home

Dems to Push for Phased Troop Withdrawal

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 01:18:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit


The Democrats have been far from aligned on an exit strategy from Iraq. But they now seem to be agreeing that the troops should start coming home in four to six months.

The Democrats — the incoming majority leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada; the incoming Armed Services Committee chairman, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan; and the incoming Foreign Relations Committee chairman, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware — said a phased redeployment of troops would be their top priority when the new Congress convenes in January, even before an investigation of the conduct of the war.

“We need to begin a phased redeployment of forces from Iraq in four to six months,” Mr. Levin said in an appearance on the ABC News program “This Week.” In a telephone interview later, Mr. Levin added, “The point of this is to signal to the Iraqis that the open-ended commitment is over and that they are going to have to solve their own problems.”

I'll agree, this needs to be a top priority. And how out of touch is John McCain, who on Meet the Press Sunday morning, said we need to stay the course and send more troops?

< The New Breed: Tester Creates A New Dem Narrative | The Irrelevance of Joe Lieberman >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Dems to Push for Phased Troop Withdrawal | 45 comments (45 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Cut and run (none / 0) (#1)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 06:49:05 AM EST
    Ah, now we see the cut an run.

    And that is what defining when you leave is.

    Retreat. Defeat.

    What is your plan? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 07:59:23 AM EST
     The plan to redeploy that Biden and presumably Levin are talking about is redeploying, but staying in the area to return if necessary.

    What is YOUR plan? Other than yelling Democrats want to cut and run. Other than saying Democrats don't have a plan, other than droning on and on how things will be worse if we leave- something you cannot know or prove. What is your plan? And since you believe it is best for us to stay, why aren't you there?

    Do you intend for Iraq to become the 51st state? Do you think we should occupy it forever? If not, how long should we occupy it. How many US lives are worth it?

    What is your plan? What is George W. Bush's plan?

    Parent

    Defining defeat (none / 0) (#8)
    by Al on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 08:41:24 AM EST
    So the people who want the troops to come home and stop dying for no reason, are responsible for the "defeat". How convenient. Forget the four years and counting of mayhem and destruction achieving absolutely nothing. Forget the incompetence of those who were just recently talking of an American empire. Forget all the blood that has been shed in the name of greed. Focus on those who say enough is enough, and blame them for everything.

    Parent
    I left Vietnam on the very last Hercules... (none / 0) (#16)
    by Bill Arnett on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 12:29:50 PM EST
    ...C130E to leave the runway in Saigon in April 1975. Everyone behind me came out on helicopters.

    I remember feeling that we had let down the people of Vietnam while we were loading planes with anywhere from 210-260 evacuees every twenty minutes depending on what kind of aircraft we had on the ground. We evacuated about a half a million people, but millions more were left behind pleading for our help.

    It was the saddest period of my life, and it still troubles me; haunts me.

    But what makes it worse is that we went right out on a limb with bush and his republican guard and not only repeated our arrogant mistake, but we performed in the worst manner possible because of our hubris.

    For three days after the start of the war I sat transfixed before the TV fervently praying that our government had not lied to us again, but after those three days passed and no WMDs were found, despite bush/cheney/rumsfeld/powell/rice assurances that they knew EXACTLY where they were hidden, I wept, literally, and told my wife of 33-years that my government had again made a mistake of historical proportion, and that no good would come of this war.

    Then the looting. The insurgency. Insufficient numbers of under-equipped troops. Now years of wasted effort, the destruction of our credibility, the breaking of our military, and the reducing of America to a paper-tiger, banana republic without the bananas.

    Let's get the hell out of there, for all we have done is reduce Iraq to a hell on earth, and our leaving is the only chance they will have to save their country.

    Sorry this was so long, but, as I said, I will be forever haunted by the sea of desperate faces we had to leave behind to face a hell of American creation.

    Tell us again, PPJ, why we should stay and upon what personal experience your decision is predicated.

    Parent

    The questions are... (none / 0) (#2)
    by jarober on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 07:03:02 AM EST
    Never mind how we got into Iraq, because that's now a history question.  The vast majority of current attacks are either:

    -- Shia attacks on Sunni
    -- Sunni attacks on Shia

    So let's posit a fast withdrawal (and yes, 6 months is fast).  Do you think that violence will lessen without us there?  The centuries long Shia/Sunni schism has existed far longer than the US. Second, if we leave, who do you think will fill the power vacuum?  Iran will certainly try, and will be emboldened to do so.  

