The Capitulation Caucus

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]btm62 wrote:
Saying, “Bring the troops home!” is great. I’m all for it. I have friends I would dearly love to golf with this summer. For the sake of this forum though I’m asking what then? [/quote]

You can say “what then” about anything… Bush’s non-strategy, McCain’s bush-strategy, any proposal can be followed with never-ending “what then?”

It’s like a 3 year old who follows you around, asking “why? why? why?” What then?

The Dems say that the first thing to do in Iraq, is stop digging the hole any deeper. This is a clear departure from the GOP strategy, which is to continue digging a hole.

What then? is a question that requires a crystal ball. You’ll also need a crystal ball to know how Bush’s strategy plays out in the end. But one thing seems apparent to many people… after 4 years Bush’s approach doesn’t seem to have any sustained success in Iraq, or appeal to most Americans, any more.

You don’t have to know all the answers to a problem, to be able to say This approach is not working, we need a much different approach. Since many military and intelligence experts believe our troop presence is making the violence worse, pulling troops seems like a reasonable option, if it’s done in a measured way.

(oh yeah, Cheney-Rumsfeld 2008!!!)

62

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
You blame Bush for following YOUR template. Your guys report each death with quivering voice, never realizing that ITS YOUR STRATEGY, YOUR MINDSET, which made Bush follow a losing strategy.[/quote]

Wow, who knew?

President Bush hasn’t actually been the Commander-in-Chief all this time… because the “Liberals” and “the media” have been controlling his presidency. Wow!!! And I thought Bush was The Decider, but I guess not!

Well alrighty then…

63

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
You blame Bush for following YOUR template. Your guys report each death with quivering voice, never realizing that ITS YOUR STRATEGY, YOUR MINDSET, which made Bush follow a losing strategy.

Wow, who knew?

President Bush hasn’t actually been the Commander-in-Chief all this time… because the “Liberals” and “the media” have been controlling his presidency. Wow!!! And I thought Bush was The Decider, but I guess not!

Well alrighty then…[/quote]

Ludicrous. The President is under the public eye more than anyone in the world. Libs didn’t want a real war, they wanted a wimpy version of one. When it didn’t work, when Bush bowed to their opinions, they then blame him for fighting how THEY wanted.

Why do you think Rumsfeld went in with so few troops, when every military adviser told him that policy was doomed to failure? Sure, they’ll try to make due with what they’re given, shut up, and go fight.

Fighting in a half-assed half-hearted way is a guaranteed losing proposition.

Want to know who fucked up the Iraq War? Look in the mirror.

64

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Ludicrous. The President is under the public eye more than anyone in the world. Libs didn’t want a real war, they wanted a wimpy version of one. When it didn’t work, when Bush bowed to their opinions, they then blame him for fighting how THEY wanted.

Why do you think Rumsfeld went in with so few troops, when every military adviser told him that policy was doomed to failure? Sure, they’ll try to make due with what they’re given, shut up, and go fight. [/quote]

I was unaware of that bit. Not that it’s any excuse or justification for the blunder that is Iraq today.

What I’m interested in is this: Shouldn’t the white house crew have not carried out the invasion then? More importantly, how do you define failure and how do you define success?

Last I saw, you obliterated Saddam’s military in a matter of hours. What do you wanna achieve there? You removed the dictator and destroyed the WMD’s (oh, wait…there was none!), what else is there for you to do there? You’ve clearly worn out your welcome, get the hell out of there before you cause a 3rd WW.

Imagine for a second what would have happened had the captured sailors been Americans instead of Brits! From my perspective, you’re looking for excuses to nuke Tehran and the way Bush should have figured, the longer the stay there, the more the chances of clashing with Iranians. If that’s the goal, you can already break the champagne; it’s going very well.

65

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
btm62 wrote:
And the dem’s plan is? To pull out. Then what? Just asking.

And then, nothing. Nothing is the opposite of what we are doing there now. Nothing is what we should be striving for over on that side of the world. The great thing about this approach is that it is clearly achievable. Then we can focus on defending our country for real and perhaps complete the original mission.

Really, though. What needs to be done? Do you really think we have an ethical commitment to the Iraqi people? We declared victory four years ago. Its now time to leave.[/quote]

I would love to leave Iraq. I don’t believe it is as simple as that however.

and then “Nothing”… is that some kind of foreshadowing of things perhaps to come? Something is better than nothing. Lead, follow or get the fuck outta the way.

If you do Nothing…

all out Civil War. The Middleast becomes a huge battleground, the world ecomony collapses. Millions die. Nuclear weapons are used. We now have to redploy to several areas to protect Israel…on and on it goes. Nothing to me seems like the worst possible strategy.

66

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
btm62 wrote:
Saying, “Bring the troops home!” is great. I’m all for it. I have friends I would dearly love to golf with this summer. For the sake of this forum though I’m asking what then?

You can say “what then” about anything… Bush’s non-strategy, McCain’s bush-strategy, any proposal can be followed with never-ending “what then?”

It’s like a 3 year old who follows you around, asking “why? why? why?” What then?

The Dems say that the first thing to do in Iraq, is stop digging the hole any deeper. This is a clear departure from the GOP strategy, which is to continue digging a hole.

What then? is a question that requires a crystal ball. You’ll also need a crystal ball to know how Bush’s strategy plays out in the end. But one thing seems apparent to many people… after 4 years Bush’s approach doesn’t seem to have any sustained success in Iraq, or appeal to most Americans, any more.

You don’t have to know all the answers to a problem, to be able to say This approach is not working, we need a much different approach. Since many military and intelligence experts believe our troop presence is making the violence worse, pulling troops seems like a reasonable option, if it’s done in a measured way.

(oh yeah, Cheney-Rumsfeld 2008!!!)[/quote]

You hole thingy is growing tired. I think what then is a very valid question in the context of a topic that this campaign will be decided on. Sidestepping the question is more of a three year olds tactic.

Did you bother to read the McCain article or do you believe everything the press feeds you? You seem to have your mind mind up and refuse to ask any questions or look any further. I believe that is the hallmark of a fool.

Your no better than those you accuse of the same things. How about an exchange of ideas? Its okay not to have any, I don’t have the answer to my question either.

I don’t vote any party ticket, so because I ask a question on what is the dems ideas I am automatically a war mongering republican. Another foolish assumption Brad. I’m as tired of this war as anyone, well maybe not those dying, but there are certain shitty realities to the world that cannot be ignored.

Maybe what I’m asking is for a message, an idea or a plan I can get on board with. I gotta tell you just chanting, “Hey at least we’re not Bush” isn’t getting it done for me. Bring the troops home is a great start. What then?

There’s that pesky question again. It needs to answered on both sides.