More Cut'n run news from the Democrats

[PurrSuede 0]

Here we go again? At least your helpin me out with more posts. Thanks!

Happy to help... almost anyone with a brain can see there was no intelligent PLAN from the start of this war, and that the current administration obviously doesn't have an intelligent PLAN to try to end it either...

from start to finish... somehow it doesn't surprise me, we're in a quagmire... with the death toll mounting daily with NO END in sight...

If you want to fight a war on terror, then let's go fight one. The Iraqi SNAFU is doing nothing except simply creating more terrorists and civil war.

Now that's a "Plan" to fight the "war on terror"???

You tell me who's winning.. the White House spokesman can't even define "winning" for us.

Some plan, indeed.

[Carol&Marc 0]

No, I remember those same plans VERY well, except then we called that country Viet Nam... perhaps you might have heard of it...

And no, we weren't called "left wing" if we disagreed with that, in those days... we were called more interesting things like "pinko radical commie hippie subversive freaks..."

Of course, some of us actually defended our country with war-time service... did you?? How many of your high-school friends did YOU lose in 'Nam??? How many of your friends and generation came home in a body-bag or missing limbs or...

Of course, it turns out we were right then.... how many soldiers died -then- in a useless war, and you'd think we'd have learned our lesson??

Sorry if you find useless deaths to be "left-wing" propaganda... when someone is dead I think they are beyond an agenda of any sorts...

I was only 10 during the Viet nam war! Are some wars better than others ? of course not! All WARS are the same in the context that people DIE! Innocent and guilty. If you served, I say thank you. Serving your nation in noway gives you a monopoly on PRIDE of COUNTRY! (John Kerry?)

[PurrSuede 0]

Pssst. 'Cut and run' probably refers to a graduated pullout over two or three years. 'Cut and run' is a propaganda label. Normal people would refer to it as an exit strategy, something that any warlike undertaking should have had from the beginning.

The alternative seems to consist mostly of doing the same thing over and over again and hoping that maybe this time the results will change. Stay the course, stay the course, because you know, the last 1000 times we ran into the wall, I'm sure it'll be different this time.

Kinda of like the same way any time anyone disagrees with "stay the course, stay the course", all they can do is yell "cut and run! cut and run!" and never mount any intelligent debate over the subject, just mutter slogans and their fervent belief in jingoism

No, I remember those same plans VERY well, except then we called that country Viet Nam... perhaps you might have heard of it...

And no, we weren't called "left wing" if we disagreed with that, in those days... we were called more interesting things like "pinko radical commie hippie subversive freaks..."

Of course, some of us actually defended our country with war-time service... did you?? How many of your high-school friends did YOU lose in 'Nam??? How many of your friends and generation came home in a body-bag or missing limbs or...

Of course, it turns out we were right then.... how many soldiers died -then- in a useless war, and you'd think we'd have learned our lesson??

Sorry if you find useless deaths to be "left-wing" propaganda... when someone is dead I think they are beyond an agenda of any sorts...

I was only 10 during the Viet nam war! Are some wars better than others ? of course not! All WARS are the same in the context that people DIE! Innocent and guilty. If you served, I say thank you. Serving your nation in noway gives you a monopoly on PRIDE of COUNTRY! (John Kerry?)

You are welcome.... and nor do I claim a monopoly on Pride of Country. But it does refute your claim:

If you got a desk you might want to hide under it! Or are you to young to know what that means?

As I said... we had a "plan" then... through many presidents... and eventually the plan consisted of a "holy sh|t! let's just get the cr*p out of there" full-blown evacuation, if you can call that a "plan".

Remember?? The scenes of the last helicopter leaving Saigon??

That's could very well be what is going to happen in Iraq if we don't actually MAKE a frickin' PLAN to get the FRAK out of there intelligently, sanely and as orderly as possible.

I don't CLAIM that ~I~ have the plan... but I do claim that the "stay-the-course" plan has NOT been successful and the American people would like to see a change in our so called "plans" or is that NOT why Rumsfeld was dismissed, hmmmmmmmm???

For a CHANGE in "Plans", perhaps???

