Bush vs. Congress Options

[pebkac]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid...icle%2FShowFull

Bush's decisions, more than two months in the making, are already drawing criticism from new Democratic leaders in Congress who say it is time to begin ending the war, not to send in more US forces.

I think this will turn out to be interesting. I wouldn't really have any problem with a "surge" if it would result in at least a half-assed plan to leave Iraq.

[impala454]

well there's too many people who believe we could just up and leave next week if we wanted to. there's so much in the way of bases and infastructure it would probably take us several months to completely pull out of iraq even once we started

[pebkac]

well there's too many people who believe we could just up and leave next week if we wanted to. there's so much in the way of bases and infastructure it would probably take us several months to completely pull out of iraq even once we started

I'd disagree (at least with regards to Congress). Looking at the comments of some Dems, they know it's not something that's going to happen tomorrow, they just want a timetable of when it will happen.

[impala454]

unfortunately wars don't typically follow a schedule. you don't go in with a calendar and little notes in outlook of the beginning and end.

[pebkac]

Yes, but there are still some decisions that can be made.

Are we leaving within a year? Within 10 years?

What will be the criteria for leaving? Will we leave when violence has stopped? When the Iraqis are able to keep the peace by themselves?

We at least need an exit strategy.

This post has been edited by pebkac: Jan 8 2007, 04:47 PM

[Hartmann]

Yes, but there are still some decisions that can be made.

Are we leaving within a year? Within 10 years?

What will be the criteria for leaving? Will we leave when violence has stopped? When the Iraqis are able to keep the peace by themselves?

We at least need an exit strategy.

Again, I do not think a solid timetable is a possibility. Just look at Vietnam or the Korean War as examples.

I think the problem is goal setting, instead of timelines we need solid goals and we need reachable dates on those goals.

[FORSAKENR320]

i agree with hartman. instead of treating this as a minimum wage job, where you go in, do your time and say "fuck you, at 5pm i'm leaving if shit is completed or not" we should be going in and doing the job right, and stop listening to these crunchy granola hippies who don't contribute anything to society anyway.

[impala454]

i think that the new demos in congress (esp that new speaker bitch) honestly believe they should have an outlook note on some specific date that the war will be over and we'll be flying troops home.

[woody]

i think that the new demos in congress (esp that new speaker bitch) honestly believe they should have an outlook note on some specific date that the war will be over and we'll be flying troops home.

ya...i'm sure alot of cunt fucks like Pelosi would like that:

7/14/07 - All troops leave Iraq

[Seussninja]

Our soldiers would come home, man how terrible would that be.

[FORSAKENR320]

not really on topic, but there are alot of advantages tactically to keeping an army across seas.. a few i see off the top of my head are::

1. it's easier to fight a war in someone elses country than your own
a. your people aren't the ones suffering the moral, economic and casualty toll
b. your civilians are less likely to object to the war in general(out of sight, out of mind)
c. use of stronger weapons and more heavy handed tactics. you'll bust out the big bombs on someone else when you would avoid them on your home turf.

2. mobility
a. mobilizing an army to invade takes time. if you already have an army ready to move at a command sitting on someones doorstep you got a head start.
b. you've already "claimed the beach" constructing a supply line and a retreat point is much easier

3. defensive reasons
a. politically it is harmful, but what leader is going to command an attack on the home soil of a country that already has an army at your door? the only choice you give the man is to spend his own money and resources on stock piling his own army in his own borders, (maintaining an army is expensive) and sending fanatical terrorist attacks on civilians (we all have seen what happens when the american public screams for blood)
b. obviously we do not have our entire army over seas. it is more likely than an enemy will lash out at the eyesore in their own country, it is what the people themselves will want, to attack otherwise would cause revolt. giving us advance warning and also letting us have the benifit of both points (1 and 2) already mentioned, with the ability to send in more troops where necessary.

4. some may disagree, but it is a show of strength. we were attacked, we responded when the american public supported it, got a few cobwebs that were BUGGING US cleared away.

5. and face it, these bastards would be fighting each other anyway. we might as well have an army over there to justify our meddling so that america can gain from it.

[Psykopath]

4. some may disagree, but it is a show of strength. we were attacked, we responded when the american public supported it, got a few cobwebs that were BUGGING US cleared away.

So, just to clarify: When did Iraq attack the United States?

[impala454]

So, just to clarify: When did Iraq attack the United States?

I love how it always comes back to this. I think I've typed this thirty times on this board.

1. saddam gets his ass kicked in gulf war
2. saddam signs treaty allowing weapons inspectors
3. saddam begins not allowing weapons inspectors
4. 5 years goes by and he still hasn't allowed weapons inspectors
5. we kick his ass again.

maybe you guys are cool with people breaking treaties and international law, but our government isnt. especially when it comes to weapons.

[FORSAKENR320]

So, just to clarify: When did Iraq attack the United States?

keeping an army across seas is not a show of strength to iraq. it's a show to everyone else

[Psykopath]

I love how it always comes back to this. I think I've typed this thirty times on this board.

1. saddam gets his ass kicked in gulf war
2. saddam signs treaty allowing weapons inspectors
3. saddam begins not allowing weapons inspectors
4. 5 years goes by and he still hasn't allowed weapons inspectors
5. we kick his ass again.

maybe you guys are cool with people breaking treaties and international law, but our government isnt. especially when it comes to weapons.

Well, as is typical, you didn't address my inquiry. Yep, he didn't allow inspectors in for 5 years, then allowed them again, then the U.S. called them back and we attacked. Haven't found much of anything in almost 5 years. But hey, we'll be there for quite a bit longer than that so maybe we can find those elusive chemical weapons factories that were so clearly marked on maps used to justify the war...

...so you're going with the "broke international law" justification. But I was trying to understand the reasoning behind saying "they (Iraq) attacked us" (I assume that's an allusion to 9/11).

I also get tired of reading the myriad of causes put forth to justify that cluster fuck.