GOP begining to bail on Iraq policy

E-Z-B

CAGiversary!
Looks like the Republicans are starting to want to "cut and run"...

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Republican congressman called for a deadline to pull U.S. troops from Iraq, while some other members of President Bush's party urged on Sunday that his administration come to grips with a persistent insurgency and revamp Iraq policy.

Rep. Walter Jones, a North Carolina conservative, said on ABC's "This Week" that he would offer legislation next week setting a timetable for the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

"I voted for the resolution to commit the troops, and I feel that we've done about as much as we can do," said Jones, who had coined the phrase "freedom fries" to lash out at the French for opposing the Iraq invasion.

Other Republicans on Sunday talk shows joined Democrats in criticizing the administration for playing down the insurgency, while overestimating the ability of Iraq's fledgling forces to fight without U.S. soldiers in the lead and failing to plan for the post-invasion occupation.

Graham said the Army is contending with a serious shortfall in recruiting "because this war is going sour in terms of word of mouth from parents and grandparents." He said "if we don't adjust, public opinion is going to keep slipping away."

Jones, a member of the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee, said "primarily the neoconservatives" in the administration were to blame for flawed war planning.

"The reason of going in for weapons of mass destruction, the ability of the Iraqis to make a nuclear weapon, that's all been proven that it was never there," he said.

Jones joins some of Congress' most liberal Democrats in demanding a deadline to withdraw troops from a conflict they said has been too costly in U.S. lives and money.

Jones said he was pushing the legislation because his "heart aches" at the nearly 1,700 U.S. soldiers killed and 12,000 seriously wounded in Iraq. He said Iraqis should defend themselves once their forces are trained.

Weldon also said the administration must "come to grips" with a rising insurgency, boosted by fighters from Syria and Iran, "which for some reason our intelligence community does not want to acknowledge or deal with."

Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, said on CNN's Late Edition, that "many of us warned this administration before we ever put a boot on the ground" that it would face a long-term conflict. "We didn't have plans for it. And we are now where we are," he said.


http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=8765457

Funny that Walter Jones is blasting neocons - sounds like the real conservatives are finally fighting back.

Hmmm...I wonder if these public opinion polls have anything to do with their sudden change in tune? Must just be proping themselves up for next year's elections.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']One idiot a revolt does not make.

How about this as an exit strategy: victory.[/QUOTE]

What is victory exactly though? I guess an end to insurgent bombings? It's hard to "beat" an unorganized force like the insurgents. Maybe a stable gov? That is probably a ways off.
 
[quote name='Backlash']What is victory exactly though? I guess an end to insurgent bombings? It's hard to "beat" an unorganized force like the insurgents. Maybe a stable gov? That is probably a ways off.[/QUOTE]

Oh well lets run away then. What a brillant policy. It might take some time.

El Salvador took 10 years.

CTL
 
Sooner or later, Iraq will split into three (kurds, sunnis and shites). It's either that or the U.S. suffer 10 more years of casualities. 800 soldiers a year = 8,000 soldiers in ten years. Was it worth it? Hardly.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']Oh well lets run away then. What a brillant policy. It might take some time.

El Salvador took 10 years.

CTL[/QUOTE]

I didn't say we should "run away." Seems like we need more clearly defined goals though (or do those exist and the public just isn't aware of them?).
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Sooner or later, Iraq will split into three (kurds, sunnis and shites). It's either that or the U.S. suffer 10 more years of casualities. 800 soldiers a year = 8,000 soldiers in ten years. Was it worth it? Hardly.[/QUOTE]

I could just imagine you at Valley Forge or the Battle of the Bulge.

CTL
 
Valley Forge was to free our country from the British. The Civil War was to preserve the Union. WWI and WWII were to stop the German conquest. The iraqi invasion had no noble cause. It was about oil and reconstruction contracts. Not one American life should have been lost for George Bush's war.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Valley Forge was to free our country from the British. The Civil War was to preserve the Union. WWI and WWII were to stop the German conquest. The iraqi invasion had no noble cause. It was about oil and reconstruction contracts. Not one American life should have been lost for George Bush's war.[/QUOTE]

And you know what the real difference? You have the luxury of looking in the rear-view mirror of history on those other events.

And just what if we succeed in Iraq and the Middle East changes forever?

I bet (1) you either can't imagine that, or (2) don't want to imagine that.

***

I can just imagine you on D-Day.