Edited November 15, 2006 by PurrSuede

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I think I've posted the Biden-Gelb plan at least 2 different times in response to the continuous empty rhetoric and mischaracterization of those are against 'staying the course'.

Go on (Kaydee, Marc, Gary)...keep frothing at the mouth about how anyone who talks about troop withdrawal is showing the enemy that we're cowards.

[~Jess~ 0]

dont have the energy to argue my point but ill just stick it out here that america needs to pull out of iraq too many innocent lives are being taken. yea so when they enlisted they enlisted at war time, but comeeee on this war will never be won completely

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

"Iraq Is Not Winnable" - INTERVIEW WITH RICHARD HAASS

SPIEGEL: Is Iraq still winnable for the United States?

Haass: We've reached a point in Iraq where we've got to get real. And this is not going to be a near-term success for American foreign policy. The Iraq situation is not winnable in any meaningful sense of the word "winnable." So what we need to do now is look for a way to limit the losses and costs, try to advance on other fronts in the region and try to limit the fallout of Iraq. That's what you have to do sometimes when you're a global power.

SPIEGEL: A special commission headed by former Secretary of State James Baker will soon present a study on how to go forward in Iraq. Will this be the excuse for Bush to withdraw the troops?

Haass: The commission gives him something of an opportunity to change course. Historically, commissions have often played an important role when the traditional body politic was unable or unwilling to come up with politically controversial but necessary proposals. We see a tipping point not only on the ground in Iraq but also in the political debate in the United States. I believe more and more people in and around the administration are coming to the conclusion that six or nine more months of the same will not bring us anywhere.

The long and short of it is: We're outta there. The days are counted. It's just a matter of the Baker commission making the recommendation and Bush acting on it. Then I'd like to hear you guys scream what a wuzzy W is...

[Carol&Marc 0]

Okay let's just get outta there! Like thats gonna make things all better? My god! Then what? I guess it will be HIDE, WAIT,HOPE,PRAY. I hear alot about bailing out but nothing about an alternative plan on how to deal with these whacko's. Well to everyone that wants us out of Iraq I pose this question, Whats the plan? If any of you think the killing will stop.At best thats wishful thinking. The killing will slow down but when it does happen it will be in bulk and on our soil!

Repost

Edited November 15, 2006 by Carol&Marc

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Okay let's just get outta there! Like thats gonna make things all better? My god! Then what? I guess it will be HIDE, WAIT,HOPE,PRAY. I hear alot about bailing out but nothing about an alternative plan on how to deal with these whacko's. Well to everyone that wants us out of Iraq I pose this question, Whats the plan? If any of you think the killing will stop.At best thats wishful thinking. The killing will slow down but when it does happen it will be in bulk and on our soil!

Repost

...apparantly you missed this.

A Plan to Hold Iraq Together

By Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Four months ago, in an opinion piece with Les Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, I laid out a detailed plan to keep Iraq together, protect America's interests and bring our troops home. Many experts here and in Iraq embraced our ideas. Since then, circumstances in Iraq have made the plan even more on target -- and urgent -- than when we first proposed it.

The new, central reality in Iraq is that violence between Shiites and Sunnis has surpassed the insurgency and foreign terrorists as the main security threat. Our leading civilian and military experts on Iraq -- Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and Gens. George Casey, Peter Pace and John Abizaid -- have all acknowledged that fact.

In December's elections, 90 percent of the votes went to sectarian lists. Ethnic militias increasingly are the law in Iraq. They have infiltrated the official security forces. Sectarian cleansing has begun in mixed areas, with 200,000 Iraqis fleeing their homes in recent months for fear of sectarian reprisals. Massive unemployment feeds the ranks of sectarian militias and criminal gangs.

No number of troops can solve this problem. The only way to hold Iraq together and create the conditions for our armed forces to responsibly withdraw is to give Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds incentives to pursue their interests peacefully and to forge a sustainable political settlement. Unfortunately, this administration does not have a coherent plan or any discernible strategy for success in Iraq. Its strategy is to prevent defeat and hand the problem off when it leaves office.

Meanwhile, more and more Americans, understandably frustrated, support an immediate withdrawal, even at the risk of trading a dictator for chaos and a civil war that could become a regional war.

