If you put a deadline of one year on it, you are telling the enemy all they need to know, that you concede defeat. If that is your plan, you might as well pull out today...

 

I think a year would be plenty of time to train their security forces, if they are interested in learning.

 

As for the statement that it would be tantamount to conceding defeat, I think that depends on how you define defeat or victory. Regardless of how you define it, "winning" that war is not possible, short of bombing the country back into the Stone Age, occupying what is left, and taking their oil as the spoils of war.

 

I decline your characterization of my position as being equivalent to pulling out today. You asked for my idea, and I gave it to you.

 

I would turn your question back to you - considering the situation as it is today, what is your solution?

 

Do we "win" by forcing the population of Iraq into submission? Do we anoint one sect of Islam (Sunni or Shia) as the controlling power? Do we stay another ten years, losing 30 some soldiers a week, while waiting for the concept of democracy to take hold (knowing full well that such an occurrence may never come to pass)?

 

It is obvious that 70% of our populace no longer thinks the war is worth fighting. Bush's approval rating is now below 30% (27%, to be exact).

 

You say that you don't want to listen to public opinion polls, but that you want to do what's right. Okay. If we get to the point that 98% of the population say "enough", are we still going to follow W, and his need to feed his legacy? At what point do we look around and admit that this war is a tragic mistake?

 

 

Frances

Where did I say they should have an unlimited amount of time? How is not putting a one year deadline on it giving them an unlimited amount of time?

 

How long should they have? Two years instead of one? We've already tried waiting for "the Iraqis to stand up so we can stand down" and it worked so wonderfully that security is worse than it's ever been. Since he jettisoned his tired "stay the course" mantra, Bush can't even articulate what his strategy is for dealing with the situation in Iraq.

 

Because he doesn't have one.

I think a year would be plenty of time to train their security forces, if they are interested in learning.

 

As for the statement that it would be tantamount to conceding defeat, I think that depends on how you define defeat or victory. Regardless of how you define it, "winning" that war is not possible, short of bombing the country back into the Stone Age, occupying what is left, and taking their oil as the spoils of war.

 

I decline your characterization of my position as being equivalent to pulling out today. You asked for my idea, and I gave it to you.

 

I would turn your question back to you - considering the situation as it is today, what is your solution?

 

Do we "win" by forcing the population of Iraq into submission? Do we anoint one sect of Islam (Sunni or Shia) as the controlling power? Do we stay another ten years, losing 30 some soldiers a week, while waiting for the concept of democracy to take hold (knowing full well that such an occurrence may never come to pass)?

 

It is obvious that 70% of our populace no longer thinks the war is worth fighting. Bush's approval rating is now below 30% (27%, to be exact).

 

You say that you don't want to listen to public opinion polls, but that you want to do what's right. Okay. If we get to the point that 98% of the population say "enough", are we still going to follow W, and his need to feed his legacy? At what point do we look around and admit that this war is a tragic mistake?

 

 

Frances

 

I caught where you changed "we were wrong" to "this war is a tragic mistake.";)

 

I think if you let the insurgents know you have a deadline, you strengthen their resolve to "hunker down" and probably even step up their attacks, making a bad situation worse...

 

If you think this war is about GWB's "need to feed his legacy," we are very far apart. Put your hatred of GWB (and almost all Republicans) aside for a moment and try to help figure out how to win this thing.

 

I agree many mistakes have been made, as in all wars, but that doesn't mean the best thing to do is throw in the towel. In fact, that is the worst possible outcome for all Americans.

I think if you let the insurgents know you have a deadline, you strengthen their resolve to "hunker down" and probably even step up their attacks, making a bad situation worse...

 

Unfortunately, the insurgents are more concerned with stopping Iraqis from claiming freedom than fighting us.

How long should they have? Two years instead of one? We've already tried waiting for "the Iraqis to stand up so we can stand down" and it worked so wonderfully that security is worse than it's ever been. Since he jettisoned his tired "stay the course" mantra, Bush can't even articulate what his strategy is for dealing with the situation in Iraq.

 

Because he doesn't have one.

