"Hate Speech" or the Truth?

[Lebjwb]

T_M... You keep asking for solutions from us keyboard jockeys. Well, this Libertarian keyboard jockey offered one back on page 5 or 6 yet you have not responded to it as to its merits. In fact you act as if it was never presented.

Now on yesterday's Meet The Press, Sen. Feingold proposes almost the exact same solution as mine. Great minds think alike. He says set 12/31/2006 as a deadline for troop withdrawal attaching milestones to it just as been stated by Bush, ie. Constitution, Elections, etc. Feingold stated that this was done in the past, ie. turnover of soverignty, etc. so why not do it again. To him this would result in an incentive for the Iraqi's to get their act together since at a definite point in the future US troops will no longer be there to prop them up. Moderator asked what won't that give insurgents reason to lay low until we leave. Feingold answered will if that happens then there will be some peace and quiet to get the job of training and reconstruction done as originally planned by Bush. A win situation for US.. no more attacks on troops and Iraq gets reconstructed. Another question to Feingold was what happens if Iraq does not meant its mark by 12/31/2006? The senator's response was if we need another month or two (something short-term and finite) then just like last weeks deadline got postponed 1 week he could see the need for similar flexibility on the withdrawal deadline.


Now back to Bush what is his response to all calls for setting a time-table of ANY LENGTH. Just STAY THE COURSE. In plain english let the insurgents, the majority of which are Iraqi Sunni's as admitted by US military, continue to kill our troops and innocent Iraqi civilians.


You now have my solution, Senator Feingold's solution and Bush's solution. Which would you choose and why or do you have your own?

I posted this several months ago. I think it is worth repeating:

the United States needs a new National Security Strategy whose implementation will reverberate across the individual-national-international security spectrum through reliance on preventing rather than employing violent conflict. The strategy would rely on the following five pillars (and perhaps more):

(1) strengthening international law and institutions, such as the UN, the International Criminal Court, and regional organizations engaged in preventing or peacefully settling disputes. This above all means abandoning the policy of preventive war and replacing it with conflict prevention;

(2) developing, funding and staffing a stand-by corps of conflict resolution and mitigation experts and an international police training force that can be employed under UN auspices in emerging crises, post-conflict rebuilding, non-judicial reconciliation and justice programs, and peacekeeping/peace monitoring activities;

(3) promoting and negotiating transparent, verifiable regional arms control and disarmament agreements involving chemical and biological weapons, small arms and light weapons; developing restrictive national and enforceable international arms export controls; implementing the provisions of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty beyond the provisions of last year’s Moscow Treaty on reducing nuclear arsenals, and ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty;

(4) supporting further development of international humanitarian law and human rights, particularly in times of conflict; ending overt and covert military backing of authoritarian, oppressive regimes; and creating and implementing through relevant multinational organizations context-sensitive “experiments in education” that address the formation of civic society, transparency and accountability of government, and human rights awareness; and

(5) providing funding and other development assistance that will alleviate and even eradicate root causes of violent conflict by meeting fundamental human needs — water, food, health care, education; and encouraging environmental stewardship and sustainability (including reducing U.S. dependence on oil).


http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php...=42&issue_id=45

 

[DawnCt1]

That little pin head of his was just about to burst! He's about to blow because of Chuck Hagel's comments but he's having a hard time attacking a conservative Republican Senator who was a decorated Vietnam vet.

!

DH is a "decorated Vietnam vet" and strongly disagrees with Chuck Hagel. Iraq is NOT Viet Nam. First of all we never overran N. Vietnam, captured and imprisoned Ho Chi Minh in order to put him on trial and provide the circumstances necessary for a democracy.

 

[transparant]

DH is a "decorated Vietnam vet" and strongly disagrees with Chuck Hagel. Iraq is NOT Viet Nam. First of all we never overran N. Vietnam, captured and imprisoned Ho Chi Minh in order to put him on trial and provide the circumstances necessary for a democracy.

I have an Uncle that is a "decorated Vietnam Vet" also and he agrees with you and your DH Dawn.

 

[wvrevy]

Ask your DH about having to take the same patch of land back from the VietCong every couple of weeks...which is exactly what's happening in Iraq with the insurgents. We go in, run them out of a town, and as soon as we leave, they come right back because we don't have the troops to keep people there and keep them out.

The similarities should be obvious, particularly to someone who fought in Vietnam.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

The left seems to have quite a longing for Viet Nam. They seem to like it when we lose (or leave). Of course they forget about the 2,000,000 people that Pol Pot and his gang killed after we left. I guess those lives don't count. And I guess the UN was too busy to stop another genocide -- have they ever stopped one? Maybe they were bribed?? (What was that about never forgetting the Holacaust.)

We are doing the right thing in Iraq. The job may be hard, but progress is being made, and we'll leave when the job is done. No one said the war against terror would be easy. The terrorist know that their biggest allies are the weak and wobbly nations who say that the fight is not worth it. Thank God for are armed forces and our many, many allies.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Ask your DH about having to take the same patch of land back from the VietCong every couple of weeks...which is exactly what's happening in Iraq with the insurgents. We go in, run them out of a town, and as soon as we leave, they come right back because we don't have the troops to keep people there and keep them out.

