I believe he is referring to your habit of answering practical questions with relatively meaningless sound-bites: little phrases that would look good on a bumper-sticker, but don't actually mean anything. You have said we need 'strong leadership' and 'bold decisions'... but that doesn't actually mean anything, now does it?

With regards to specifics, sadly we have another case of your opinion seeming based on erronious facts. It is too bad you chose never to answer my last post to you (post #158 in this thread) as I tried to set some of the facts right there. I take it you are no longer asserting the US has 1.5 million combat troops that 'could be deployed'?


In this case, the error of fact is based around this:



Firstly, you need to stop thinking of AQ as a single entity that dispatches troops like an organized national military. That is simply not the case.

Firstly, AQ really doesn't have that strong a presence in Iraq. They are a very small organization, which represents a tiny fraction of the Insurgency: the only reason they are noticed at all is because they tend to use suicide attacks, and this allows them wider media coverage and the ability to punch above their weight. However, in reality the vast majority of insurgent attacks in Iraq are one of the various religious, former Baathist or nationalist insurgencies and have nothing whatsoever to do with AQ.

"[i]it is generally agreed that foreign fighters make up a very small percentage of the Resistance. Major General Joseph Taluto, head of the 42nd Infantry Division, said that "99.9 per cent" of captured Resistance are Iraqi. The estimate has been confirmed by the Pentagon's own figures; in one analysis of over 1000 Resistance captured in Fallujah, only 15 were non-Iraqi. According to the Daily Telegraph, information from military commanders engaging in battles around Ramadi exposed the fact that out of 1300 suspected Resistance arrested in five months of 2005, none were non-Iraqi[i]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency#Composition

The reality is that AQ in Iraq is a small group which is actively hated by the vast majority of the Iraqi insurgents, who have been fighting them as actively as they have been fighting the Americans. In fact many of the great 'successes' against AQ in Iraq were done because of the Insurgents, who loathe the organization. If the US leaves, this will not change, the only difference is that the 99% of the insurgency that ISN'T AQ will not be fighting against the American any more, and can concentrate their attacks on AQ (and, unfortunately, each other of course).

Secondly: You need to stop assuming the forces in Iraq have anything to do with AQ international: they do not. These are two separate organizations, linked obviously by objective, communications and (originally) leadership, but the few AQ forces that are in Iraq are mostly Iraqi: they didn’t 'come to Iraq', they were recruited there. The foreigners, the members of AQ international are just there to train the locals. This AQ resistance is for the most part home grown, and detracted nothing whatsoever from AQ international.

This can be easily demonstrated by looking at what happened to AQ international after the Iraq war: far from losing troops or strength, they gained enormously from the US invasion. Both from new angry recruits, from Bush Jr deciding to deprioritise the real war on terror, and from the bogging down of the US military machine in the quagmire of Iraq. AQ International is now stronger than it ever has been: better equipped, better funded, better organized and more numerous, largely BECAUSE of the Iraq war.




That is because you are assuming (completely incorrectly) that the explosions and US death toll in Iraq is the result of AQ attacks. That is simply factually wrong, it is sectarian violence in Iraq that has claimed the majority of lives and is responsible for the vast majority of insurgent attacks, AQ is a small minority: hunted by the insurgents as much as by the US.

Besides, even if you were factually correct (which you are not) your assumption is based on the idea that the US presence is somehow keeping the lid on AQ attacks, and they would increase if the US leaves. That is baseless and unrealistic, if anything the removal of the US would remove one of the single greatest targets for the small AQ insurgency, and would drop. The US presence is not 'reducing' AQ attacks, they are encouraging them.




You keep saying this is being done: I addressed that in my last post you sadly ignored. This is a draft proposal by the Secretary of defense; it has not officially passed by the President nor either of the houses. I don't even think it has undergone committee evaluation yet. It is an idea, NOT a policy. Furthermore, I guarantee you that if it ever submitted to the House and Senate, there will be people rightly asking just how much this will cost. Lastly, even if and when it IA finally approved (which will take months) the first troops from that boost won't be ready for duty for at least two years. The surge cannot maintain current levels for another 6 months: so the plan does nothing to alter the immediate situation.



The problem is: they are right. The war is being lost, and the best efforts of the US for 4 years have been unable to stem that loss. The reality is this entire surge, hell this entire war effort is a colossal waste of time unless the Iraqi government suddenly finds within itself the ability to govern. Even Bush Jr and General Petreaus have openly admitted there is no purely military solution to Iraq, it requires the Iraqi government to take responsibility and govern, and they have utterly failed to do so, passing not a single one of the benchmarks legislations they had SWORN up and down to have passed months ago. Now, their reaction to the US troop surge? The entire Iraqi parliament is going on summer vacation for one or two months, they have not decided yet. You can spout all the nationalist slogans and patriotic drivel you want, NOTHING changes that fact. The War is PROBABLY not winnable WITH the Iraqi government functioning and working well, it is absolutely and unquestionably unwinnable without them: and at the moment they have proven themselves largely useless.

That is the reality of this lost war. Not troop numbers, not public opinion polls, not dropping morale: the fact that the Iraqi government cannot and will not govern, and without them this war is lost. The inability of the Soviet puppet state in Afghanistan in the 1980s led directly to the loss of that war, the inability of the South Vietnamese government to govern led directly to the loss of that war: this is just one more in the chain.

I largely agree with this, net2007. I disagreed with going into Iraq. However, if you were to look at my posts on this board from, say, two or three years ago, you would note that I was calling for a massive troop increase on the order of General Shinseki's numbers: 300-400 thousand. This would have been tantamount to a draft. However, if we really were at war, then it would be the necessary sacrifice the US should make to secure/rebuild that which it destroyed.

Unfortunately, that window of opportunity is now closed. Iraq has become what all the pro-invasion folks were saying wouldn't happen if you were look at their posts from two or three years ago. Iraq is no longer reeling from the "shock and awe" of US military might. There is *now* a civil war (completely predicted); there is *now* an entrenched insurgency (completely predicted); there is now massive sectarian violence (completely predicted) and Al Qaeda has a foothold in a place where it never even had a voice while Saddam was in power (completely predicted). Oh, almost forgot, the Kurdish region of Iraq provides a base of operations for the Kurdish separatists of Turkey causing Turkey to massively build up troops on the northern border of Iraq -- it's just a matter of time before there's an invasion by Turkey as a means of providing "security" (completely predicted). Let's also not forget the "doctrine of preemption" which will be used by many nations in the future to justify less than noble causes.