Both are bad alternatives. The five-point plan Les Gelb and I laid out offers a better way.

First, the plan calls for maintaining a unified Iraq by decentralizing it and giving Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis their own regions. The central government would be left in charge of common interests, such as border security and the distribution of oil revenue.

Second, it would bind the Sunnis to the deal by guaranteeing them a proportionate share of oil revenue. Each group would have an incentive to maximize oil production, making oil the glue that binds the country together.

Third, the plan would create a massive jobs program while increasing reconstruction aid -- especially from the oil-rich Gulf states -- but tying it to the protection of minority rights.

Fourth, it would convene an international conference that would produce a regional nonaggression pact and create a Contact Group to enforce regional commitments.

Fifth, it would begin the phased redeployment of U.S. forces this year and withdraw most of them by the end of 2007, while maintaining a small follow-on force to keep the neighbors honest and to strike any concentration of terrorists.

This plan is consistent with Iraq's constitution, which already provides for the country's 18 provinces to join together in regions, with their own security forces and control over most day-to-day issues. This plan is the only idea on the table for dealing with the militias, which are likely to retreat to their respective regions instead of engaging in acts of violence. This plan is consistent with a strong central government that has clearly defined responsibilities. Indeed, it provides an agenda for that government, whose mere existence will not end sectarian violence. This plan is not partition -- in fact, it may be the only way to prevent violent partition and preserve a unified Iraq.

To be sure, this plan presents real challenges, especially with regard to large cities with mixed populations. We would maintain Baghdad as a federal city, belonging to no one region. And we would require international peacekeepers for other mixed cities to support local security forces and further protect minorities. The example of Bosnia is illustrative, if not totally analogous. Ten years ago, Bosnia was being torn apart by ethnic cleansing. The United States stepped in decisively with the Dayton Accords to keep the country whole by, paradoxically, dividing it into ethnic federations. We even allowed Muslims, Croats and Serbs to retain separate armies. With the help of U.S. troops and others, Bosnians have lived a decade in peace. Now they are strengthening their central government and disbanding their separate armies.

At best, the course we're on has no end in sight. At worst, it leads to a terrible civil war and possibly a regional war. This plan offers a way to bring our troops home, protect our security interests and preserve Iraq as a unified country. Those who reject this plan out of hand must answer one simple question: What is your alternative?

The writer is a senator from Delaware and the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Okay let's just get outta there! Like thats gonna make things all better? My god!

Maybe staying there is not making anything better, either. That's what Haass suggests (see above). If that is true, then what's the point of staying? More lives lost for nothing at all. Is that what you'd like to see?

[Carol&Marc 0]

ARTICLE QUOTE:

To be sure, this plan presents real challenges, especially with regard to large cities with mixed populations. We would maintain Baghdad as a federal city, belonging to no one region.

I see lots of difficulties ahead with this, Baghdad is the worst place in the whole country. To DECLARE it a federal city is a bit ridiculous! you can declare it anything you want but to make it as such will be as big a hurdle as it is now. I dont think some really understand that alot of these insurgents,terrorists,hell raisers what ever you want to call them are HELLBENT on mayhem and chaos.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

ARTICLE QUOTE:

To be sure, this plan presents real challenges, especially with regard to large cities with mixed populations. We would maintain Baghdad as a federal city, belonging to no one region.

I see lots of difficulties ahead with this, Baghdad is the worst place in the whole country. To DECLARE it a federal city is a bit ridiculous! you can declare it anything you want but to make it as such will be as big a hurdle as it is now. I dont think some really understand that alot of these insurgents,terrorists,hell raisers what ever you want to call them are HELLBENT on mayhem and chaos.

Incidentally - that there, applied to Jerusalem would have done a lot to prevent much of the bloodshed between Palestine and Israel.

[Carol&Marc 0]

ARTICLE QUOTE:

To be sure, this plan presents real challenges, especially with regard to large cities with mixed populations. We would maintain Baghdad as a federal city, belonging to no one region.