    That's when things could get truly ugly.  The regional Sunni powers (Saudi Arabia and Egypt) are  not going to be happy with the idea of a Shia, Iran dominated Iraq - Saudi Arabia in particular will not like it.  That raises the very real possibility of regional war.  

    Meanwhile, don't forget the north.  With the US out, the Kurds will probably try to split themselves off.  That will lead to Turkey coming in, as the last thing they want is an independent Kurdistan on their border to give hope to their Kurds.

    Bottom line: you think it's a bloodbath now?  You haven't seen anything yet.  Without the US trying to keep the lid on, this will look like the 30 years war did in Europe, only with the very real dangers of a nuclear exchange in the mix.

    Two years down the road, I'm sure that the left will claim that the resulting chaos (and high oil prices that will come with that chaos) is all Bush's fault.  

    Re; Trying to evade responsibility (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 07:31:50 AM EST
    Two years down the road, I'm sure that the left will claim that the resulting chaos (and high oil prices that will come with that chaos) is all Bush's fault.

    You don't have two wait two years.

    The resulting chaos (and high oil prices that will come with that chaos) is all Bush's fault:

    it is probable that Iraq will splinter. Perhaps the Kurds will form a small country of their own, which likely won't last long, and the rest of Iraq will become one of the world's and Bush's worst nightmares.

    A client state of Iran. The definition of "failed state" depends on who'd defintion you use. I doubt Iran will consider it a failed state. The foreign policies of America and the power balance of the world will either shift and be accepted or, and I think this is more likely, we will fall into a cataclysmic world war.

    Thanks, George...

    Parent

    The available evidence is (none / 0) (#4)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 07:56:39 AM EST
    the violence hasn't lessened with our being there. There is chaos now, while we are there. The sectional attacks you describe occur now we are there. The plan to redeploy that Biden and presumably Levin are talking about is redeploying, but staying in the area to return if necessary. Other than "not invented here" syndrome on what evidence do you base your assertion that this is worse?

    What is YOUR plan? Other than yelling Democrats want to cut and run. Other than saying Democrats don't have a plan, other than droning on and on how things will be worse if we leave- something you cannot know or prove. What is your plan? And since you believe it is best for us to stay, why aren't you there?

    Do you intend for Iraq to become the 51st state? Do you think we should occupy it forever? If not, how long should we occupy it. How many US lives are worth it?

    Parent

    I am laughing so hard (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 09:00:31 AM EST
    You write:

    "redeploying, but staying in the area to return if necessary."

    And where would that be? Do you own a map? A globe? Turkey? Italy? Spain? SA?

    Please, I am laughing so hard my sides are hurting.

    Oh wait, I know! Okinawa! Gesh.

    You write:

    And since you believe it is best for us to stay, why aren't you there?

    I see you have joined the "you can't comment unless you have served" group. In my case I did 10 years in Naval Aviation, and am presently so old no one would take me. So I guess I have my ticket, eh?

    What's your excuse, Molly? Have you served? Perhaps you were with Kerry in Cambodia for Christmas in '68. ;-)

    If you pardon my laughter, it doesn't matter what "my" plan is, we have people in harms way who are there, and who are being attacked because the anti-war element of the Demo party was given the terrorists General Giap's plan.

    That was, is and will be the cause of our failure. The terrorists are now convinced that all they have to do is keep killing Americans and the Demos will cut and run. Congratulations.

    Now, what would my plan be?

    First, the Demo leadership would go on TV pledging support for the war in Iraq and the WOT.

    Bush would address a join session of Congress stating that we will not withdraw until Iraq can defend itself. Both sides of the isle should rise and give a standing ovation.

    He will also announce that if Iran continutes to support the terrorists in Iraq and Lebannon we will consider it an act of war and will attack without further notice.

    We would send an additional 150,000 troops, part of which will be to seal the border, part to run down and kill the terrorists.

    This, plus the united front presented to the terrorists in Iraq and through out the world would be a start at convincing them to change their goals. It would also reduce their ability to raise money, recruit and give strength to the Moslem moderates belief that we are viable and that we can beat the terrorists.