The hawks were wrong and are wrong. The first step to solving a problem is first admitting you have one. In order to move forward, we need the hawks (such as yourself) to admit they were wrong -- completely and utterly wrong. Only then will we be able to look for a solution to this disaster.

Vermillion




We were talking about Bumper Stickers in regards to this war not things I said personally, he wasn't weighing in on me, but since you came back to put your two cents in can I say you never do stop putting words in my mouth do you? Should I expose this process once again? I think so, so your asking if I'm no longer asserting the US has 1.5 million combat troops that could be deployed? Well thats a nice bumper sticker you just came up with right there because I said no such thing but once again quote me saying this specifically, or will you fail to do so for the 4th time? What you will find me saying is that we have 1.5 million active troops as well as 800,000 reserve troops and only 200,000 troops in Iraq and suggesting that perhaps a very small fraction of such a large number could help us. What you wont find me say anywhere are the words you just put in my mouth yet again Vermillion and your the only one doing this sort of thing. I never said we had 1.5 million combat troops that could be deployed. So You have asserted two things I never suggested in the first place, one being that they are all combat troops, and two being that they could all be deployed. Logic dictates that if we need more combat troops in Iraq that we would need more of the other vital positions a soldier can fill as well, so your point that these 1.5 million troops are not all combat troops is not only something I understand, its a rather moot point because along with the combat troops, we need medics, journalist, water sanitizers, ect, ect.
By all means twist something else I say out of proportion so I can expose you doing it again. The only person Ive gotten off topic with really is you because of stuff like this.







Really forces in Iraq don't have anything to do with Al Qaeda? Well I'm not really convinced man, sorry, and yes I know about sectarian violence and its strong impact here, but Al Qaeda has an impact too, and both are concerns if you ask me.








Again your superior wisdom "sarcasm" tells me something I do already understand. I'm aware of the sectarian violence in Iraq already. And because I was speaking in hypothetical terms how in the world can what I said be (factually incorrect) as you put it, when I was speaking of events that have yet to happen? Do you have a link that shows that if we leave Iraq violence, including Al Qaeda driven violence wont increase? I mean you seem to know so much. I didn't try to pass that off as fact myself I just said that was a likely scenario given the circumstances, then you come in and say its not factually correct so I'm assuming you have a time machine of some sort.





The link I went to, to find this out seemed very much past tense, like this plan was in its early stages our certain to be passed, one of the two. This is the link again....

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washingt...ldup_in_troops/

And here are some quotes that lead me to believe the plan is already underway or about to get started if you have links suggesting otherwise you can post them and I'll take a look, I can be fair most of the time.............



While the 2 page story was short, the details it had sure did give me the impression this plan is in the works or the bill is soon to be passed with little doubt.





Well have you ever considered that this wasn't our best effort under the best of leadership? I agree with you that we should expect more from the Iraq gouvernment and that certain benchmarks need to be meet by them, and that this war will be a loss if they don't. Your problem is you take a well known fact that nearly all conservatives understand already and use it, if I may so humbly say so as a Bumper sticker supporting your anti war sediment.
In other words because this is true, hmm we don't have any role in supporting them until they can beat this on their own, but I don't buy it, and I don't believe it, but your welcome to believe what you want.



Wrong about what though? just because I support the war, doesn't mean I support the way its been fought. You seem reasonable but I just don't believe that window is closed yet personally, I'll believe that when we surrender the Iraq war because that is the one act that will with no doubt render this war a loss.

Regarding the War on Terror:

Pancho Villa

Geronimo

More recently, Eric Robert Rudolph

The US has never been effective at tracking down militant individuals, Osama Bin Laden or otherwise. Liberalism is not to blame. Capturing terrorists with a gargantuan over-funded military is like trying to wack a fly with a bulldozer. We need more emphasis on intelligence operations, and improving our public image. I agreed then, and still agree with John Kerry. Counter-terrorism is less a military process than police work.

Regarding Iraq...

The reason we can't win wars is not because of political correctness. When Barack Obama, of all people, says that 'all options are on the table for Iran," there is no real climate of political correctness in our war-waging policy. Maybe in some of your conservative fantasy lands the US would have won Vietnam if only we had firebombed North Vietnam like we did Tokoyo; I propose that we could not have won that war. We are fighting now, and were fighting then, insurgents. Guys go off to Iraq and spend there whole tour of duty without ever seeing a single 'insurgent.'

So who and what do you firebomb, WII Nostalgist? Baghdad? Somehow, destroying an ancient Muslim city full of innocent life seems like a way to inspire more, not less, terrorist activity.

We are fighting a new kind of war, in which large, foreign militaries no longer have the advantage. It is a long-term war, that almost defies the definition of 'war' -- a fight not for military victories, because there are no enemy militaries to fight, just 'networks' -- but a fight for PR victories. For the hearts and minds of the next generation of Afghnanis and Iraqis-- Just as we once won the hearts and minds of Westy Germany and Japan. Given our image in the Muslim world, this process will invariably be long and costly. Frankly, I can't say whether it is worth it or not.

This idea that we've grown weak at the knees is preposterous. War has become habitual in the American political context. Every president since 1940, excluding Jimmy Carter (and Ford, if you count him) has found himself heading up some kind of military operation. (WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Iraq, Haiti, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq). We are only growing more bold, more willing to fling around terms like 'axis of evil,' more willing to go to war, and more willing to discredit our allies to do so; the problem is that the rules have changed, and they no longer favor industrial might. Our ability to destroy cities is both disproportionate and counter-productive to our aims.

This country is addicted to war. Like all addicts, we keep getting less and less for our money.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washingt...ldup_in_troops/

I am a bit confused about what Gates is advocating. Bush leaves office less than a month after 2008.

The next president and congress can accept this increase, cancel it, make it larger, but they aren’t necessarily bound by it. The thought of extending Bush beyond his term concerns me.

I'm not necessarily saying that we souldn't have an increase in military strength, but with a projection of 2012, the present actors will have left the stage.

So define “sacrifice”. Is being a loyal working tax paying or (student) American enough? What sacrifice MUST one make to support the war?




Only in your mind has anything “failed” – nothing has “failed” – we barley get the troops there and liberals have the policy as “failed”. It may fasil but we will not know that for months will we?

I would like to address the thing about the war being a bumper sticker, because I understand it all too well.