Report: We lost 8,000 men in 4 hours.

Internet General E-Z-B: Prepare to evacuate!

***

Its sad really. Thankfully the extent of your impact on this is an internet message board.

CTGL
 
[quote name='CTLesq']And you know what the real difference? You have the luxury of looking in the rear-view mirror of history on those other events.

And just what if we succeed in Iraq and the Middle East changes forever?

I bet (1) you either can't imagine that, or (2) don't want to imagine that.

***

I can just imagine you on D-Day.

Report: We lost 8,000 men in 4 hours.

Internet General E-Z-B: Prepare to evacuate!

***

Its sad really. Thankfully the extent of your impact on this is an internet message board.

CTGL[/QUOTE]

Except for one thing - Iraq is currently an unpopular war, and a large percentage of Americans know we've been misled into going into war. Not so with the Revolutionary War, Civil War, WWI & II. The american public were willing to sacrifice themselves for our freedom. You just can't imagine that you've been fooled too. Keep drinking that kool-aid.
 
[quote name='Internet General E-Z-B']Except for one thing - Iraq is currently an unpopular war, and a large percentage of Americans know we've been misled into going into war. Not so with the Revolutionary War, Civil War, WWI & II. The american public were willing to sacrifice themselves for our freedom.[/quote]

You have no knowledge of history. The Revolution had about 1/3 of the populations support, tops.

You think the Civil war was popular in the North? There were riots against the draft, New York City burned.

WWI - yeah keep trying, isolationism anyone?

WWII - yes it was popular.

You probably believe that we went to war in the civil war over slavery.

I don't think you have the vaguest idea what you are talking about.

[quote name='Internet General E-Z-B']You just can't imagine that you've been fooled too. Keep drinking that kool-aid.[/QUOTE]

No I just believe in a future that we make proactively, not one that is imposed on us by terrorism.

CTL
 
What have be been fooled into? The idea that it is better to lose soldiers in a fight on their turf than to lose women and children in bombings in our country? The idea that it is better to kill terrorists over there than to sit on our ass and only arrest, give a laywer to and prosecute a terrorist after they kill innocent americans?

They've been waging war against us for years, but I guess it is still not the right time to pick up arms and take those bastards out. How many buildings have to come down for us to be justified in defeating this long time enemy - not only to the US, but to the world?
 
[quote name='CTLesq']And you know what the real difference? You have the luxury of looking in the rear-view mirror of history on those other events.

And just what [size=+3]if[/size] we succeed in Iraq and the Middle East changes forever?

I bet (1) you either can't imagine that, or (2) don't want to imagine that.

[/QUOTE]

That's a pretty big if...
 
[quote name='CTLesq']You have no knowledge of history. The Revolution had about 1/3 of the populations support, tops.

You think the Civil war was popular in the North? There were riots against the draft, New York City burned.

WWI - yeah keep trying, isolationism anyone?

WWII - yes it was popular.

You probably believe that we went to war in the civil war over slavery.

I don't think you have the vaguest idea what you are talking about.



No I just believe in a future that we make proactively, not one that is imposed on us by terrorism.

CTL[/QUOTE]

Many young boys in the south during the Civil War were eager to join the military. Even in the north, there was support (first link I found for PA: http://www.phmc.state.pa.us/ppet/civilwar/page1.asp?secid=31). They wanted "excitement' from their mundane lives. And isolationism happened AFTER WWI when the U.S. no longer wanted to get tied up with the affiairs of the old world: http://www.schoolshistory.org.uk/america/isolationism.htm

And I never said the civil war was over slavery. You're just making crap up.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']What have be been fooled into? The idea that it is better to lose soldiers in a fight on their turf than to lose women and children in bombings in our country? The idea that it is better to kill terrorists over there than to sit on our ass and only arrest, give a laywer to and prosecute a terrorist after they kill innocent americans?

They've been waging war against us for years, but I guess it is still not the right time to pick up arms and take those bastards out. How many buildings have to come down for us to be justified in defeating this long time enemy - not only to the US, but to the world?[/QUOTE]

Let's see...how many buildings have Iraqis destroyed in America.

Oh yeah. 0.

Saudis took down two big ones though. But...why aren't we in Saudi Arabia right now?
 
