppose it.
|
Democrats aren’t, with a few noted exceptions, calling for immediate
withdrawal, so your question is misleading. Still, the benefits of departure
would be many: among them, we’d stop wasting billions of dollars each month;
|
Look at it as an investment in future security. Calculate the cost of a nucular
(sic) detonation on one of our cities.
| |
we’d get our troops (whom Repubs claim to support) out of harm’s way;
|
I don’t think that the troops have a problem with this, so why on earth do the
dems and the left have one?
| |
we
would stop being an occupying force;
|
We are not an occupying force in the traditional definition. We are there to
assist the legitimate Iraqi government to resist terrorism that is being
perpetrated on their own people. The cowardice is sickening. Can’t get your
way fighting the US army? Then butcher your neighbors and their children, and
lay the blame on US presence. Disgusting.
| |
we would eliminate the perception that
we’re tring to stir up chaos (if not all out civil war); and on and on.
|
Civil war will foment whether we stay or go, but most vociferously if we go.
| |
And to blame opposition to the war on hatred of Bush is dangerously naive
(though it doesn’t help that Bush has lied incessantly throughout the course
of the war) Knowledgeable military personnel have voiced their opposition,
and Bush has fired them. Knowledgeable civilian advisors have voiced their
opposition, and the RW echo chamber has ridiculed them incessantly (without
refuting their assertions, by the way). Congressional leaders have voiced
their opposition and have been castigated as “weak on terror” or cowardly.
|
President Bush’s prosecution of the war on terror is a policy decision, which is
inherently neither right or wrong. You can agree or disagree with it, but in
the end, that’s all it is. Right now it is HIS call by virtue of his
re-election (please tell me that that statement won’t take us in the
selection-election direction).
| |
There is a disturbing tendency on the Right to identify Bush the Person with
Bush’s Policies, and criticism of one is taken as criticism of the other.
That’s a false equation and should be abandoned.
|
On the right, or on the left????
| |
| |
| |
And there is no inconsistency between being tough on terror and withdrawing
our forces from Iraq. Only in the minds of Neocons and their apologists
are these two incompatible.
|
How exactly would you say it is to be “tough on terror”?
|
Prove to me that Iraq is currently a center of world terrorism. I’m not
talking about Sunnis and Shiites acting within Iraq’s borders--I’m talking
about a dangerous international threat originating within Iraq. Or do you
suggest that we act as the world’s policeman? And for how long?
|
The threat in Iraq now solely rests upon whether or not we remain in the region.
If we leave, Iraq descends into chaos. The oil market could well descend into
chaos. Now you are talking about our lifeblood. Further, if we are repelled
from Iraq, that will be the seminal example of encouragement for future
terrorists for generations. The LAST thing we want to do is embolden our enemy
as we did in Vietnam.
We should be the world’s policeman only insofar as we need to do to protect our
interests. And generally, it is in our best interest for democracy and freedom
to spread to every corner of the earth.
| |
| |
| |
Please answer these two questions, for the record:
What would qualify as success in Iraq?
|
The formation of a stable, democratic [1] state of Iraq.
|
Not likely to occur in the next decade, at least.
|
So? What if we gave up on Japan after 5 years? On Germany? Who knows what
would have happened to them?
| |
| |
| |
What would qualify as failure?
|
A Lebanon-type situation, or a 1979 Iranian-type revolution.
|
How about the ongoing civil war, which is indeed a civil war by any measure
except the one favored by Bushco?
|
It will only improve if we stay, not go.
| |
HOw about a decimated national
infrastructure coupled with a civilian bodycount numbering well into the
hundreds each month in Baghdad alone?
|
Compared to Japan or Germany; nominal.
| |
And here’s another question: What, specifically, would Bush have to do
before you’d say “you know, maybe he has made a royal mess of things?”
|
The Ayatollah Khomeini created the mess; OBL created the mess; SH was the
problem. President Bush is doing what he believes is the best way to fix it.
The biggest mistake he (or the dems) could make is to start believing that the
royal mess has a quick fix solution.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
| (...) Ah, yes. Dr. Rice's famous "smoking gun mushroom cloud" argument. Sorry, but that's not sufficient. Hussein did not have and was not actively seeking a nuclear weapons program, so any argument based on that premise is invalid. It may be the (...) (18 years ago, 26-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
| (...) Democrats aren't, with a few noted exceptions, calling for immediate withdrawal, so your question is misleading. Still, the benefits of departure would be many: among them, we'd stop wasting billions of dollars each month; we'd get our troops (...) (18 years ago, 25-Jan-07, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
115 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