Let's try these:

"Freedom Isn't Free": An easy thing to put on your bumper when you're not sweating a loved one's first, second, or third tour in Iraq or Afghanistan.

So what are you doing? Collecting scrap metal like aluminum or tin cans to help the war effort? Volunteering for a Neighborhood Civil Defense or skywatching unit? Rationing gasoline, coffee, tea, sugar, or meat so that the troops won't go without? These things and more were done by our parents or grandparents to help previous war efforts. They knew what sacrifice meant.

"Power of Pride": Supposed to mean pride in being American, which for most of us is an accident of birth. Also implies patriotism. But remember the Bible verse: "Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall." Wonder why that's in the Bible, anyway? Nevermind. It seems to me that the real meaning of the "power of pride" is that our troops are still fighting and dying in Iraq for the sake of George W. Bush's pride, not because anyone really believes that there is going to be a real turnaround after four years of bungling and death.

Then there are nearly innumerable bumper stickers dealing with 9/11. I'm still waiting to hear just what Saddam Hussein and Iraq had to do with the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center towers and the other hijackings. Good thing I didn't hold my breath. Sorry, repeating "9/11, 9/11, 9/11" doesn't hold the magic it did for the masses when they were freshly hurting in 2001 and were just looking for someone to blame, regardless of whether those parties were involved or not.

So now we've got a "war" (actually an occupation) in Iraq where our soldiers are supposed to fight the insurgents and members of al Qaida, and the President has said that the Iraqis (!) are supposed to step up and do the fighting, bearing in mind it is like asking the Confederates to turn in their friends and family members right after Robert E. Lee surrendered. Bearing in mind, of course, that the occupiers are anywhere from being tolerated to downright hated by the Sunni and Shia factions.

Does it mean that the United States cannot win anymore when there are wars, and especially since our apparently more morally-conscious forebears saw fit to sign the articles of the Geneva Conventions? Not necessarily.

Maybe it means we need choose our battles more carefully, try counting the cost before engaging the enemy. Maybe giving Congress a chance to actually read a National Intelligence Estimate before giving the President carte blanche.

Rushing to counterattack only makes sense when we are sure who the enemy is and where that enemy is. I suspect that Iraq was tacked on to the so-called "Global War on Terror" because Bush and Cheney wanted to do it anyway. Deposing Saddam Hussein was one of the platforms for the 2000 GOP National Convention. But doing it in the guise of fighting terrorism was dishonest at best.

One of the tactics of an opponent trying to discredit his nemesis is belittling their arguments, trying to make them look ridiculous. That is why following the rules is now seen as being "politically correct" by some posters here. "Politically correct" is shorthand for something that is seen as impractical and lacking in substance. I guess that might be true for someone who has never had to depend upon his captors to follow the rules when he is imprisoned. That is when that "political correctness" might make the difference between confinement with periodic questioning and some deprivation to out-and-out hellish torture.

The argument is always made that the enemy, especially in the case of terrorists, does not feel obliged to treat their prisoners as civilly. But I would ask you, if our efforts become indistinguishable from those who are fighting us, are we still the good guys and do we still hold the moral high ground?

You think paying taxes in the face of your support of our soldiers fighting and dying in Iraq is "sacrifice"? If you're pulling my leg, then I'm not finding this notion very funny. If you're serious, then please tell me how this isn't offensive.


It's been over four years since the invasion/occupation of Iraq. We were not greeted as liberators; we found no WMD; the insurgency has increased not decreased; there's a civil war; the Iraqi government cannot govern; ~90% of all reconstruction contracts are unfulfilled; Iraqis have very little clean water and sanitation... I could go on. Facts clearly have no affect on your position with regard to Iraq since you must believe that truth has a liberal bias.

Let me turn that question a different way......how do you define sacrifice? How do you explain to someone who has lost his legs from an IED, that his sacrifice was worth it? Cheaper oil? How do you tell a parent that lost a son or a daughter in a gunfight between Shia and Sunni militias that the sacrifice was worth it? War on Terror?
If someone merely supports the stated administration goal of being in Iraq, fine. But if someone becomes a staunch supporter, and advocates or willingly accepts the loss of American lives in the pursuit of that goal, going on to tell others that the sacrifice is worth it, and how critics are wrong.........then for credibilty sake if nothing else, paying taxes doesn't seem like much sacrifice. If we were in Iraq strictly to pursue and defeat AQ, then the cause may be just enough to warrant the loss of life. But we spend far more time fighting Shia and Sunni rival insurgent groups. How could I possibly look a parent or a spouse in the eye and tell them the loss of their son or daughter made any difference, had any impact on keeping the United States safe? We have spent more time, money and lives fighting groups that play a deadly game of 'my mosque is better than your mosque', while having a negligent effect on the 'war on terror'. I don't believe my life should be expendable when the current 'cause' has nothing to do with the oath I took to serve and defend my country. And I don't speak as someone who would even be considered anti-war by most.
So what sacrifice are you and Net2007 actually making to support the effort in Iraq? Spreading the word? Paying taxes? I say this not to denigrate you, but being so vocal in your support, it would seem that you have the motivation to do more than the average citizen. Are you?

I believe this is the third time you have accused me of misquoting you and putting words into your mouth. The first two were obviously just attempts to play martyr and not even worth responding to, but now it seems this is becoming a tactic of yours, and I really think it needs to be dealt with. None of the examples you stretched out here are me misquoting you, misrepresenting your points or anything of the sort. Allow me to demonstrate:

I said you seemed to be willing to throw 10,000 lives away, you responded angrily and with great flourish saying 'you never said 'throw them away', you just said expend them to win'. Yes, and given that you have not defined a win, cannot explain how to obtain a win, or even turn around the current losing situation, that is throwing troops away. That's not misquoting you, thats me telling you that your eagerness to sacrifice 10,000 lives of your fellow Americans (but not yourself) is throwing these lives away. Not only was this not me misrepresenting your point; you used this tactic as a replacement for actually dealing with the question and issue at hand, which is just unfortunate.

Now in this case, I asked if you now understood that there are NOT 1.5 million combat Troops deployed around the world. You angily accused me of misquoting you, saying you 'never said they were 'combat' troops'. This is even worse of course, because you DID believe this. You told us in detail how the US had all these ground troops, then when pointed out that they were support staff, you said that 'they have all been cross-trained for combat and used for combat'. You clearly believed, even after being corrected on fact repeatedly, that the US had 1.5 million troops (and 800,000 reserve) that could be used for combat operations. In fact you insisted upon it after repeated corrections: pretending now this is some misrepresentation of your position is just dishonest.

