Call it what it is

[ACamp1900]

winner...





winner...





chicken....





dinner...

 

[ShivaIrish]

ill take a shot at it. im sorry if this goes to the heart but atleast you can argue this. Angles are gonna get last place( i really think not but for sake of arguement )

Angles?

That's great, but who are the chefs?

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Blame the dems for them ignoring the problem?? Some people need to wake up and check out the hole in the ground in NYC. In addition to the embassy bombings, we were hit at the WTC years before too. Of course, we ignored it then as well....

Actually, it was not ignored. Entire Battlegroups were moved to be able to fire tomahawk missiles into other countries. Men were deployed. Dozens of terrorists were killed.

However, not enough was done...could the WTC plot been foiled? Unlikely...

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

I don't know what to think anymore. I do think that since we are in Iraq we can't just up and leave because then every young man and woman who died has died in vain. I just wish someone either Democrat or Republican would come along and have as their number one priority the people of the United States. Both sides play the political game to the hilt and do not care about us at all.

Tell us...what will success look like? How can we know it's time to leave?

No one, including the President seems to know that.

So how long should we stay?

I am NOT making the case for leaving NOW...I am ASKING you to please tell me what the criteria for SUCCESS is.

So far, NOT ONE PERSON on this board has ever attempted to answer this question. They either say "there can be no victory" or "we can't leave before we've won."

But to date, no one can begin to tell me how we know "we've won."

 

[ACamp1900]

We leave when the "Middle East Question" has been completely eradicated... sound good everyone??

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

Tell us...what will success look like? How can we know it's time to leave?

No one, including the President seems to know that.

So how long should we stay?

I am NOT making the case for leaving NOW...I am ASKING you to please tell me what the criteria for SUCCESS is.

So far, NOT ONE PERSON on this board has ever attempted to answer this question. They either say "there can be no victory" or "we can't leave before we've won."

But to date, no one can begin to tell me how we know "we've won."

Actually, I did. You just didn't like my answer. Tough cookies

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

Actually, it was not ignored. Entire Battlegroups were moved to be able to fire tomahawk missiles into other countries. Men were deployed. Dozens of terrorists were killed.

However, not enough was done...could the WTC plot been foiled? Unlikely...

We ignored the fact that they declared war on us. A war is not fought with a few missile strikes and bombs. Nor is it fought acting as if it is a criminal matter, with no sharing of info between the FBI/CIA/DIA. To this day, some people are unwilling to call it a war on terror. What the F>>K is wrong with people?????????

 

[The Fly]

I think victory is defined as the Iraqi gov't being able to support and defend itself.

We haven't made enough progress in that regard. That doesn't mean we can't make progress.

We have two choices - Stay, fight and win or leave. The first allows us to have an ally in the Middle East. The second allows terrorists to rule another country.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

I think victory is defined as the Iraqi gov't being able to support and defend itself.

Agreed. It really is that simple. They need to be stable and provide their own security, with a few of us around in kurdland as a safety blanket. Besides, it is not OUR job to define success, it is the presidents, he just needs to articulate that to the American people.

We haven't made enough progress in that regard. That doesn't mean we can't make progress.

We are making progress now. Recruitment of sunnis to the army and police has increased dramatically. This tells us that the tide is turning, and that many are willing to join the fight, not be the enemy.

We have two choices - Stay, fight and win or leave. The first allows us to have an ally in the Middle East. The second allows terrorists to rule another country.

Correct. Again, it is that simple. Iran is itching to expand its empire.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

My use of quotes really sux.

 

[ShivaIrish]

Correct. Again, it is that simple. Iran is itching to expand its empire.

Have you been watching "300"?

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

No, but I did stay at a holiday Inn Express last nite.

 

[NDXUFan]

"We have peace in our time."

-Neville Chamberlain, 1938

 

[ACamp1900]

"Any of you fucking pricks move, and I'll execute every motherfucking last one of ya!"

-Rosanna Arquette 1994

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

We ignored the fact that they declared war on us. A war is not fought with a few missile strikes and bombs. Nor is it fought acting as if it is a criminal matter, with no sharing of info between the FBI/CIA/DIA. To this day, some people are unwilling to call it a war on terror. What the F>>K is wrong with people?????????