[quote name='Scrubking']They've been waging war against us for years, but I guess it is still not the right time to pick up arms and take those bastards out. How many buildings have to come down for us to be justified in defeating this long time enemy - not only to the US, but to the world?[/QUOTE]

By "they" I assume you mean terrorists in general. Well, this war is against Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein from his seat of power. Terrorists, WMD, etc. all were shown to be false justifications for waging an unnecessary and illegal war.

It's a concept used by the Bush Administration to claim success by going after the wrong people: Take out Saddam instead of Osama. Prosecute Arthur Anderson instead of Enron. Make an example out of Martha Stewart instead of Ken Lay.

When enough time passes, history will not look so kindly at George W. Bush. I just hope it's during my lifetime that his record is dissected and he is proven to be the most criminal president in history.
 
This war was about more than Iraq, but sadly a lot of people can't see that. This war is about implementing change in the middle east. This is ultimately about trying to effect some change in this war on terror. If we can make Iraq a democracy great - if we fail we can at least say we tried. We are not going to win a war of attrition against the terrorists. Iraq was our chance to create a democracy in the middle east that will hopefully start to change people's minds against a radical mentality.

And the whole "illegal war" shit is old and played out. If upholding the 11 or 17 or whatever many resolutions that the UN passed is illegal then everything the UN does, says and declares is illegal cause we were just upholding the written letter of their demands for Iraq. Idiots.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B'].... we've been misled into going into war. Not so with the Revolutionary War,.... The american public were willing to sacrifice themselves for our freedom.[/QUOTE]

:lol::lol::lol::applause:
 
[quote name='Scrubking']This war was about more than Iraq, but sadly a lot of people can't see that. This war is about implementing change in the middle east. This is ultimately about trying to effect some change in this war on terror. If we can make Iraq a democracy great - if we fail we can at least say we tried. We are not going to win a war of attrition against the terrorists. Iraq was our chance to create a democracy in the middle east that will hopefully start to change people's minds against a radical mentality.

And the whole "illegal war" shit is old and played out. If upholding the 11 or 17 or whatever many resolutions that the UN passed is illegal then everything the UN does, says and declares is illegal cause we were just upholding the written letter of their demands for Iraq. Idiots.[/QUOTE]

To quote an old joke: How many psychologists does it take to change a light bulb? One, but the light bulb's got to want to change. If a democracy is going to take hold in Iraq, they've got to want to change. George Bush did not have a right to force a "democracy" down the throats of Iraq.
 
[quote name='shajek']To quote an old joke: How many psychologists does it take to change a light bulb? One, but the light bulb's got to want to change. If a democracy is going to take hold in Iraq, they've got to want to change. George Bush did not have a right to force a "democracy" down the throats of Iraq.[/QUOTE]



So the Iraqis and the iraqi women wanted a prolonged dicatorship?
 
[quote name='dmpolska']So the Iraqis and the iraqi women wanted a prolonged dicatorship?[/QUOTE]

Yeah, what they got now is muuuch better.
 
[quote name='dmpolska']So the Iraqis and the iraqi women wanted a prolonged dicatorship?[/QUOTE]

No. Just like a lot of the US doesn't want a prolonged war. But, it wasn't our choice to make. Based on the logic used to start this war, the US should be invading Cuba, North Korea, China, Iran and a few other nations. Why Iraq? Only Bush and his staff know for sure, but the "high and mighty" rationale that we are doing it to institute a democracy is false. Saving the women and children? What about the thousands killed as a direct result of this war? Would those families choose Bush or Saddam? My guess, based on the fact that being among the living is better, is that life under Saddam would be preferable to war and insurgency.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Yeah, what they got now is muuuch better.[/QUOTE]


Are you f'n serious? You act like it's easy to rebuild a country. I bet you if you go to Iraq you would get slapped by dozens of women who now can get an education! Oh Bush is so brutal, what kind of mongel would give woman rights? I honestly thought democrats were one pro-civil rights. But I have been proved wrong.
 
[quote name='shajek']No. Just like a lot of the US doesn't want a prolonged war. But, it wasn't our choice to make. Based on the logic used to start this war, the US should be invading Cuba, North Korea, China, Iran and a few other nations. Why Iraq? Only Bush and his staff know for sure, but the "high and mighty" rationale that we are doing it to institute a democracy is false. Saving the women and children? What about the thousands killed as a direct result of this war? Would those families choose Bush or Saddam? My guess, based on the fact that being among the living is better, is that life under Saddam would be preferable to war and insurgency.[/QUOTE]


Yes, your "guess." Freedom is not free. You're not going to give women the right to vote by snapping your fingers. And think what you will, but the number of casualties suffered in the Iraq war is nothing compared to the casualties produced by Saddam.
 