Then again, perhaps it is a language issue. You keep claiming there are 1.5 million troops in the US military, when there are not: there are 1.5 million STAFF ON THE PAYROLL of the US military, not troops. I dealt with this in great detail back in the post of mine you ignored: #158 in this thread. Pity you ignored it.

And again, not only was this not me misrepresenting your point, not even close; you used this tactic as a replacement for actually dealing with the question and issue at hand, which is just unfortunate.




Well, I did just say specifically they shared communications, objectives and (initially though no more) leadership. But as to the actual point, if evidence and the words of the men on the ground doing the fighting don't 'convince' you, then that is your problem, not mine. As I explained, the 'impact' AQ has been having is due to its tactics which cause a lot of fuss, rather than its numbers or strength. I showed you both stats and comments from people on the ground that '99.8% of Insurgents are Iraqis with a nearly insignificant number of foreign fighters, and that AQ represents a tiny fraction of the total insurgency. Not to mention that they are also the hated enemy of the rest of the insurgencies. One wonders what it would take to 'convince you'?




That is a lot of backsliding to avoid dealing with the point I raised. Why is it seemingly so difficult for you to actually debate issues and points here? Look back at the post I last made, then your response. You ignored half my comments, and dodged the rest with this kind of tactic. It might make you feel better but does not advance the debate, your assertions or your credibility by much.

Your 'likely scenario' is completely unrealistic, and given that you failed to provide any argumentation or evidence for this or any of your points... well, we've been down this road with you. OK, lets make it easy. I will retract my above comment for the moment to avoid conflict, and simply ask: Please explain why you think the US leaving could and would lead to an explosion of violence by the tiny AQ minority in the insurgency. Please explain how this small group of AQ fighters could further destabilise or cripple an Iraq without US presence (more than they are currently doing). Please explain and show how the US presence in Iraq at the moment (ie the status quo) is resulting in a reduction in violence from AQ below their total capacity. Stop asserting: explain and evidence.




I don't need 'other links', when your OWN link clearly states this is just a plan and has not passed by Committee examination nor either of the two houses. Did you not see that? It says so in black and white in YOUR link. Even if it passes spedily through examination, the House and the Senate, that is still months away, and who knows what version comes out at the end. The point is however, that the first troops come out 2 years from the point when the plan actually is put into operation, and that of course is assuming the plan even works. Also from your link:

"But the expansion will not be cheap, quick, or easy. Recruiting, training, and equipping new soldiers and Marines will cost tens of billions of dollars, and it will take years before they will have an effect on current military operations, senior Pentagon officials said yesterday.

And perhaps the biggest challenge will be finding enough volunteers. To meet its current recruiting goals, the Army has relaxed some standards, accepting more recruits who don't have a high school diploma or general equivalency degree, and allowing older men and women to join. Meanwhile, the Pentagon has also substantially increased enlistment bonuses and launched a multi million-dollar advertising campaign to draw more young people to the recruitment office.

"I think it will be a hell of a challenge" to find 92,000 recruits, said Alan Gropman , a retired Air Force colonel who teaches at the National Defense University in Washington. "That's a very large number. "

You simply overestimate the speed of the burocracy even if things go through quickly. For example, this plan was announced in january, and where are they now? No bills submitted to either house yet, in fact the latest is this:

May 16, 2007 -- The Army has announced plans to examine the environmental impact of increasing its active and reserve troop size by 74,200 personnel, according to a notice in today's Federal Register.

In January, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced plans to increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps by a total of 92,000 personnel in a bid to increase combat capability and relieve stress on U.S. ground forces stretched thin by the high pace of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan."

So 4.5 months later, the Army is prepared to start 'studying' the impact of the plan if it goes forward. But as I said (and you failed to answer) even best case scenario, the troops proposed would start to emerge in two years, hardly useful as the current troop levels in Iraq cannot even be sustained past 6 months.




Net2007... seriously here.... that argument doesn't even make any sense.

Firstly, I do believe the US troops on the ground are doing their level best. I also believe they have been handicapped by terrible political decisions are the start of the conflict which made their situation immeasurably worse than it needed to be. But as for their situation now... listen, I have to be brutally honest, I am a bit tired of you repeating that the army needs 'leadership' or 'bold actions'. You know what? I agree, the current leader is criminally negligent and needs to be replaced, but what I can't see (and what you have been unable to explain, despite being asked) is exactly what any other leader could do, given the status quo, to turn things around. This is where you REALLY need to stop speaking in obtuse generalisations and be specific. Don't tell us the US army can win with 'good leadership' and 'bold moves', those are meanigless rhetorical slogans. Tell me what you think should be done to turn things around, and please, be specific.

Secondly, (slight aside, I know) you have a really bad habit of taking facts you were clearly unaware of, as you had been debating for weeks in dozens of posts without ever once mentioning them, and claiming (after they had been pointed out to you) that of course you knew that.

Thirdly, the issue I explained in detail is that ths struggle is unwinnable without the Iraqi government learning to govern, trying to govern and having the aility to govern its own nation, pass its own legislation, kep its own provinces and control its own police and military: NONE OF WHICH it can currently do. Your response is twofold and very, very bizarre: One one hand, yes of course you knew that, and yes they are failing absolutely, but on the other hand, its just a bumper sticker and that my claim that the US has no role in supporting them you don't believe.


Remember when you were making things up to make it sound like others were misquoting you just recently? Not for the future: this is a much better example. Who said the US has no role in supporting them? Of course it is trying its best to support them: the entire point of the troop surge is NOT to defeat the insurgents or win the war, but to provide a small window of opportunity for the Iraqi government to govern. Who ever claimed otherwise?

The issue you continue to ignore is that so far it is failing completely. The violence, after a brief drop, has escalted overall. The surge has failed to create any stability in Baghdad, and outside baghdad things are significantly worse than before the surge started. The Iraqi government in the meantime has missed every single one of its benchmarks for legislation, benchmarks Bush announced publicly in a speech that he would hold the Iraqi government to. Of the laws they promised to enact, not one has even been seen by the legislators, and most are known to be dead before they begin, because Maliki cannot even control the fractious elements, strong men and militia leaders in his own government: rather as has been demonstrated several times, they control him, and use him against the US. So faced with the fact that the Iraqi government has not passed a single piece of meanigful legislation, has missed all its benchmarks and has no ability to govern the city, let alone the country, what is their reaction to the US troops surge? The Irqi government is going on vacation for the summer. Originally for 2 months, now possibly just for one, it is still undecided.