The similarities should be obvious, particularly to someone who fought in Vietnam.

Great point, although in Iraq, after we run the insurgents out of town, we are occasionally forced to hand the conquered land that our brave soilders fought for back over to the people who ran them in the first place, like town of Fallujah. After three weeks of fighting in which around 800 people died, the Marines reluctantly decided they have neither the local knowledge nor credibility to tackle the 2,000 or so militants still holding out there, so they turned it back over to old Saddam Hussein loyalists, which not only pissed of the Iraqi population in the city, but undermined what we are supposedly there to do.

On a side note: I'm glad to see that our President isn't just howling into the wind and that at least the same 33% of the American public who vote Republican no matter who the candidate is still refuses to see anything but the rosiest of pictures of Iraq and that the war is going just as planned. I'm happy to see that with the money we pay him to make important decisions with America's future, at least some people feel that they are getting their money's worth.

 

[DisDuck]

Let's see we actually entered Viet Nam around 1958 under Eisenhower building up our 'advisors' thru Kennedy then into Johnson with the Gulf of Tonkin 'incident' (fabricated somewhat) becoming a full-fledged War. We left in 1972 or thereabouts (forgot exact year). That means that we were there for at least 14+ years. Should we be in Iraq for the same length of time? All Bush keeps repeating is 'stay the course' and 'there until job done'. So when will this course be done; when will the job be done? Are we looking at another 12 years?

The comparisons to Viet Nam are becoming more valid because the words and policy of Iraq is merging with the words and policy of Viet Nam. Even the words of the Supporters is starting to sound similar to those who supported Viet Nam in reference to the anti-war movement.

Bush's latest is that by fighting 'over there' we will not be fighting in our 'streets and cities'. So taking his words literally one can expect an invasion of the US mainland by an armed force that will require house to house fighting to defeat. Bush must be on the sauce again to think this.

How come nothing happened either in the streets or with WMD's between 9/2001 and 3/2003? Listening to Bush I expected us to be another Israel with suicide bombers almost a daily occurence.

We were attacked by an organization based in Afghanistan and supported by the Taliban, its government NOT BY IRAQ OR SADDAM. We targeted the appropriate enemy and defeated it. Study history Saddam is/was no Pol Pot. He is more like the N.Korea dictator or the Ayatollah in Iran (a secular version). If Saddam needed removal because of his treatment of his own people then LETS INVADE IRAN AND N.KOREA IMMEDIATELY. Until these 2 heinous regimes are eliminated the 'job' as outlined by Bush is not done.

 

[crazyforgoofy]

DH is a "decorated Vietnam vet" and strongly disagrees with Chuck Hagel. Iraq is NOT Viet Nam. First of all we never overran N. Vietnam, captured and imprisoned Ho Chi Minh in order to put him on trial and provide the circumstances necessary for a democracy.

Well, there you go Dawn, playing the "decorated Vietnam vet" card. Didn't you screech when John Kerry played his?

Ok, you played yours, I'll play mine. My husband is also a decorated Vietnam veteran (USMC, two tours on the ground in combat) who is 100% disabled from his service there. His response when he heard Chuck Hagel was "And about damned time too."

Oh and have I told you about his participation in the candlelight vigil for Mrs. Sheehan?

 

[wvrevy]

Bush's latest is that by fighting 'over there' we will not be fighting in our 'streets and cities'. So taking his words literally one can expect an invasion of the US mainland by an armed force that will require house to house fighting to defeat. Bush must be on the sauce again to think this.

Nice post, but I wanted to respond to the current Bush tagline of "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here." My simple, 5 word response to that is: "Tell it to a Londoner."

Bush keeps insisting that terrorism is this great, shadowy conspiracy, wide-spread and insidious. But then, he goes about fighting them like they are a traditional enemy that can be contained in one location. It would take a real idiot to believe that islamic extremists can be pinned down in such a way...as the attacks in London prove beyond a shadow of a doubt.

 

[richiebaseball]

T_M... You keep asking for solutions from us keyboard jockeys. Well, this Libertarian keyboard jockey offered one back on page 5 or 6 yet you have not responded to it as to its merits. In fact you act as if it was never presented.

Now on yesterday's Meet The Press, Sen. Feingold proposes almost the exact same solution as mine. Great minds think alike.

I had to stop here. Are you for real?

If we had just elected you, we would be in Nirvana.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

I had to stop here. Are you for real?

If we had just elected you, we would be in Nirvana.

You might want to read the entire thread. T_M and others asked for alternate solutions to fight/end the war in Iraq and people posted their opinions. What's the problem?

 

[peachgirl]

DH is a "decorated Vietnam vet" and strongly disagrees with Chuck Hagel.

I have an Uncle that is a "decorated Vietnam Vet" also and he agrees with you and your DH Dawn.

I'll take your husband and uncle and raise you a father, 2 uncles and a grandfather(not Vietnam on gramps, will WWII do?) and they all agree with Hagel. Looks like it's 4 to 2, I win!

