Adam Posted September 22, 2004 Posted September 22, 2004 Just restore them to being a military state with someone other than Saddam as their leader- that will allow them to protect t hemselves from the insurgents, and allow us to leave. Amazing that neither Kerry nor Bush can come up with such a solution, maybe instead of checking into their military backgrounds, we should check into their academic backgrounds, as I'm quite sure a number of skeletons would pop up in their closets.
jimshiz Posted September 22, 2004 Posted September 22, 2004 Just restore them to being a military state with someone other than Saddam as their leader- that will allow them to protect themselves from the insurgents, and allow us to leave.41253[/snapback] If we did that, then in 2030 when that military leader is found to be responsible for attacking American soil, the Republican president will have defend why it was right to back such a military leader in 2004-05 because of the circumstances at that time; but that does not mean that we are still supportive of such a person or responsible for how that person turned out. Also, the current president would be blamed for losing a war that we are actually winning. And the millions of Iraqis who still want us there to help enforce "peace" would again blame us for abandoning them.
PastaJoe Posted September 22, 2004 Posted September 22, 2004 And the millions of Iraqis who still want us there to help enforce "peace" would again blame us for abandoning them. I agree what they want is peace, and at this point they would take an Iraqi military leader instead of democracy if it meant an end to the hostilities and ending the American occupation. Either way, I predict that within 5 years of anyone taking charge there will be some sort of coup and a military leader will take over, as what happened in Pakistan. You don't hear any outrage over General Musharef still being in control.
Adam Posted September 22, 2004 Author Posted September 22, 2004 If we did that, then in 2030 when that military leader is found to be responsible for attacking American soil, the Republican president will have defend why it was right to back such a military leader in 2004-05 because of the circumstances at that time; but that does not mean that we are still supportive of such a person or responsible for how that person turned out. Also, the current president would be blamed for losing a war that we are actually winning. And the millions of Iraqis who still want us there to help enforce "peace" would again blame us for abandoning them. 41309[/snapback] How are we winning? What exactly are we fighting against? How would they attack us here- our security would surely pick up an assault from that far away
TPS Posted September 22, 2004 Posted September 22, 2004 Just restore them to being a military state with someone other than Saddam as their leader- that will allow them to protect t hemselves from the insurgents, and allow us to leave. Amazing that neither Kerry nor Bush can come up with such a solution, maybe instead of checking into their military backgrounds, we should check into their academic backgrounds, as I'm quite sure a number of skeletons would pop up in their closets. 41253[/snapback] It's pretty simple why they can't push this solution: since they didn't find WMDs, the excuse for war has been "we got rid of a ruthless dictator who killed his own people, and we restored democracy." If you install a dictator and have no democracy, then why did we invade the country?
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 22, 2004 Posted September 22, 2004 It's pretty simple why they can't push this solution: since they didn't find WMDs, the excuse for war has been "we got rid of a ruthless dictator who killed his own people, and we restored democracy." If you install a dictator and have no democracy, then why did we invade the country? 41469[/snapback] Here are some reasons: Oil? Vendetta? Bad intell? NIMBY? They just don't give an eff?
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted September 22, 2004 Posted September 22, 2004 Here are some reasons: Oil? Vendetta? Bad intell? NIMBY? They just don't give an eff? 41479[/snapback] I think it was vendetta... nothing based on hard evidence, though,,, just my opinion. The escalation of the need to attack Iraq was frightening; another Gulf of Tonkin, IMO.
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 22, 2004 Posted September 22, 2004 I think it was vendetta... nothing based on hard evidence, though,,, just my opinion. The escalation of the need to attack Iraq was frightening; another Gulf of Tonkin, IMO. 41498[/snapback] I agree. I have been working for the gov't for 13 years. Bush claims he wasn't part of the Washington scene. Yet, he acted on it.