Reality time: the US is losing for a half dozen different reasons, but this is by far the biggest. Even if you got your wish and had the US sacrifice another 10,000 US soldiers (but not you) in the name of the fight, it would make NO DIFFERENCE so long as the Iraqi government remains an impotent force incapable of basic ativities of state. You should look at the points I made (and you ignored) dealing with the similarities to the other two major failed counter-insurgencies in the last 30 years: scarily similar.



Surrenders don't happen arbitrarily: sides that are winning wars don't just turn around and surrender. If the US withdraws from Iraq it won't be because there was a collapse of will at home based on nothing, it will be because on 4+ years of war (the longest war the US has ever fought other than Vietnam) the US has ben completely unable to accomplish its objectives: not only failed to win, but failed to keep the situation from deteriorating month to month. The US is LOSING, and all the pretending otherwise will not change that fact. Now the struggle isn't over yet, but unless you can suggest a manner in which the situation might be reversed, simply calling for yet more sacrifice from Americans (but not you) is somewhat pointless, wouldn't you say?

"Pride of Power" is what this one really means. Pride of power, a very great failing of the American people, I opine. A mighty nation, a powerful nation, and all that.

Vermillion




I did define what a win could be, you just don't believe it can be done, the important thing is I don't share your "cant do" pessimism here but if I did then yes I guess accepting sacrifice as a part of a war while thinking we will lose, would be like throwing them away but I don't believe we will lose unless we give up. So In turn I don't believe nor have I said our troops lives are being thrown away, So there you took something I said and rephrased it for how you perceive it, but I don't think like you.

And did I say there are 1.5 million combat troops that can be deployed? No, I didn't, and its not what I meant either, I didn't even go as far as to say they would all qualify to go to Iraq, I said many of them have been cross trained in combat yes, because a great deal of them from what I understand have received at least boot camp training , but many of them are not in position to go to Iraq being why I stated from the start that 2% of these 1.5 million active troops and 800,000 reserve troops could potentially be used. Should I pull up where I indicate such a small percentage? You seem to read only the parts you think you can use to smear someone for having an opposite viewpoint and put your own spin on it, and I'll make it a point to call you on it every single time you do it.










I told you I understand sectarian violence and the major role it plays here, there is nothing you have yet to link me to that told me something I don't already know. The truth is there is enough Al Qaeda, and Al Qaeda driven violence in Iraq to be a major concern and its more than the U.S. they are attacking so our absence would only mean that attacks would continue without the resistance of us, making things easier on them. Since I was speaking in hypothetical terms of what is likely given a US retreat from Iraq your coming in here and saying that it was factually incorrect was amusing, you'll have to show me how that time machine of yours works sometime. I did explain why I think it would happen however, and this is because Al Qaeda always has been determined to cause damage where they can to wear us down as a nation and our absence there would mean not only increased sectarian violence, but increased Al Qaeda driven violence as well simply because of the reduced amount of protective forces in the area.

I think as a nation if you make promises that will determine the fate of another nation you keep those promises even when things get tough and this is where you and I differ in morals and I've read and heard all the same facts you have yet Ive come to this completely different conclusion. If we didn't want this we shouldn't have gone in Iraq in 2003 but we did and now we have to make this work. Overall I think this is done by increasing the overall number of boots on the ground in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Where we position these troops and how we support them by air is also important, we have seen this war have much success on many fronts, but the fact that we are falling behind has only been the case under the leadership of one man "GWB", and next year I'm looking for someone who can win this thing so we can come home, not someone who looks at the failure of one administration and then determines an immediate retreat, that leaves a country we took an oath to protect utterly devastated, is the only way to get our boys home. We should help them until we can get them in a position to where they can help themselves effectively, and yes we should up the pressure to keep them on a course that puts them in the possition to help themselves, that is part of the key to our effective retreat from the area. However the democrats are saying get out ASAP despite the situation and despite the consequences.






Well If you ask me they seem pretty serious with going forward with this, and nothing quoted suggested otherwise. It looks to have some widespread unanimous support, because Its obvious we need the extra troops. In the next two years, I think we can manage until these troops increase, I know there are people saying we cant manage another six months, but I heard that a year ago as well and here we are still in the war. I think we can manage another two years because even with the added stresses we are seeing in Iraq and Afghanistan, this remains the most powerful and resourceful military on the planet, and I don't buy into the rhetoric that we cant do this or we cant do that, it all boils down to what we are willing to do and that, I think, was one of the very points made in the original post of this forum.

The decision to expand forces should have come 5 years ago like I've said, but better late than never. I'm looking forward to having a leader that makes decisions like this as needed, and will lead us to victory in Iraq through a combination of good gudgement, effective diplomacy, and good military decisions because we need all three to win this war, it cant be all diplomacy, or all military tactics. I'm more in the middle where I agree with the left in some areas, and with the right on some areas, although I agree with conservatives and republicans on more, there are some valid points made by lefties as well. For example Bush has failed to implement diplomacy near enough, If I were him Id make it a point that everyone understand what my intentions are, and many Iraqis and Americans are confused to say the least. Today the democrats however want us all to believe that this war, is a war not worth fighting, this war is a bumper sticker, and this war can not be won, based on how Bush has handled it, but I don't buy it, not for a second. Furthermore I think the polls showing that most Americans do not support this war are very misleading, I think most Americans just don't support the way the war has been fought, and this is why I think we will vote for someone who is likely to bring us to a win in Iraq, rather than someone who will promise to end this war despite it becoming an instant loss and waste of time by doing so, I don't think thats what most people want.




Ive been specific here, Ive said taking a leader who has a combination of good decision making, and the willingness to win this war, is our best chance for winning. I want the same answers you do though in terms of how specifically it can be done, all I can tell you from research is that much of it has to do with how many boots are on the ground and how strong our commitment as a nation is. I'm not in the position to tell you step by step how it is done and have never claimed to be. I think the idea to divide the area up might help us diagnose each section, but all and all I think its the level of forces we are willing to commit and how we use those forces effectively and making wise decisions on where to use air support. Given what you just said you and I actually agree that this isn't about our boys over seas not giving it their all, In fact I've just caught you agreeing that a big part of the problem has in fact been our political decisions, so I say give a strong leader the chance to turn this situation around before we throw our hands up in defeat and ruin a nation we promised to help in the process. We have many promising looking candidates that are willing to take this thing head on, this is heating up to be by the looks of it one of the biggest elections in a long time, there are so many people who look serious at undoing some of the mistakes made in prior years, but I think the democrats are wrong in saying we should leave Iraq ASAP, I think they look at polls and determine they can gain footing by being the one that will be the quickest to pull our troops out while not considering the consequnces of such a abrupt decision. Look, I want our boys out of there too, but to have a candidate that says we are going to do what we can to make to get into a situation where we can leave without the war being a total loss and a county falling to peices as a result of our stirring the pot but jumping out of the kitchen when things got too hot us is the type of candidate I'm looking for.