You cannot wage war on an entity that does not exist. A war on terror is like the war on drugs or the war on poverty... It will always exist, so how do you best contain it? That answer remains a mystery.

Back in the 90's, men were sent to kill Al Qaeda leaders...missiles were fired...sorties dispatched. At the time that was deemed adequate. In fact, Bush deemed it so adequate that he did not step up operations as was recommended by Clinton's team during the transition. When they had their plan to Roll Back Al Qaeda...Bush shelved it...until 9/11.

In 5+ years since 9/11 Bin Laden has never been found. So, have we done enough?

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

I think victory is defined as the Iraqi gov't being able to support and defend itself.

We haven't made enough progress in that regard. That doesn't mean we can't make progress.

We have two choices - Stay, fight and win or leave. The first allows us to have an ally in the Middle East. The second allows terrorists to rule another country.

The question of the day is: Can this really be accomplished?

I think it's possible...but it could be another 5-10 years.

Your 2nd assumption is without merit. The two are not mutually exclusive events.

In fact, we could make the country stable...and they could in turn support terrorists to come kill us. Or, we leave, the country descends further into civil war and the victor ends up vanquishing the terrorists, since they are the biggest threat to Iraq at the moment.

Assuming that our leaving gives Iraq over to terrorists is simply a baseless argument...it has no basis in fact.

 

[ShivaIrish]

No, but I did stay at a holiday Inn Express last nite.

By the way, on the whole, both my wife and I enjoyed 3oo. Some good eye-candy for males and females too.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

I intend to watch the movie. Sounds super good.

I don't think the US has done enough to get Osama. But, a big part of that rests with Pakistan's situation between Musharrif and his countrymen. If we had carte blanche to go in, and the FULL support of Pakistan, he would be dead by now. I do believe that the tide is turning slowly in Iraq, we just need more time. The next 18 months will be very telling, if we don't like what we see then, I would suggest doing what the dems are suggesting now. To be continued...

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

I don't think the US has done enough to get Osama. But, a big part of that rests with Pakistan's situation between Musharrif and his countrymen. If we had carte blanche to go in, and the FULL support of Pakistan, he would be dead by now. I do believe that the tide is turning slowly in Iraq, we just need more time. The next 18 months will be very telling, if we don't like what we see then, I would suggest doing what the dems are suggesting now. To be continued...

We see eye-to-eye on this... OBL would be long since dead if he was not hidden by his buddies in Pakistan.

In general, I am willing to question every solution thrown out...only because I think very few of the solutions are well thought out.

Stay The Course
Leave Now
Build Up

Honestly...if the answer were easy we would have done it already.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

True, I just wish we could debate honestly, without making everything about '08. I'm telling you, term limits are the answer.

 

[IRISHDODGER]

"Any of you fucking pricks move, and I'll execute every motherfucking last one of ya!"

-Rosanna Arquette 1994

Is that line from the diner robbery in Pulp Fiction? If it is, the chick who said it wasn't Rosanna Arquette. The chick who said it was fugly but she played the role perfectly.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

It is, and it was.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

True, I just wish we could debate honestly, without making everything about '08. I'm telling you, term limits are the answer.

I don't like term limits for one big reason:
They limit who I can vote for.

Term limits assume the voters cannot pick a good candidate.

I don't want my choices limited arbitrarily.

[I understand and agree with Term Limits for Presidents though]

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

Actually, I think the choices to vote for would increase, would it not? How many dems have run for (and had a chance to win) in the seat of Kennedy, Boxer, Feinstein, Biden, Pelosi, Waxman, and Conyers? It also seems that plenty of conservatives have a hold on power as well. I don't call that choice. I call it they have power, and can raise a hell of alot more money than anyone else.
To me, term limits mean that the bastards worry about getting things done, rather than getting re-elected. If Democrats voted the way they really felt, the funding bill would cut the funds today! Politics get in the way of doing what is best for America (not that I would support that bill), and in the way of true representation.