When we withdraw, sunnis and shiites will oppose anyone there just causing trouble. Al Queda will go to Afghanistan to fight US troops, which is what they live for. That's why they came to Iraq after the occupation of a holy land. Iran and Syria will then have nothing to do but stop Al Queda at their borders because they will no longer have an interest in making us look stupid, if we're gone.
But if al Queda will follow us where ever we go, why not just stay and fight them in Iraq? We've got a hell of a lot more troops there than in Afghanistan. And by your own logic, if we withdraw to the United States, al Queda will follow us here. Is that what Pelosi et al want?
We've dominated militarily, as everyone knew we would with a third-rate opposition. Victory is in finding an exit strategy that helps us save face. Eventually Iraq has to make their own peace, which is the final objective of war. War is only the result of failed diplomacy, which Bush never gave a chance. Timelines are the Dems strategy. Failing that, benchmarks, with real consequences.
Use better diplomacy in the Middle East, pressure Israel to make beneficial peace with Palestinians, use every instrument of law enforcement with intn'l cooperation, not secret prisons with torture, every financial tool to shut down suspected financiers, and be prepared to use every necessary weapon of war where truly needed.
Where does the buck stop, Bush? Our allies left Iraq because their people do not respect you. The generals and troops have done more than we asked, but the solution is political, not military.
Some dems want to keep bases in Iraq. I think it would be best to redeploy to the Kuwait border. Some dems want to divide the country (like the British did in creating Iraq) into 3 parts. I think that's a good idea, but we should leave that to the Iraqis to realize. Dems think we should leave quick-reaction special forces in the area to finish off Al Queda remnants after we leave and to guard the oil wells.
4) I admit that the Liberal and the drive-by media have done an excellent job of not saying one positive word about Iraq. It's a shame that they are so invested in our defeat, especially Harry Reid who already declared defeat.
The "media" my half-educated friend are owned by huge multinational corporations like GE.... now, why would they be "liberal"... do you EVER think about what you type?
so you sopport the war.. Go and open your fucking mouth to the familys that have lost there father son or brother.. another kid has listent too much of those "coffee shop revolutionaries" son of bitches.
HAHA so thats why no Democrat lost their seat? The the Majorities switched in both the House and Senate. Please to to stay in reality. Much less cognitive Dissonace.
The final result was a thirty-seat pickup for the Democrats in the House. Democrats defeated twenty-two Republican incumbents and won nine open Republican-held seats. Republicans won no seats previously held by Democrats in either the House or the Senate, and it was the largest seat gain for the Democrats since the 1982 elections, the first time since the 1948 elections that no Republicans won any Democratic seats.
I don't contest the results of the election but the reasons are not that clear. Ned Lamont was the most prominant anti-war Democrat running in 2006 and he lost big.
If Americans are dissatisfied with the Iraq war then I include myself in that group. But I want to win, not surrender unilaterally.
Ned lost because Dems in CT had extra strong feelings for Joe from when he was VP nominee. Ned was a newcomer. And because republicans voted for Joe because Joe's a hawk.
Thanks for asking. The party balance for the Senate now stands at 51-49 in favor of the Democrats, including Independent Democrat Joe Lieberman, who caucuses with the Democrats. Democratic candidates defeated six Republican incumbents: Rick Santorum (Penn.), Mike DeWine (Ohio), Lincoln Chafee (R.I.), Jim Talent (Mo.), Conrad Burns (Mont.), and George Allen (Va.). No Democratic incumbents were defeated.
"Refocus on fighting terroism" ???
Pelosi ought to tell the Al Qaeda dudes we keep killing in Anbar that Iraq has nothing to do with the War on Terror.
schoonero 4 years ago
Do you mean the Al Queda that wasn't there before we invaded? Does terrorism include the religious civil war we ignited?
jimbojim68 4 years ago
So if Al Queda is in Iraq now, how can we refocus our attention on them by withdrawing?
schoonero 4 years ago
When we withdraw, sunnis and shiites will oppose anyone there just causing trouble. Al Queda will go to Afghanistan to fight US troops, which is what they live for. That's why they came to Iraq after the occupation of a holy land. Iran and Syria will then have nothing to do but stop Al Queda at their borders because they will no longer have an interest in making us look stupid, if we're gone.
jimbojim68 4 years ago
But if al Queda will follow us where ever we go, why not just stay and fight them in Iraq? We've got a hell of a lot more troops there than in Afghanistan. And by your own logic, if we withdraw to the United States, al Queda will follow us here. Is that what Pelosi et al want?
