Are you for setting a date and "Cutting and Run in Iraq?"

J

jefferey

New member
Like I said before Liberal where you live may be defined differently then it is here but from what I have seen about your stand on the issues you are a Liberal.....

As I said though, nothing to be ashamed of.......Well maybe..... :rolleyes:
 
The only issue that you know i disagree with you on is you outlook, and this comes back to the VoR version of liberal which i mentioned earlier
 
The Prince of Piety is at it again. This "man of faith, but not a devout one" now says he has no enemies "because that is the Christian way". I am sure the abortion doctors he has defamed or terrorist bombers will be relieved to know that VoR loves them and will now turn the other cheek. I am inclined to respect those that practice what they preach, regardless of whether I agree with them or not, but I have no tolerance for pious pretenders.
Dono
 
Polls are not be set up impartially at this site. If you want to do it right, start with a balanced statement, maybe even present pro and con sides. Then everyone can express themselves.

I am for a time schedule being set but I don't consider it as cut and run. I have zero confidence in Bush and his set of desk warriors managing the reconstruction effort. But I am saying this from a military perspective. Military leadership for years has stated its wish to void future Vietnams. That can be described as frustrating conflict of ambush with no frontlines that drags on into a quagmire. Our current situation is especially a case in point with our troops serving as Iraqi police. I want military leadership in charge of the military in conducting operations for military goals. As defined by Franks and Swartzkoph, thats conventional warfare with frontlines, with an emphasis on quick deployment and resolution of the conflict. Quick in and quick out. The result of not following military leadership is not having volunteers for armed services. The only way to maintain this direction much longer is to establish the draft again (something the military does not want).

The terrorists responsible for 9/11 and those planning for future 9/11 catastrophes need to be in the crosshairs. That's not cut and run. Once we got over there and entangled, we stopped hearing about weapons of mass destruction and hearing about democracy and even the neo con propaganda of saving western civilization. We are way, way, way off task for getting the terrorists. Osama is currently in Iran, and a majority of suicide bombers and terrorists coming into Iraq for the insurgency are Saudis.

I have posted supporting articles at curevents.com. Iraq is about oil and huge corporations like Haliburton making billions of dollars in profits.
 
AZ time table is just what the terrorists in Iraq would like to see set..........They would thank you if they had the chance..........
 
Yeah, from your posts it is easy to tell...much like what age people are by what they type....For example...one kid wrote to me saying "you are the weakest link....goodbye"...i mean would an adult do that? I hope not.
 
Sorry but the US is going nowhere.To leave Iraq would leave the country in an actual civil war(one that could pull in surronding countries),it would mean giving up valauble bases in the heart of the Muslim world,it would give up the perfect starting place to go into Iran,Syria or Saudi Arabia and it would send out a massive messgae victory to the islamists.

None of the surrounding countries want the US to leave.The current losses are acceptable because the American publics response is indifferent and because Iraq is valuable to the US in so many ways.There is nothing to be gained from leaving and a lot to be gained from staying.
 
The first step is negotiate with the Sunnis Muslims, who represent almost all of the insurgency. If their participation in the new government isn't enough, plan B is to divide Iraq and set up a Sunnis Muslim country. That would eliminate almost all insurgency, and move Sunnis into one location. If they want to continue the terrorism, then we have front lines and conventional warfare, the type of conflict US troops win easily.

Step two is to focus on the non homegrown insurgency, the non Iraqis flooding over the border for the sake of jihad or to be terrorists in training. Iraq is currently serving the purpose their training camps once served, and serving that purpose better. As has already been demonstrated in two border operations, this is also conventional warfare with front lines that has resulted in the foreign insurgents getting wiped out.

You have to think outside of the Bush envelope. My response doesn't fit your cut and run, as it redirects our efforts more effectively at the people that were the original targets after 9/11. Almost all of the 9/11 insurgents were Saudis, including Osama. We also now have reliable intelligence that Osama is in Iran. And Iran may be developing the real weapons of mass destruction.

You have to think outside of the Bush "envelope." This isn't the only way to conduct war against terrorism, but it is the only way in which Haliburton and other corporations will get rich and control OIL.
 
I will never understand why Liberals are so offended to be addressed as such........

We Conservatives are proud to be addressed as such...........It is a badge of honor to us.............

PS: I know that was your meaning although I will still call them my frienRAB because that is the Christian way and I have no enemies..........

I am sorry if that offenRAB you...........
 
Negotiations with the Sunnis are taking place every day....Tell us something new...........

I have to give you credit their Michael, you have the left wing talking pints down pat.............

That said it would be a huge mistake to set a timetable for leaving Iraq................This president will stay until the job is done........
 
Back
Top