With all due respect to all our family members, none of them have the power that a Senator does, nor do their opinions have quite the same impact as it does when that Senator, a member of the President's own party comes out against him.

The left seems to have quite a longing for Viet Nam.

Actually Joe, if you'd bother to read before you post, it isn't I who has a thing for Vietnam. It was a Republican Senator who made the comparisons...wanna trash him?

Ok, you played yours, I'll play mine.

And I just played mine! I just love card games, don't you?

 

[crazyforgoofy]

And I just played mine! I just love card games, don't you?

I don't play war or rummy but I like hearts.

 

[Lebjwb]

I have an Uncle that is a "decorated Vietnam Vet" also and he agrees with you and your DH Dawn.

Sen. Hagel was referring to a foe that uses unconventional warfare, is intimately familiar with the ground being defended, is willing to die for the cause. Additionally the US now as in Viet Nam has no clear cut exit strategy. After 2 years the greatest force on the globe is unable to defend a 6 mile stretch of road. The enemy blends in with the civilian population and we are in an unpopular conflict.

Sounds like Viet Nam to me.

And the way things are going, Bu$h will end up like Nixon...resigning in disgrace, a liar and a criminal.

 

[Caradana]

Hi Dawn,

Regarding our treatment of the Iraqis:
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall inherit the Earth.
You're a Bible loving lady, aren't you?

D

 

[ThAnswr]

Actually Joe, if you'd bother to read before you post, it isn't I who has a thing for Vietnam. It was a Republican Senator who made the comparisons...wanna trash him?

Absolutely, they want to trash Hagel. Look what they do to McCain.

 

[ThAnswr]

I don't play war or rummy but I like hearts.

I'm a poker person myself.

 

[ThAnswr]

Sen. Hagel was referring to a foe that uses unconventional warfare, is intimately familiar with the ground being defended, is willing to die for the cause. Additionally the US now as in Viet Nam has no clear cut exit strategy. After 2 years the greatest force on the globe is unable to defend a 6 mile stretch of road. The enemy blends in with the civilian population and we are in an unpopular conflict.

Sounds like Viet Nam to me.

And the way things are going, Bu$h will end up like Nixon...resigning in disgrace, a liar and a criminal.

And lest we forget, both were based on trumped up evidence. The reason why the American people lost faith in the Viet Nam war was because they could no longer trust the leadership to lead that war.

The same with this war. People have lost faith in Bush's ability to lead. That's why he's tanking in the polls.

But, take note, the righties always blame the American people for not having the heart for a fight instead of blaming the leadership for their incompetence in handlling the war.

 

[Viking]

Over here in Europe we more and more can say 'I told you so' when it comes to Iraq
It's good to see that a majority of the Americans eventually sees the light, too. And even here on The Boards, where in my experience conservatives are a majority, more and more people turn their backs towards Bush and his cronies.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Amazing!! T_M pops out and shows his face to chide me for something as seemingly unimportant and ridiculous as "assuming" he is female. But when his pleas for an honest debate and direct answers to his most burning question to libs "What would you do differently in Iraq?!?!" come to fruition from many angles and different posters...he disappears?!? What gives?!?

I have a life and priorities outside the DIS.

Your mischaracterizations aside... the only answer / "solution" offered has been to set a timetable to withdraw. That's not a solution; it's acquiescence. To borrow from one of Ann Coulter's recent columns, it's not a matter of saying "Let's Roll!", it's saying "Let's roll over!" The desire of some to cut & run from Iraq makes the French look positively heroic in comparison.

Just to throw some cyber-fuel onto the "burning question", what I would do differently:

1) Replace SecDef Rumsfeld. He's served the President well, but it's time to find someone who can better manage the politics of war. I think Mr. Rumsfeld has lost a lot of credibility with Americans and with the military.

2) Increase troop levels in Iraq by any means possible -- including instituting a temporary draft. We are not going to win (if that's even the goal anymore) without overwhelming force.

3) Let the generals on the field prosecute the war without the arm-chair quarterbacking and second-guessing from the gov't. If the goal is to win and secure freedom for Iraq, then give them the ability to do that.

3) Seal Iraq's borders with Syria, Iran, Saudia Arabia, etc. The military has to cut off the infiltration of foreign insurgents and supplies to insurgents.

4) Target & destroy insurgent camps in Iraq, Syria, Saudia Arabia. We have the technology to discover and pinpoint these places. They should be taken out immediately. We should make the "shock and awe" of the Iraq invasion look like some 4th of July fireworks.

5) Institute a military draft in Iraq. All civilians would be required to serve in the Iraqi Army for 1 to 2 years, learning how to defend their country. Ramp up the military training in Iraq. Begin deploying the Iraqi Army to supplement civilian police forces throughout Iraq. Increase their responsibility for safeguarding Iraq on a regular schedule.

6) Rebuild the infrastructure faster. I honestly have no idea how to do this, but I am sure there are more companies who would be interested in doing this if security were better guaranteed.

7) Continue to assist Iraq in structuring it's new government, writing its Constitution and instituting that gov't. so that it is stable and secure.

Once these are accomplished, then set a timetable for withdrawal.