Oh, I see, so in other words I didn't know we are struggling over seas, or that there is sectarian violence in Iraq until of course you swept in to inform me of these things with you superior knowledge?? Lol, Your thinking is whats unfortunate Vermillion, because I want nothing more than to have a civil respectable debate and you seem to want nothing more than to throw out accusations and make claims about people you can never back. The one exception being when I presented an inaccurate WW2 figure, yet I had no problem admitting I used an inaccurate figure when I found that out. Since that, I've repeatedly had to expose you putting words in my mouth, and twisting things around. Not to my surprise I'm not even the only one who has called you on doing this sort of thing in this forum alone , not to mention an IM I got from yet another member clearly explaining the nature of your post in general. I don't care if you've written a book, or what your credentials might be, its apparent to me that I'm far from being the first you have attempted to falsely exploit, I'm not here to rant with you, notice that whenever you ask respectible qustions I answer you with the same degree of respect, you basically just told me I speak of things I never researched in the first place, as if I have. To be serious you know nothing of me, so I suggest you stop throwing out remarks like that before this discussion becomes derailed yet again. You've seen me post here for a few weeks and yet you supposedly know more about me than I do? Thats a joke although you act that way. I back my remarks with links when I feel its necessary and in this forum I have done so many times. Not so much to you for the negative stance you take, you want to see me as incompetent, by all means you see me how you want, just understand that I don't have enough respect for you to waste my time anymore explaining to you the reasons I may say anything, because despite what your credentials are I've seen a lack of maturity here that makes it hard for me to take you seriously. If you want to debate, great I'll debate you, but if you want to make cute personal remarks I'll probably start ignoring you altogether.





Lol, making things up?? I suppose by people you mean you, since your the one doing it, but lets see what I've made up here....

YOU.........

sadly we have another case of your opinion seeming based on erronious facts. It is too bad you chose never to answer my last post to you (post #158 in this thread) as I tried to set some of the facts right there. I take it you are no longer asserting the US has 1.5 million combat troops that 'could be deployed'?

Did I make that up?? Am I being harsh?? Did you not ask if I am no longer asserting the US has 1.5 million combat troops that 'could be deployed'?
When I never suggested they were all combat troops and can all be deployed in the first place.

Apparently I'm hallucinating, but lets look at another quote that according to you I just made up.......

YOU.........


Thirdly, I also notice you have quietly shrunk away from your other disproven assertions, such as the AQ links with Hussein. I presume that means you have abandoned them as well?

I'll mail you my next pay check if you can find me saying or suggesting that AQ had links with Hussein, but I guess this is another case where I made up people, or you in specific rather misquoting me. There have been other cases where people have misunderstood me perhaps, but your the only one putting words in my mouth like this and Id appreciate you stopping this line of interrogation because its obvious that your not very good at it, and its also the type of things that leads to conversations that tick off the moderadors so lets try and debate like grown ups. This is getting old Vermillion.



There have been successes along with the failure although I understand this war is being lost, all the more reason for me wanting a president that will turn this situation around instead of sticking a fork in it assuming it is done. With all the negative reports coming out of Iraq in the last two years, there has never been a report that says, this war cant be won. We need to put more pressure on the Iraq gouvernment to meet benchmarks, I agree. There is much falling behind expectation here, encouraging me to believe not that we have to quit and leave that place a mess, but that we have to do better, and so does Iraq.


Paladin Elspeth

ll.




Well whats perhaps the greatest war related bumper sticker of them all? Think about it for a sec, Its cute, catchy, very short and non specific. Sends a message that is disagreed with by millions of Americans, politicians, and soldiers, leading me to believe its not fact but rather a matter of opinion held primarily by left wing Americans, So what is this bumper sticker that is perhaps the greatest of all war related bumper stickers???????????????????????????????????????
(THIS WAR IS A BUMPER STICKER) LOl, well what do you think? Thats not a fact, sure its an idea that many support, but its a rather vague and controversial statement as well so there you have it (THIS WAR IS A BUMPER STICKER) wins in my opinion 1'st place for war related bumper stickers.
In fact much of the time when people say it they don't even specify if its in regards to the War On Terror as a whole or the Iraq war. I don't even think John Edwards even specified on that point last week during the debate when he said it, from what I remember he said ""this war"". He was referring to Iraq no doubt but the point is that, that is a vague statement that doesn't hold water, Rudy Guliani said ""this war is not a bumper sticker, this is a real war"" in response to Edwards and I agree with Guliani, I think that is ridiculous but it is a cute bumper sticker in itself at the very least.

Net- some posters have been more than patient with you- a little condencending pershaps, but patient, given a couple things you really, really need to clean up.

One thing I have learned on this board is this- you better have your facts straight, and they better be facts, because if it is just an opinion, NOT based on facts- you most certainly will be called on it- if it seems that Vermillion has "superior knowledge" in his posts- it is because, well, he has posted stuff that shows quite a BIT superior knowledge in points contrary to your opinions?

What BOF, Vermillion and others, and why the whole conserative movement is foundering at this time- you and other conservatives, with a few exceptions, are foundering in ideology, and very, very short on results.

There was a time, when it wa rocket scientists in white starched shirts, black rimmed glasses had logical, well thought out ideals that were based on empirical evidence, that drove the old Barry Goldwater fiscal conservative with libertarian leanings.

Those guys don't have any power anymore. Instead, we have a bunch of chest thumpers with hairy knuckles and low IQs and a penchant for hanging on every talking point that comes out of the current Republican talking point cesspool.

That doesn't mean to say that the all conservatives are that way- there are a great many on this board that AREN'T of that stripe- it just so happens right now though- the too willing to sacrifice others with no sacrifice of thier own is running the show- the DTOMs and the Dayton Rockers are not running the show anymore. The "results" type conservative. The kinda guys you can have a beer with, maybe be challenged on your own way of thinking by smart guys/gals who are consistant with thier ideals- no matter of there is a D or an R before thier name.