 

Another bashing post with no ideas from you. I don't think I could get an idea out of you at gunpoint, lol...

Unfortunately, the insurgents are more concerned with stopping Iraqis from claiming freedom than fighting us.

 

I thought they were fighting us to stop the Iraqis from claiming freedom.

This thread is getting pretty close to the edge. Putting "LOL" at the end of a semi-personal attack does not keep it from crossing the rules. Lets keep it on topic and away from one another.

I thought they were fighting us to stop the Iraqis from claiming freedom.

 

They are, but they kill us when we are helping other Iraqis. I don't think a timetable will stiffen insurgents resolve, at least not as much as it would stiffen the resolve of Iraqis who want freedom. But, this issue is not as cut and dry as "cut and run" or "stay the course," and I still feel completely leaving the country needs to be our last course of action.

...If you think this war is about GWB's "need to feed his legacy," we are very far apart. Put your hatred of GWB (and almost all Republicans) aside for a moment and try to help figure out how to win this thing....

 

I don't really hate Bush. I loathe his arrogance and closed mind, but I don't hate him. I do hate the fact that we handed this guy the keys to the family car, and then no one went with him on his first joy ride.

 

I definitely do not hate Republicans, per se. I have many very good friends, that I hold dear, and have known my entire adult life. The fact that someone doesn't agree with my point of view doesn't even come close to causing me to hate them. On the other hand, I do hate to listen to those (i.e. Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter) that lie, and continue to lie after they have been caught in a lie, for the sake of furthering their cause. I feel that way, regardless of party.

 

I watch Representative Jefferson from Louisiana, and I just shake my head at his arrogance in thinking that he can take the bribes that he is accused of, and believe that he will ultimately get away with it.

 

I look at Barbara McKinney introducing a bill to impeach Bush as she leaves Congress, and I shake my head at such grandstanding.

 

I look at Duke Cunningham and I shake my head.

 

I don't hate anyone for their party affiliation - I hate the ones that cheat and lie, rather than doing what they were elected to do, without resorting to lies and cheating to accomplish their own personal goals.

 

 

Frances

Another bashing post with no ideas from you. I don't think I could get an idea out of you at gunpoint, lol...

 

Check out post #24. I said that I would pursue the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. Collectively, the group has far more foreign policy experience than the Bush cabinet and approached the problem pragmatically. Since the fall of Baghdad, Iraq has been a political problem, not a military one, and you can't resolve a political problem in a sustainable way with military force. This subtle truth seems lost on the Administration.

I saw a funny in the local newspaper a few days ago that said:

In the 1960's there was a president who spent billions of dollars for a war without a cause

In the 2000's there was a president who spent billions of dollars for a war without a cause

I saw a funny in the local newspaper a few days ago that said:

In the 1960's there was a president who spent billions of dollars for a war without a cause

In the 2000's there was a president who spent billions of dollars for a war without a cause

 

I can give you some good causes. I think it's worth the fight to win over there, but we have to do it, not just mess around and then pull out.

I can give you some good causes. I think it's worth the fight to win over there, but we have to do it, not just mess around and then pull out.

 

:thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

I can give you some good causes. I think it's worth the fight to win over there, but we have to do it, not just mess around and then pull out.

 

I agree...

I can give you some good causes. I think it's worth the fight to win over there, but we have to do it, not just mess around and then pull out.

 

This is not World War II, where there were distinct battle lines, a uniformed enemy, and obvious targets of military importance such as arms factories. Iraq is nothing like that. NOTHING. The enemy dresses as civilians, hides among innocents, has no problem killing large numbers of innocents to stir up the population, and attacks our forces with roadside bombs, booby traps, and guerilla tactics. There isn't even one cohesive enemy.

 

If we have been 'just messing around' for the last three years, if we have not been fighting to win, the American public deserve an answer from Mr. Bush. That, of course, is not what has been happening. Our military has done just about everything within its capability.

 

It's easy to say 'we should stay until the job is done' or some other simple platitude. But what we have been doing clearly has not been working. Please tell me what we should be doing to win the fight that we haven't been doing.