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted September 22, 2004 Posted September 22, 2004 I agree. I have been working for the gov't for 13 years. Bush claims he wasn't part of the Washington scene. Yet, he acted on it. 41510[/snapback] He certainly knew the right 'Washington' people... Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft... Something is not right if at least ONE of those people aren't replaced with someone else if he wins(obviously not Cheney NOW)... and I am curious to see what happens.
Adam Posted September 22, 2004 Author Posted September 22, 2004 I think it was vendetta... nothing based on hard evidence, though,,, just my opinion. The escalation of the need to attack Iraq was frightening; another Gulf of Tonkin, IMO. 41497[/snapback] I'm as anti bush as it gets, but I can't believe the vendetta theory- I dont know why it happened, but there was very little planning, or thought about post war Iraq
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 22, 2004 Posted September 22, 2004 He certainly knew the right 'Washington' people... Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft... Something is not right if at least ONE of those people aren't replaced with someone else if he wins(obviously not Cheney NOW)... and I am curious to see what happens. 41554[/snapback] I still think that the constitutional thing to do in "upside down" elections is to let the VP be the popular vote winner. Wasn't it that the loser becomes VP in the early days of the constitution? I am suggesting tweeking it out for modern times. I think this is more of a repsonse to the other thread. What do you think AD?
Adam Posted September 22, 2004 Author Posted September 22, 2004 I still think that the constitutional thing to do in "upside down" elections is to let the VP be the popular vote winner. Wasn't it that the loser becomes VP in the early days of the constitution? I am suggesting tweeking it out for modern times. I think this is more of a repsonse to the other thread. What do you think AD? 41709[/snapback] I'm not against it- I am against a partisan government, which is what we have now
Alaska Darin Posted September 22, 2004 Posted September 22, 2004 I still think that the constitutional thing to do in "upside down" elections is to let the VP be the popular vote winner. Wasn't it that the loser becomes VP in the early days of the constitution? I am suggesting tweeking it out for modern times. I think this is more of a repsonse to the other thread. What do you think AD? 41709[/snapback] I haven't really thought too much about it. There's no way the current parties would ever go for it, either.
spidey Posted September 22, 2004 Posted September 22, 2004 And the millions of Iraqis who still want us there to help enforce "peace" would again blame us for abandoning them. 41309[/snapback] Just ONCE I would love to see a photo or new coverage of these MILLIONS of Iraqs that want us there. Why arent they out enmass like we saw in Serbia or in Germany when the wall was falling down? Dont give the excuse of they are scared. We abandoned them in the first gulf war when we didnt continue to march on Baghdad when we had a real coalition of nations.
nashman Posted September 22, 2004 Posted September 22, 2004 Just ONCE I would love to see a photo or new coverage of these MILLIONS of Iraqs that want us there. Why arent they out enmass like we saw in Serbia or in Germany when the wall was falling down? Dont give the excuse of they are scared. We abandoned them in the first gulf war when we didnt continue to march on Baghdad when we had a real coalition of nations. 42129[/snapback] Here's the answer to many of the Irag dillema questions... From http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/ Tuesday, September 21, 2004 Some good news! A group of Iraqi citizens in Al Karkh/ Khidr Al Yas arrested 6 Syrian terrorists after placing a land mine at the gate of Bab Al Mu’a dam bridge from Al Karkh side. According to New Sabah newspaper, after a road side bomb exploded missing an American convoy that was patrolling in the area, a group of citizens who happened to be there noticed a bunch of young men who looked foreigners (turned out to be Syrians) that were gathering near the place and that looked suspicious. The citizens found their atittude very suspicious and they were not from the area, so they jumped on them and kicked them until some of them started to bleed and then turned them on to the American forces. Eyewitnesses said that the citizens were shouting “Terrorists. You are targeting our children and families. You are killing our youths” This incident that took place near Haifa street comes after many attacks that terrorist Arabs were accused of carrying against American forces and Iraqi police stations. - posted by Omar @ 23:57 There's the answer folks! What the coalition needs are more Iragi citizens that are madder then hell that these terrorists are killing their children and familes and stricking back by beating the sons of bitches to a bloody pulp. I'm out...
Recommended Posts