Net- I have asked you a few questions, you have come back with some answers- and get real dang testy when pretty well read folks like Vermillion or BOF challenge you, and in fact, pretty well destroy all your talking points.

IF that doesn't square with your beliefs- it is incumbant upon you to DISPROVE, USING CREDIBLE SOURCES- NOT a talk show by Glen Beck- but real, credible sources.

So far Vermillion has posted facts from

the CIA, GAO, the Pentagon, etc etc- and, if you don't agree- on a debate site like this, so heavily moderated to be civil- it is YOU who need to prove, point by point, that Vermillion is wrong, without getting your panties in a bunch because he has pretty logically, and with very good sources, proven your side very wrong.

C'mon dude- stop being a martyr and a baby and start debating!

So far- you haven't, even once, proven, or even offered good evidence and explanation of:

1) Direct causation of how the "left wing politically correct" whoever has kept us from "winning" this war

2) You have not showed how, despite every general, pentagon, lawmaker's comments on how stretched thin the US military is, how you would put 3-400,000 boots on the ground in Iraq. OR whatever number you pick- just show me how we can win this war, by gettng more troops in Iraq

3) How Al-Quaida would be worse off by us STAYING in Iraq. Or how they would be better by us leaving. OR how Al-Quaida is the main enemy in Iraq even.

4) Define, with clear, concise, verifiable benchmarks, a "win"- what exit strategy are you envisioning at this time?

There is 0 evidence that Al-qaida will be weakened by us staying in Iraq, or any evidence that Iraq will be any worse by us leaving now.

C'mon dude- stop your whining and start your research- ad to maintain credibility in the debate- how about refraining from posting quotes by right wing talking heads- unless it is a study, publishd in a journal, or something, mm'kay?

Okay...

Most of the left wing Americans you refer to, at least the ones demonstrating against the war in Iraq, don't demonstrate and write letters because it's fun, although we do become accustomed to seeing the same faces at these events and are on friendly terms with one another. Believe me, there are many other ways to interact socially. The reason we are against the war is that it was wrong from the get-go, and that America is bleeding lives and tens of billions of dollars while innocents are being killed, and the Iraqis don't even want us there!

I have another bumper sticker for you to think about, one that is on my car as a matter of fact. It's a message from Pax Christi, a Catholic anti-war organization:



I am not necessarily trying to defend what John Edwards says. Obviously, however, this has been a war of propaganda over here as much as it has been a war of injury, death, and grief over there. You need only remember the great furor created when someone photographed the flag-draped coffins of fallen military personnel arriving at Dover AFB, and the fact that George W. Bush has tried to avoid portraying distressing images of what our troops encounter over there in much the same way as the Disney people have tried to keep any sexual references out of their fairy tales.

If we're going to talk about "political correctness," then we need to also mention the "right-wing" PC approaches. The endless flag-waving, bunting draping, yellow-ribboned crowd that calls people who think like I do somehow unAmerican because we don't support the current White House occupant's nation building, U.S.-bankrupting, foreign nation-alienating behavior. Except they don't call what they do "political correctness;" they call it "patriotism." Semantics. I do resent the fact that these people have co-opted my flag. I used to wave it proudly on Flag Day, Memorial Day, and the Fourth of July; but it has become so politically-charged that these days I'm having trouble thinking of it out of the context of supporting pre-emptive war and alienating the rest of the world.

The right-wing "political correctness" can be damaging as well. "My country, right or wrong" is wrong. It is up to us to see that our leaders do the right thing as often as we can, and to tell the truth and work to ameliorate the situation when they are not doing the right thing, because they represent us.

Sometimes the same symbol can be used by both sides. How many of you remember the "peace symbol," often worn as a pendant around the neck by activists during Vietnam? I got one of those after the Kent State killings in May, 1970.

Peace Symbol

It started showing up as a pro-war bumper sticker, "foot print of the American chicken."

Listen you want to talk about posting facts and links being a good thing, great I don't disagree I do so myself, furthermore Ive agreed with many of the points made in links posted by people like vermillion and he continued to post them as if I was saying something totally opposite, and as he continued to post them I continued to say yes I agree with much of this, I think what distresses you is nobody against the war will ever find a link that shows proof this war can not be won, and I mean nobody. You will find all sorts of reasons why this whole debacle has gone sour under poor leadership, you will find links giving reasons why so many things have gotten worse, and you know what I'll do nothing but agree and acknowledge much of the evidence presented. But you wont find anything beyond peoples opinions that suggest there is no way to win this war. Ive seen senators, governors, and pentagon officials stand up and say that this war cant be won, Ive also seen equally honorable people stand up and say just the opposite so that in conclusion is an opinion!! Everyone in this room who has followed this war darn well knows that it is highly controversial, nothing is for certain, and that there are many people saying many things, so whats the truth beyond the obvious fact that we don't know for sure if this war can be won, and we wont know unless we try??

Vermillion, has presented creditable links and that I'm not doubting, in fact like Ive already said much of the stuff I agree with, and have seen before, but he himself lost credibility with me by doing something nobody has done here to this extent and thats put words in my mouth and get caught liying, or take something I say and rerepresent it through his eyes, with his own spin. I exposed him do this many times, Can he, or even you for that matter find anywhere on this site where I for example said there was a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein like he claimed I said?? The answer is No, because it was a lie pure and simple but by all means make me look silly right now by quoting me saying that and telling us the page its on and then I'll admit I'm making stuff up. He put words like that in my mouth so personally I don't care how long he has been here, I don't play child's games like that so he barked up the wrong tree, and you know what that shows me?? It shows me he has no credibility despite any link he shows, because at least some degree of spin can be expected with anything he says so his links and words have no value to me, I'm tired of bickering with him and I'm about a hop skip and a jump away from reporting this nonsense, just let him keep it up, because his lying is a waste of my time. He might just get away with this little game of his supposing I had a 24 hour memory and couldn't remember things I have said and didn't say and if that what he guessed, he guessed wrong.

As far as questions you have asked there were some decent ones, but many I have already answered like this one..........

How Al-Quaida would be worse off by us STAYING in Iraq. Or how they would be better by us leaving. OR how Al-Quaida is the main enemy in Iraq even.