    Bloody, dirty, hateful and ten times more costly in lives than if the Left had supported the war.

    But that is the only choice we have left. Thanks, gang.

    Parent

    No laughing matter (none / 0) (#14)
    by Al on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 10:23:43 AM EST
    I'm surprised that even you would consider any of this a laughing matter. Your "plan" to continue to put the troops in harm's way like you have done for the past four years until "Iraq is ready to defend itself" is absurd, and you know it. There is already no Iraq. There are armed groups with different interests, like the Mahdi army, and they are perfectly capable of defending themselves, as they have shown. They are nasty, murderous, and totally without scruples. And you have proven to be completely incapable of doing anything about them.

    Your professed indignation at those who want the whole miserable affair to end is designed to hide your own incompetence. Nobody's buying it, PPJ.

    What is more, you don't give a damn about the troops. You are perfectly happy to have people die so that you can save face.

    Parent

    I believe we have some bases established (none / 0) (#17)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 12:40:11 PM EST
    a tad closer to Iraq than Okinowa.

    I gather you don't have a plan other than Democratic Party Bashing.  You don't have a serious point. Your plan appears to be to argue that Democrats have stabbed the nation in the back. The only plan I see from you is, Republicans fouled up now how do we blame the Democrats.

    What you have presented as a plan is a poltical stance, not a serious plan to get us out Iraq. Where would you get these 150,000 troops AND maintain our existing commitments? Apparantly you do plan on occupying the country indefinitely. Good luck with that.


    Parent

    You just don't get it... (none / 0) (#20)
    by Bill Arnett on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 12:52:51 PM EST
    ...and you certainly have no problem arrogating yourself to sole arbiter of all that is right or wrong - but I stated my reasons for feeling as I do above while you offer naught but derision, empty platitudes, and rethug "stay the course" nonsense.

    You were in for 10. In Vietnam? Ever under fire?

    The time to send sufficient troops passed long ago. Every general brave enough to speak up says there is no military solution, and yet you continue to advocate sacrificing our troops just as they did in Vietnam.

    I stated my reasons why we should get out from personal experience, and I think it is perfectly obvious that your "plan" is the one deserving all the laughter and derision that can be heaped upon it.

    Why do you hate our troops so much that you would sacrifice them to no end? Or is the oil THAT important to you?

    When it is impossible to achieve your military objectives you don't keep offering up troops as sitting duck targets embroiled in someone else's civil war.

    Didn't work in 'nam; won't work in Iraq.

    (And if you were half as informed as you fancy, you no doubt known that Osama cut loose that tape before the '04 elections because he knew that would insure the reelection of bush, whom he knew to be his greatest ally by fighting a lost cause and being too stupid to know when to quit. Makes ya proud of your president, eh, that everyone outside America recognizes him for the fool he is, but not you.)

    Parent

    let's see now............................. (none / 0) (#6)
    by cpinva on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 08:34:33 AM EST
    the bush administration had no plan, when it invaded iraq, other than toppling saddam. it has no plan now, to deal with what is effectively a civil war. there's no indication it has even the inklings of a plan, and our troops continue being killed and wounded for................what, exactly?

    so, spare me the "cut and run" BS. let's try, knowing when to fold, in a game you should never have anted into to begin with, certainly not without actually being prepared, for both the war and peace.

    that's what an intelligent person does, cuts their losses, instead of losing the house and family, in the unrealistic expectation that they're going to hit a winning streak. basic rule: the house always wins, in the long run.

    so jarober and jim, unless you've recently enlisted, you cut and ran nearly 4 years ago, you've just not the integrity to admit it.

    xx (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 09:33:40 AM EST
    cpinva - I believe I am correct that you were raised in a military family, but you have never served.

    I did.

    So knock off the BS about serving being necessary fo comment unless you are retiring your keyboard.

    And the Demos are the ones who have yelled retreat for the past six years. That they did so for political gain is disgusting because that is what they did. And it convinced the terrorists that all they had to do was wait.

    Parent

    Oh, PPJ, resorting to outright... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Bill Arnett on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 01:04:25 PM EST
    ...lies such as:

    And the Demos are the ones who have yelled retreat for the past six years. That they did so for political gain is disgusting because that is what they did. And it convinced the terrorists that all they had to do was wait.