What's the Democrats' policy?
schoonero 4 years ago
We've dominated militarily, as everyone knew we would with a third-rate opposition. Victory is in finding an exit strategy that helps us save face. Eventually Iraq has to make their own peace, which is the final objective of war. War is only the result of failed diplomacy, which Bush never gave a chance. Timelines are the Dems strategy. Failing that, benchmarks, with real consequences.
jimbojim68 4 years ago
Use better diplomacy in the Middle East, pressure Israel to make beneficial peace with Palestinians, use every instrument of law enforcement with intn'l cooperation, not secret prisons with torture, every financial tool to shut down suspected financiers, and be prepared to use every necessary weapon of war where truly needed.
jimbojim68 4 years ago
Where does the buck stop, Bush? Our allies left Iraq because their people do not respect you. The generals and troops have done more than we asked, but the solution is political, not military.
jimbojim68 4 years ago
Some dems want to keep bases in Iraq. I think it would be best to redeploy to the Kuwait border. Some dems want to divide the country (like the British did in creating Iraq) into 3 parts. I think that's a good idea, but we should leave that to the Iraqis to realize. Dems think we should leave quick-reaction special forces in the area to finish off Al Queda remnants after we leave and to guard the oil wells.
jimbojim68 4 years ago
1) Liberals - fighting for the defeat of our troops.
2) Liberals - concerned about the treatment of America's enemies.
3) Liberals - Complain, complain, complain. Strategy? Declare defeat and leave.
4) I admit that the Liberal and the drive-by media have done an excellent job of not saying one positive word about Iraq. It's a shame that they are so invested in our defeat, especially Harry Reid who already declared defeat.
darcytirsia 4 years ago
American NeoConFascistSerf Myth #1:
The "media" are "liberal"
The "media" my half-educated friend are owned by huge multinational corporations like GE.... now, why would they be "liberal"... do you EVER think about what you type?
LEATSLAN 4 years ago
HOW IN THE HELL CAN SHE SAY BIPARTISAN SUPPORT When THE VOTE IN THE SENATE WAS 51-46, AND in the house, 218-208. What a misleading bitch.
capevideo 4 years ago
so you sopport the war.. Go and open your fucking mouth to the familys that have lost there father son or brother.. another kid has listent too much of those "coffee shop revolutionaries" son of bitches.
tkstka 4 years ago
Wow, this guy spell's really bad. (sopport) (familys) (there) listent) I am not a kid. I am a man that has served my country.And how about you?
capevideo 4 years ago
capevideo, kid, if you're going to correct someone's English... you have to make absolutely sure your English is correct....
It's "this guy spells" not "this guy spell's"
Thanks for the laughs again
LEATSLAN 4 years ago
haha wow, it was spelled correct though.
capevideo 4 years ago
It was spelled "correctly." Your grammar sucks, too.
jimbojim68 4 years ago
go fuck yourself spelled correctly??????????????
capevideo 4 years ago
Clever.
jimbojim68 4 years ago
Typical Liberal. She does not tell the whole story. Why doesnt any Democrat address the pork spending in this bill? What are they hiding? Alot.
TALKUTUBE 4 years ago
so you know what she is hiding.. Tell us your conspiracy.. Fucking stupid kid crow up!
tkstka 4 years ago
tkstka, I think you need to grow up and learn how to spell. (crow) HaHa And you did not not mention the pork spending. Case in point.
capevideo 4 years ago
The dumbasses know it is going to be veto'd. Ye REAL smart. And the people never voted to pull out.
jimisback 4 years ago
HAHA so thats why no Democrat lost their seat? The the Majorities switched in both the House and Senate. Please to to stay in reality. Much less cognitive Dissonace.
TDanza8 4 years ago
Way to go Democrats! This is why Americans voted for more of you in 2006. This is exactly right.
jimbojim68 4 years ago
Hey, how did Senator Ned Lamont vote on this issue?
schoonero 4 years ago
The final result was a thirty-seat pickup for the Democrats in the House. Democrats defeated twenty-two Republican incumbents and won nine open Republican-held seats. Republicans won no seats previously held by Democrats in either the House or the Senate, and it was the largest seat gain for the Democrats since the 1982 elections, the first time since the 1948 elections that no Republicans won any Democratic seats.
jimbojim68 4 years ago
I don't contest the results of the election but the reasons are not that clear. Ned Lamont was the most prominant anti-war Democrat running in 2006 and he lost big.
If Americans are dissatisfied with the Iraq war then I include myself in that group. But I want to win, not surrender unilaterally.
schoonero 4 years ago
Ned lost because Dems in CT had extra strong feelings for Joe from when he was VP nominee. Ned was a newcomer. And because republicans voted for Joe because Joe's a hawk.
jimbojim68 4 years ago
Wait a second. The Dems in CT dumped Joe in the primary. CT is not a red state by any means yet antiwar Lamont lost.
schoonero 4 years ago
Thanks for asking. The party balance for the Senate now stands at 51-49 in favor of the Democrats, including Independent Democrat Joe Lieberman, who caucuses with the Democrats. Democratic candidates defeated six Republican incumbents: Rick Santorum (Penn.), Mike DeWine (Ohio), Lincoln Chafee (R.I.), Jim Talent (Mo.), Conrad Burns (Mont.), and George Allen (Va.). No Democratic incumbents were defeated.
jimbojim68 4 years ago
They took a vote from the people of America??
jimisback 4 years ago
Yes - it was called the '06 election.
ettlinger 4 years ago