Ive already commented on this in detail, I said what I thought would happen in Iraq if we retreat ASAP and thats an increase of violence throughout the region, but if your asking is AQ our main enemy in Iraq? AQ is our main enemy period, and should be our main focus, other sectarian violence is strong however and in terms of whats causing more damage in Iraq its been obvious that sectarian violence is greater in terms of the damage its caused there but the U.S and Iraqi forces is all that stands between what we see now and the all out collapse of the entire area. This Is why we need to aid them until they can beat this on their own, but its going to take patience and our doing more to have them meet benchmarks so we can get out of their and focus entirely on Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

I may not be able to tell you step by step how to win this war, I'm not a leader or general, I'm wanting to know the same things you do in fact. I'm looking for a strong leader with answers that lead us to a win, rather than answers that leave us with more questions like the answers we hear from the democrats and Ron Paul. Answers that in other words say to hell with the whole area we are getting out ASAP. All that does is lead me with more questions. I have confidence we can win here or at least leave on level grounds with Iraq under the right leadership. Good leadership by bush would have been increasing our ground forces 5 years ago so we wouldn't be in the situation we are in now for example, We need a leader that will prepare his country to fight a war effectively rather than barely cutting it.

Look, I appreciate your wish: we all 'wanna win.' And most of us, heck, all of us, if we had any idea on the table that might lead to a 'win,' would take it.

But win-lose is a really simplistic way of looking at this conflict, which isn't even a war between us against them: its us against 'them against them.' And as we wait for a miracle strategy that doesn't seem to exist, more soldiers are dying and Americas popularity around the world is wilting.

For a hundred years this country has led through soft-power, moral superiority and a commitment to freedom, at least ostensibly. He was a show-off, but 20 years ago Reagan highlighted that reality when he told the USSR to tear down the Berlin Wall. JFK and his vice-prez made civil rights happen, in large part to keep up our image as an enlightened superpower. We democrats sold the south to the GOP, in part to improve our worldwide rep.

And man did that cost us. Look who's in the White House.

What I am saying is that this war cannot go on. We may win Iraq, in some hard to imagine scenario, but we've lost the world because of it. In Africa-- the most pro-American continent in existence -- the Muslim population has turned starkly against us. You can't imagine the trouble peace corp volunteers are getting into because Americans have grown despised in Muslim parts of the developing world. Jimmy Carter can't eradicate Guinea Worm because villagers are sporting Osama Bin Laden tee-shirts.

So when somebody says that 'political correctness' is weakening our ability to wage war, I explain this: we have ruled this world through a commitment to 'political correctness.' Liberalism lifted the US out of WWII and made us the great champion for freedom and decolonialization-- at least on paper -- that we became. If we were just the nation that firebombed Tokoyo and destroyed Nagasaki, we wouldn't be America. We are the nation that did the Marshall Plan and the Berlin Airlift. We pumped money into developing South Korea. We stood apart from the heinous acts of European powers. People looked to us to lead a more liberated, tolerant world. Unfortunately, we are now occupying a nation, like Vietnam, that doesn't want our Marshall Plan. So I don't know how you 'win' this war. and the more we wait for a president strident enough to get in there and take names, the worse off we seem.

I want a president willing to apologize to the Iraqi people for the innocent lives our war has taken. I want a president willing to fund a department to publish the names of every person identified as 'collateral damage.' I want a president who can greet a crowd with 'salaam alaiku' without facing charges of being a terrorist back home. I want a tolerant president willing to lead us into a more tolerant world by example.

I realize our enemies would never be so kind; but we are not our enemies. We are the 'politically correct' nation that brought the world modern democracy, decolonization and a commitment to human rights. Or at least, we should strive to be that nation. Firebombing capitals and taking names is a means, not an ends. And in Iraq, as in Vietnam, there is just so little that brute force can accomplish.

Just a couple of questions net2007.

1. Are you suggesting that Bush has not provided stellar leadeship.

2. His country? What if, by chanced, our next leader ends up wearing a skirt and I'm not thinking about Condi Rice, either?

'BoF'




Yes thats what I'm saying, You will however catch me defend him for many things though. Like I said I don't think he is a liar like so many others do, I don't think he ever wanted anything but to win this war, there is a lot of loyalty to keeping his word on trying to finish this war despite the hits he has taken for his position, unfortunately he just seems slow or something to me, and he is terrible at communication with Americans and Iraqis, if you going to fight a war I say it helps to be up front with the public and make serious efforts to make sure your country is on the same page with you. When half the country thinks your an EDIT there is obviously a problem. I don't think that but every time he is criticized by anyone he brushes it off and doesn't address these things directly and all thats done is further lower his popularity. Honestly we have seen this war fought under the leadership of a republican that is far from being a shining example of a great republican leader.



Well we are in some serious trouble because this can only mean one of two things, Hillery Clinton is president, or we have a cross dresser up their somewhere, lol I think she is a fake personally that has flip flopped on issues like this war, and has cleverly taken the middle ground recently in terms of things she is saying, like for example last week she said that we are safer now that we were five years ago, but all it takes for anyone to know she doesn't believe that deep down is to look at video of her before she started campaigning and hear some of the extreme viewpoints she took. What she is doing now is figuring she has the primary won, and moving on to appeal to swing voters and even right wing voters for down the road, she isn't stupid I'll give her that, but I've seen and heard enough of her pointing fingers to the right in the past as well as now, to know she is starting to play politics, personally Id rather see Edwards or Obama win if I had to choose because at least with them you get what you see, democrats acting like democrats. She is obviously getting more casual and cautious with her phrasing but that doesn't stop her from blaming the right for just about everything, I know the mistakes this administration has made so like I've said before I don't want to hear about all thats gone wrong, most of us already know these things, I'm just wanting someone to stand up there and tell me what they are going to do about it, I'm tired of the finger pointing. She wants to accept defeat in Iraq as soon as possible despite the situation, fine, whatever. I see it as the easy way out as well as the easiest way to gain footing in a campaign.

drewyorktimes


Well I don't know about us being lead through soft-power, Along with being a country of liberators, we have shown force when necessary, WW1, WW2, Vietnam, and Desert Storm are all examples where extreme force was used, to win a war you usually need a good mix of military force and diplomacy and in this war we need more of both in my opinion. Words alone wont do it, just like military action alone wont do it.





Jimmy Carter can't do that because he is the Bush of the democratic party, lol, Seriously though the United States has been down before in times of war, sometimes a change in leadership can make all the difference, I say give this thing a chance to work under the leadership of someone else.