    ...really should be beneath even you. How do you yell for retreat for six years over a war a little over three years old? How do you make political gains over something that didn't happen (and couldn't, given the time frame)?

    I am impressed with your telepathic ability to discern the thoughts and hopes of terrorists though. Have you thought of offering your services to the gov't as a physic with empathic abilities that allow you to know what every terrorist, everywhere, at all times is thinking, feeling, and that you can tell when they are convinced of all/any things?

    Don't be a buffoon. Statements like those you make here today reveal a deep-seated hatred towards fellow Americans that is very unbecoming. Or an arrogance that is REALLY ugly.

    Parent

    xx (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 04:22:27 PM EST
    Bill - I apologize for my lack of accuracy in math. I was think of Bush's term length when I should have been thinking of the war, which is about 5 months shy of 4 years.

    To the rest of your personal attack I can only say that it is typical, so I really don't feel singled out by it. In fact, I am pleased to have you define yourself so well.

    And yes, the Demos/Left were opposing the war from its start onward. Or have you forgotten the demonstrations?

    Parent

    Yeah we opposed it from the start (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 07:55:07 PM EST
    Cuz we knew it was bullsheeit then... and of course we were since proven tragically right.

    PPJ...your comedic relief isn't very comedic anymore.

    Parent

    Iraq isn't the only foreign policy issue (none / 0) (#7)
    by bernarda on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 08:35:03 AM EST
    Attention also has to be paid to Latin America. Now the Bush Boys want to bring back the death squads.

    "Concern about leftist victories in Latin America has prompted President Bush to quietly grant a waiver that allows the United States to resume training militaries from 11 Latin American and Caribbean countries.

    The administration hopes the training will forge links with countries in the region and blunt a leftward trend. Daniel Ortega, an adversary of the United States in the region during the 1980s, was elected president in Nicaragua this week. Bolivians chose another leftist, Evo Morales, last year."

    http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20061110/1a_bottomstrip10.art.htm

    If this continues we can also expect more military coups-d'états like in the old days.

    Cut and run in advance! (none / 0) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 09:35:45 AM EST
    Now, we wouldn't want to be training these folks from protecting themselves.

    I think your plan is "Cut and run in advance!"

    Parent

    And your plan is to make baseless... (none / 0) (#22)
    by Bill Arnett on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 01:12:09 PM EST
    ...assertions in an attempt to belittle the opinion of others.

    I'm really surprised at you today, PPJ. I know I can get cantankerous when my morphine screws with my head, especially this time of year when my dosage is tripled, but just what the hell is your problem?

    You were often entertaining before, now you're just mean as a snake with no obvious cause, other than rank, partisan ones. Are you well?

    Parent

    mean as a snake?? (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 04:33:44 PM EST
    Bill, the problems with your dosage levels are not within my view, and I hope you get them adjusted.

    But pointing out that criticizing the training of others so that they can protect themselves is "cut and run in advance" is hardly  being "mean as a snake."

    Actually many snakes will try and hold their ground when attacked, an attribute that the Demos/Left has not demonstrated a great deal of.

    Parent

    First sentence makes no sense ... (none / 0) (#37)
    by Al on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 04:55:30 PM EST
    ... but I guess you are implying that training Latin American so-called military thugs is for their self-protection. I guess you don't know much about Latin American history, but let me tell you not even the generals would claim that they were torturing and disappearing people in order to protect themselves. And this is what they learned to do at the infamous School of the Americas, which is what Bush apparently now wants to restart.

    Parent
    Protect them from? (none / 0) (#43)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 08:00:13 PM EST
    We are gonna form contra-style death squads to protect them from the governments they democratically elected?

    Did you misplace your meds again?

    Parent

    Plan... (none / 0) (#9)
    by jarober on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 08:42:22 AM EST
    My plan would be to not hand Iraq to the tender mercies of the Wahhabists to the west and the Shia madmen to the East.  At this point, I'd be interdicting arms shipments from Iran, and finding some way to get them to pay for helping create the violence.  

    Like I said, you think it's bad now?  After Murtha gets his way, it will be a few orders of magnitude worse.

    Plan? God*amn, where'd I put my plan?? ---Bush (none / 0) (#11)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 09:17:27 AM EST
    Right... what the hell is wrong with Murtha anyway? After he gets his way the Iraqi's are liable to stop throwing all those flowers at the troops that they've been throwing ever since BUSH invaded the country and liberated them, even if he had to kill a few hundred thousand of them to do it. It was for their own good after all, right?