[quote name='dmpolska']Yes, your "guess." Freedom is not free. You're not going to give women the right to vote by snapping your fingers. And think what you will, but the number of casualties suffered in the Iraq war is nothing compared to the casualties produced by Saddam.[/QUOTE]

100,000 iraqi casualties with a rising death toll caused by the U.S. is still significant.
 
[quote name='dmpolska']Yes, your "guess." Freedom is not free. You're not going to give women the right to vote by snapping your fingers. And think what you will, but the number of casualties suffered in the Iraq war is nothing compared to the casualties produced by Saddam.[/QUOTE]

True, but it generally works better when the country itself starts a revolution and gets support from allies (e.g. the US Revolution, the French Revolution, etc). You can't force democracy on a country that isn't ready for it. It took hundreds of years for democracy to work its way through Europe and then North America.
 
[quote name='Internet General E-Z-B']100,000 iraqi casualties with a rising death toll caused by the U.S. is still significant.[/QUOTE]

Your 100,000 casualties is an estimate that is not without some question,

12,000 Heroes


324 words
10 June 2005
The Wall Street Journal
A8
English
(Copyright (c) 2005, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)
Ever since the beginning of major combat operations in Iraq in March 2003, the media have kept a precise count of U.S. casualty figures, which now stand at nearly 1,700 killed and more than 6,400 wounded. There's also been plenty of tendentious speculation about the number of Iraqis killed by coalition action, the purpose of which is to cast Iraq's liberation as an unmitigated horror for Iraqis.

What has not been so carefully tracked, however, is the number of Iraqis killed by insurgent violence: the worshippers murdered as they pray in their mosques, the ranks of unemployed mowed down as they stand in line at government recruitment offices, and so on. We read about such incidents nearly every day but never see the cumulative death toll, perhaps because the cause of ordinary Iraqis finds few champions among trendy Western human-rights organizations.

Now the government of Iraq has gone and done that favor for itself. Iraqi Interior Minister Bayan Jabr released statistics last week showing that some 12,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed by insurgents in the last 18 months. Of these victims, the overwhelming majority have been Iraqi Shiites, indicating that what al Jazeera and friends call the "resistance against U.S. occupation" is in fact a jihadist and Baathist attack against the country's democratic government. "I have not seen any `resistance,'" Mr. Jabr told the Washington Post. "There is terror, and all sides have agreed that anyone raising guns and killing Iraqis is a terrorist."

Too bad some of our own politicians can't show as much moral clarity. Too bad, too, that every time we magnify every U.S. misdeed in Iraq, real or fabricated, we turn our gaze from the real source of the country's misery.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']"I voted for the resolution to commit the troops, and I feel that we've done about as much as we can do," said Jones, who had coined the phrase "freedom fries" to lash out at the French for opposing the Iraq invasion.[/QUOTE]
I guess you can't have your freedom fries and eat it too.
 
[quote name='dmpolska']Oh Bush is so brutal, what kind of mongel would give woman rights? I honestly thought democrats were one pro-civil rights. But I have been proved wrong.[/QUOTE]Bush doesn't give two shits about women anywhere in the world, including the US. He has cut off all government funding from organizations that discuss abortion in their family planning programs. That's right, even mentioning abortion as an option means no money for such programs in developing nations.

Bush wants to decrease women's rights, not the other way around.
What a hero for women everywhere!
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']If 'if's and 'but's were candy and nuts Iraq would be one heck of a party.[/QUOTE]

And if you had a point you would be worth reading.

It is more amusing that those of you who derided the Freedom Fries Congressman as being an imbecile for his anti-French positions now believe he has a point and we should leave Iraq. Talk about inconsistencies.

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq']And if you had a point you would be worth reading.

It is more amusing that those of you who derided the Freedom Fries Congressman as being an imbecile for his anti-French positions now believe he has a point and we should leave Iraq. Talk about inconsistencies.

CTL[/QUOTE]

Here were his "freedom fries"

Freedom~Fries.jpg
 
[quote name='WSJ, via CTLesq']Too bad some of our own politicians can't show as much moral clarity. Too bad, too, that every time we magnify every U.S. misdeed in Iraq, real or fabricated, we turn our gaze from the real source of the country's misery.[/QUOTE]

You really enjoy the Wall Street Journal, don't you?