I see lots of difficulties ahead with this, Baghdad is the worst place in the whole country. To DECLARE it a federal city is a bit ridiculous! you can declare it anything you want but to make it as such will be as big a hurdle as it is now. I dont think some really understand that alot of these insurgents,terrorists,hell raisers what ever you want to call them are HELLBENT on mayhem and chaos.

Incidentally - that there, applied to Jerusalem would have done a lot to prevent much of the bloodshed between Palestine and Israel.

Remember the 10k Saddam was paying? PER HEAD? .........Selective memory?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

ARTICLE QUOTE:

To be sure, this plan presents real challenges, especially with regard to large cities with mixed populations. We would maintain Baghdad as a federal city, belonging to no one region.

I see lots of difficulties ahead with this, Baghdad is the worst place in the whole country. To DECLARE it a federal city is a bit ridiculous! you can declare it anything you want but to make it as such will be as big a hurdle as it is now. I dont think some really understand that alot of these insurgents,terrorists,hell raisers what ever you want to call them are HELLBENT on mayhem and chaos.

Incidentally - that there, applied to Jerusalem would have done a lot to prevent much of the bloodshed between Palestine and Israel.

Remember the 10k Saddam was paying? PER HEAD? .........Selective memory?

Not really - I suggested that if Jerusalem had been designated an international city back when the state of Israel was formed, it would probably have done a lot to alleviate the tensions between those two peoples.

Sorry if that wasn't clear.

[Carol&Marc 0]

ARTICLE QUOTE:

To be sure, this plan presents real challenges, especially with regard to large cities with mixed populations. We would maintain Baghdad as a federal city, belonging to no one region.

I see lots of difficulties ahead with this, Baghdad is the worst place in the whole country. To DECLARE it a federal city is a bit ridiculous! you can declare it anything you want but to make it as such will be as big a hurdle as it is now. I dont think some really understand that alot of these insurgents,terrorists,hell raisers what ever you want to call them are HELLBENT on mayhem and chaos.

Incidentally - that there, applied to Jerusalem would have done a lot to prevent much of the bloodshed between Palestine and Israel.

Remember the 10k Saddam was paying? PER HEAD? .........Selective memory?

Not really - I suggested that if Jerusalem had been designated an international city back when the state of Israel was formed, it would probably have done a lot to alleviate the tensions between those two peoples.

Sorry if that wasn't clear.

It's just that lots of people look at it as black and white. It is not at all that way, if we bail ? BAD! If we STAY BAD! The people of Iraq have no concept of DEMOCRACY.(ITS NEW TO THEM) The idea was to give them a TASTE of it, and how it WORKS! It's very odd that SOME HERE just want to give up on these POOR folks. When was the last time any of YOU got anything in your life that was worth while with out a fight. We are giving the Iraqis a chance to take CONTROL of their DESTINY.Granted they need to fight for themselves and take CONTROL! It is sooooo new to them!Our guys and Ladies there are doin what they need to do!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's just that lots of people look at it as black and white. It is not at all that way, if we bail ? BAD! If we STAY BAD! The people of Iraq have no concept of DEMOCRACY.(ITS NEW TO THEM) The idea was to give them a TASTE of it, and how it WORKS! It's very odd that SOME HERE just want to give up on these POOR folks. When was the last time any of YOU got anything in your life that was worth while with out a fight. We are giving the Iraqis a chance to take CONTROL of their DESTINY.Granted they need to fight for themselves and take CONTROL! It is sooooo new to them!Our guys and Ladies there are doin what they need to do!

Sounds great except Iraq was never about liberating the Iraqis, and you surely should know that having sat through weeks worth of news reports about WMD and imminent threat. Unless of course you were watching something else.

And BTW - its a little questionable to 'guilt trip' people who object to the war with the humanitarian argument - something this war was never really about.

From the other thread

I see you don't worry about a GIGANTIC NUMBER OF FOREIGN DEATHS as long as Saddam Hussein commits them, Your LOVE and CARING is truly..........................VACANT and HYPOCRITICAL!

As I said yesterday, I don't see you involved in a street march against African genocide. That says to me that your "moral high horse" extends to Iraq (and Iraqis) ONLY as far as it justifies your clearly partisan loyalties.