    Parent
    Delusion (none / 0) (#18)
    by Al on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 12:42:52 PM EST
    You seem to be under the delusion that the US military are in a position to "hand" Iraq to anyone.

    Parent
    A hope is not a plan (none / 0) (#19)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 12:44:18 PM EST
    This is not a serious statement on your part. The dirty little GOP secret- replace the cold war with a "global war on terrorism" and if that doesn't work out, claim the Democrats stabbed us in the back.

    Its a win win  except for the dead and grieving.



    Parent

    xx (none / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 04:40:00 PM EST
    Molly - You asked for a plan.

    Parent
    And I reckon I will be (none / 0) (#40)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 07:09:47 PM EST
    waiting until the devil freezes.

    Parent
    things are worse in iraq under US rule (none / 0) (#15)
    by Sailor on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 11:02:26 AM EST
    Now, we wouldn't want to be training these folks from protecting themselves.
    After all the billions and all the training and the hundreds of thousands of troops and cops bushco says they've trained, there is more violence, less oil production, less watrer, less sewage treatment, fewer schools and clinics.

    We aren't the solution, we are the problem. Ask the world for help, restart the ME peace process, start talking to iran and syria.

    ppj and the very tiny minority who agree with him have no plan except 'stay the course' and 'we can't leave until we win', but they can't define winning.

    saddam gone - check.
    No WMDs - check.
    elections - check.
    iraqi gov't - check.
    iraqi constitution - check.

     The iraqis want us out, we want out, the rest of the ME wants us out, I'd say it's time to get out.

    Support the troops, bring them home alive.

    Reality (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 04:44:15 PM EST
    Sailor - Actually the comment was in reference to South America.

    I suggest you consult a world map.

    I also remind you that we are in Iraq because the world wouldn't help and that the world has been talking to Iran, with no results beyond slurs by Iran regarding the talks.

    But hey, why should you suddenly start to regard reality as a useful tool for decision making?

    Parent

    We are in Iraq because the world wouldn't help? (none / 0) (#38)
    by Al on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 04:56:52 PM EST
    To do what?

    Parent
    South America? (none / 0) (#45)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 08:10:04 PM EST
    Do you have any idea what we did down there? How many governments toppled, how many people tortured, disappeared?

    And you dare speak of terrorists?

    Oh I forgot, you believe in good terrorists and bad terrorists.

    Again. You are happy being part of the problem rather than the solution.

    Parent

    Iraq (none / 0) (#24)
    by k ols on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 02:28:37 PM EST
    I was going to call out the lie about 6 yrs. of cutting and running, but someone finally did.

    Besides that lie he also says he doesn't know where the troops would be pulled back to.  Kuwait is what has been discussed, not Okinawa for crying out loud.

    The reason al Maliki and the rest of the elected gang in Iraq are the only ones wanting us to stay is because they can't leave the Green Zone without U.S. protection.  Al Maliki also refuses to rid Iraq of the militias.  When we first invaded we declared militias illegal yet they still exist and now their own government refuses to get rid of them.  

    Iraq is so out of control that the only military options left are staying or leaving.  A political solution is the only possibility.  Why keep letting our troops go on dying and suffering horrible wounds for no reason.

    Wake up!  We don't have enough troops or money to sustain this war.  We will be forced to institute a draft and all those 101st keyboarders and others who won't serve should be the first to go since they love this needless killing.

    The world has a plan to bring the U.S. to its knees and it's working.  They are doing what we did to the Soviets, allowing us to drain our resources to weaken us as a nation.  

    Our country is bankrupt thanks to our idiot President and his Republican Congress.  When the Asians stop buying our treasury bonds we are done.  The word is they are damned near close to doing that.  

    Meanwhile, the Chinese are investing all that U.S. trade deficit money into building up their shiny new military.  All while continuing to extend us credit so our money goes to paying the interest on that credit and paying all the borrowed funds back.  We are funding the Chinese military and they are NOT an ally.

    The first U.S. death in Iraq was needless and so will the last be.  Meanwhile the Iraqi civilians are suffering without services and the deaths and maiming of their population.

    I suspect that al Sadr will end up the ruler of Iraq one way or another.