If so, boy-oh-boy, have I got some news for you! They have a whole newspaper, and not just editorials!

myke.
...and now you're smarter than you were three seconds ago.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']Too bad, too, that every time we magnify every U.S. misdeed in Iraq, real or fabricated, we turn our gaze from the real source of the country's misery.[/QUOTE]

Corporate greed and an impenitent public?
 
[quote name='CheapyD']Bush doesn't give two shits about women anywhere in the world, including the US. He has cut off all government funding from organizations that discuss abortion in their family planning programs. That's right, even mentioning abortion as an option means no money for such programs in developing nations.

Bush wants to decrease women's rights, not the other way around.
What a hero for women everywhere![/QUOTE]


Abortion and voting are two totally different things; they can't even be compared. If he doesn't want abortion here what makes you think he will support abortion elsewhere? He doesn't change his position every 10 minutes like democrats do.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']And if you had a point you would be worth reading.

It is more amusing that those of you who derided the Freedom Fries Congressman as being an imbecile for his anti-French positions now believe he has a point and we should leave Iraq. Talk about inconsistencies.

CTL[/QUOTE]

He is a flip-flopper.

Our stance didn't change, his did.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']And if you had a point you would be worth reading.

It is more amusing that those of you who derided the Freedom Fries Congressman as being an imbecile for his anti-French positions now believe he has a point and we should leave Iraq. Talk about inconsistencies.

CTL[/QUOTE]

Wait, you're complaining because peoples position are based on their own beliefs, instead of the people who hold them?
 
[quote name='CheapyD']Bush wants to decrease women's rights, not the other way around.
What a hero for women everywhere![/QUOTE]

Hey, to be fair, he did give his daughters drinking money. :D
 
[quote name='dmpolska']Abortion and voting are two totally different things; they can't even be compared.[/QUOTE]They are both women's rights issues. If this was Alien Nation, and men gave birth, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, there would be abortions for all. Its just another bullshit religous issue that gets people to the polls, just like gay marriage.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Wait, you're complaining because peoples position are based on their own beliefs, instead of the people who hold them?[/QUOTE]

No I am complaining because your argument is one of convience. Don't like Freedom Fry Guy before the war, now he is your poster child.


***
CheapyD is quite correct regarding the Bush administration's atrocious positions on women's healthcare issues including abortion.

CTL
 
CTLesq, I'll say it again since you have conveniently ignored everything that disagrees with you current liberal bash:


He is a flip-flopper.

Our stance didn't change, his did.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']CTLesq, I'll say it again since you have conveniently ignored everything that disagrees with you current liberal bash:


He is a flip-flopper.

Our stance didn't change, his did.[/QUOTE]

No, its how you derided him when he didn't support your position. That guy is an anathema to you.

I suspect if I dug about two inches into his background you would flip over any number of his stances.

So maybe you fell getting off the short bus this morning my point is the how hypocritical you all are for using him now after ridiculing him as an idiot for freedom fries.

You probably think he is a genuis now.

CTL
 
No, he is still an asshole.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

Just because some idiot agrees with and one of my opinions I instantly love him?


If so, doesn't that mean you love Hitler?
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']No, he is still an asshole.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

Just because some idiot agrees with and one of my opinions I instantly love him?


If so, doesn't that mean you love Hitler?[/QUOTE]

So what did I say that got under your skin so terribly? Your posts are just dreadful today.

Just amuse us. Tell us.

CTL
 
[quote name='CheapyD']They are both women's rights issues. If this was Alien Nation, and men gave birth, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, there would be abortions for all. Its just another bullshit religous issue that gets people to the polls, just like gay marriage.[/QUOTE]

Murdering babies is hardly a religious issue. Women don't have the right to kill their children because they have a headache. And by their I mean BOTH the father and mother's cause that baby doesn't solely belong to the woman and she sure as hell doesn't have the right to do whatever the hell she wants with it simply because she carries it around.

Abortion is nothing more than an extreme form of contraception. First it was condoms, then pills and when those failed women decided to regress into savages so they should kill their babies cause it didn't fit their lifestyle at the time, using women's lib as the justification for their murderous actions.

What a great form of liberation: you can now kill freely at will. When will men's lib come into play so I can go around killing people I don't like and get away with it??

Rebrobate minds.
 
bread's done
Back
Top