    Keep in mind that Iraq is the only ME country with a predominant Shia population.  All the others are predominantly Sunni.  They will not like a Shia Iraq sitting on their borders.

    Iran is a shi'a country. (none / 0) (#25)
    by Gabriel Malor on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 02:47:40 PM EST
    Iran is also a shi'a country. There is great concern that these two shi'a powers would dominate the rest of the Middle East.

    Parent
    Very well stated, but... (none / 0) (#27)
    by Bill Arnett on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 02:49:11 PM EST
    ...Iran is predominantly Shia, I believe, which is why bush wants to attack them instead of allowing them to link up with the Shias in Iraq.

    Of course, al-Maliki has already formed a mutual defense pact with Iran and promised to aid them in the event they are attacked, so we not only turned Iraq over to the Shias, but to the Iranians as well.

    And ain't it gonna be a hoot if we attack Iran only to find ourselves fighting an Iraq equipped, trained, supplied with weapons technology, and several hundred thousand very well-trained and equipped Iranian Revolutionary Guards?

    Parent

    a hoot (none / 0) (#29)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 02:58:11 PM EST
    And ain't it gonna be a hoot if we attack Iran only to find ourselves fighting an Iraq equipped, trained, supplied with with US weapons?

    Yeah. Yuk, yuk, yuk. Funny as hell.

    Thanks, George.

    Parent

    Enought with hte have you served question? (none / 0) (#26)
    by Slado on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 02:48:17 PM EST
    Can we get off the "have you served" questions?

    Nobody asks anyone if they've served when they talk about Afghanistan so why is it a prudent question about Iraq?  

    I didn't serve and I support the war in Afghanistat am I a chicken hawk?   Is Bush?  Cheney?

    Hilliary supported the war and she didn't serve.  Clinton supported the war in Bosnia and we know he didn't serve?   Are they any less credible?

    People who've served both support and are against the war and people who haven't served both support and are against the war.

    What about the people who have served and support the war?

    Using this logic no one should be against the war if they haven't served because McCain spent years in a prison camp and he wants to send more troops.   How dare you criticize him, you didn't serve.

    The only pertinence of the... (none / 0) (#30)
    by Bill Arnett on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 03:02:23 PM EST
    ...question is this: Yes, well-meaning people, whether they have served or not, will and do disagree about the war.

    All having served does is provide you with a different perspective based on having fought in a war or not. It changes you, war does, to different degrees in different people.

    Were the subject here Indy 500 race car engines and you were the head of the pit crew for the reigning champion, I would tend to lean more towards your opinion of what makes a car go than my neighborhood shadetree mechanic.

    It wouldn't make you neccessarily smarter, but your perspective from experience would differ, probably significantly, maybe not, but it would be considered.

    Whether a person served or not makes no difference to me other than SOMETIMES it can give you a bit more insight into the person or their opinion.

    I don't recall anyone here denigrating anyone else for NOT having served, so if the question is irrelevant to you, don't answer it. Someone else may find it relevant and respond.

    Either way, don't they say that there are no stupid questions, only stupid answers? And was this answer stupid enough for you? ;>}} Peace.

    Parent

    And further more... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Slado on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 02:53:46 PM EST
    Dems can forget a withdrawl in 6 months.

    Bush isn't going to go for it and if they try using tricks like defunding the war he'll call them on it.   He's still the president you know.    

    They'd be smart to work with him and get the issue off the table by 2008 so they can get a president elected and keep their majority.  

    If they try to defund the war with Bush in the Whitehouse and it blows up you can bet they'll get beaten over the head with it in 2008.    They can't simply just yell Iraq sucks anymore.   Now they have a hand in the outcome and if they don't try to act like they want to win they'll pay a political price.  Election 2008 is only 706 days away after all.

    I don't think you are aware... (none / 0) (#31)
    by Bill Arnett on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 03:18:24 PM EST
    ...of the jeopardy in which bush has placed America and it's military from sheer malfeasance and mismanagement of the war.

    America is now a paper tiger. If we were attacked we would be virtually defenseless without the use of nuclear weapons. We don't have enough troops, period, not just insufficient numbers in Iraq, insufficient numbers, period.

    The troops we have now are NOT as well-trained as those we had before the war because of the drastic lowering of standards, lack of equipment with which to train, the near insufferable strain of multiple tours in a war zone (this is another area where military experience makes a difference in perceptions. I don't care what occupation you pursue there's nothing like living in a war zone, always on alert, always fatigued, always facing life and death situations and decisions, to wear a man or woman down to their last fiber.), lack of planning, refusal to acknowledge an obvious civil war, and for many other reasons.

    bush has broken our military, and if he's stupid enough to attack Iran we will suffer a humiliating COMBAT DEFEAT and place America in more danger than ever before.

    This isn't a matter of lacking the WILL to win, it has become a matter of not having the ABILITY TO WIN.

    Big difference.

    Parent

    Creditability (none / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 04:47:35 PM EST
    Actually Wakter I have never posted that we should stay the course, although that is a better plan that running away with our tails between our legs..

    ....and that is exactly how the terrorists world wide will see it...

    .....and that us exactly how the "moderate" Moslems will see it.

    Can you spell "creditability," Walter??

    And do you understand the need for same??

    Performance ok but not special so not believable (none / 0) (#39)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 07:08:37 PM EST
    credibility

    noun
    the quality of being trusted and believed in : the government's loss of credibility.

    • the quality of being convincing or believable : the book's anecdotes have scant regard for credibility.
    • another term for street credibility .
    ORIGIN mid 16th cent.: from medieval Latin credibilitas, from Latin credibilis (see credible ).

    Thesaurus

    credibility
    noun
    1 the whole tale lacks credibility plausibility, believability, tenability, probability, feasibility, likelihood, credence; authority, cogency.
    2 does he possess the moral credibility the party is looking for? trustworthiness, reliability, dependability, integrity; reputation, status.

    creditability

    adjective
    (of a performance, effort, or action) deserving public acknowledgment and praise but not necessarily outstanding or successful : a very creditable 2-4 defeat. See note at believable .



    Parent

    I didn't realize (none / 0) (#41)
    by Che's Lounge on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 07:42:58 PM EST
     the left had so much power. We brought down the US military in Vietnam and Iraq...

    ...according to Jim, who basically calls the entire anti-war movement a bunch of traitors based upon one paragraph from one book written 20 years ago by one enemy general.

    How ironic. When we demonstrate by the millions, we are a focus group. But when Bush's plan (?) goes bad, suddenly we are the most influential seditious powerhouse on the face of the planet, having "successfully" opposed the US military in Vietnam and Iraq.

    It's all our fault.

    But you all forget about the oil. There is NO WAY we are leaving all that oil to the Iraqis.

    NO WAY.

    forget about the oil - IT'S THE IRONY that counts (none / 0) (#44)
    by Edger on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 08:07:59 PM EST
    Iraq, China To Revive 1997 Oil Deal, 28 October 2006
    BEIJING (AP) - China and Iraq are reviving a 1997 deal worth $1.2 billion signed by Beijing and Saddam Hussein's government to develop an Iraqi oil field, Baghdad's oil minister said Saturday.
    ...
    Beijing had been thought to be out of the running for major contracts in postwar Iraq, with the best deals going to the United States and its allies. But the upsurge in violence there has made the country less attractive to Western producers.
    ...
    Iraq will need up to $20 billion in investment to develop its oil infrastructure, the minister said.

    more here...

    Parent
    gee, i wasn't aware (none / 0) (#46)
    by cpinva on Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 09:32:49 PM EST
    one needed personal military service, to recognize a loser. interesting though jim, you don't argue the actual facts: there were no wmd's, there was no plan when we invaded, there is no plan now, there doesn't appear to be a plan for the future.

    in fact, the architects of the invasion of iraq went out of their way to ignore the experts in the military, so apparently they didn't feel that prior experience was a requirement either.

    i don't need to be an automobile company executive to know when a car isn't a success: the fact that it's not selling is blinding in its obviousness. that iraq has degenerated into civil war, and we have no plan, or sufficient troops in place, to stop it is equally glaring.

    iraq wasn't a part of the "war on terrorism" until after we invaded, making it open jihad season for all the region's nutcases, who came pouring in through iraq's now unguarded borders.

    again jim, what's your plan, that won't cost thousands more lives, and has a reasonable chance of producing a stable, democratic iraq?

    Dems to Push for Phased Troop Withdrawal | 45 comments (45 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment