Rexbo's Question

[Tiger Al 0]

Has a tough question been posed that I overlooked?

Yes, at least I haven't run across your response yet, I apologize if you have posted this; but the question is, what is your (and the Democrat's) plan to bring peace, stability and democracy to Iraq in the near-term, and to the Middle East in the long-term?

Rexbo, this had nothing to do with the topic in the original thread so I started a new thread if TT (and the Democrats) want to present their Middle East peace plan.

[rexbo 104]

Thanks, definitely needs its own topic, for about 6 years now. This question did come up in a relevant topic about a month ago, but no Democratic (i.e. TigerAl or TT) response ever showed up...

[rexbo 104]

#crickets#

[Tiger Al 0]

#crickets#

I guess no one's taking the bait. Sorry.

[rexbo 104]

#crickets#

I guess no one's taking the bait. Sorry.

The silence confirms everything I believe about the Democrats; they have not a clue what to do in the Middle East, or how to defend this country from fascist, fundamentalist Islamic terrorists. Of course, we knew that from 8 years of Bill Clinton, just ignore them and hope they go away (except for inviting one of the primary terrorist leaders to the White House for sleepovers)...

[Tiger Al 0]

#crickets#

I guess no one's taking the bait. Sorry.

The silence confirms everything I believe about the Democrats; they have not a clue what to do in the Middle East, or how to defend this country from fascist, fundamentalist Islamic terrorists. Of course, we knew that from 8 years of Bill Clinton, just ignore them and hope they go away (except for inviting one of the primary terrorist leaders to the White House for sleepovers)...

Maybe the Dem policymakers haven't found this website yet.

[TexasTiger 12,961]

#crickets#

I guess no one's taking the bait. Sorry.

The silence confirms everything I believe about the Democrats; they have not a clue what to do in the Middle East, or how to defend this country from fascist, fundamentalist Islamic terrorists. Of course, we knew that from 8 years of Bill Clinton, just ignore them and hope they go away (except for inviting one of the primary terrorist leaders to the White House for sleepovers)...

Your question is based on a ridiculously false assumption:

what is your (and the Democrat's) plan to bring peace, stability and democracy to Iraq in the near-term, and to the Middle East.

Because Bush started this mess based on the absurd theory that he was going to set up a shining beacon of democracy and stability in Iraq that would then spread like wildfire through the Middle East, then if Democrats criticize him you insist that they need to have their own theory on how to accomplish it or they are clueless. It was clueless for Bush and the Neocons to have this theory in the first place. You don't establish Democracy from the top down, especially as an occupying force. There is no simple theory or plan to achieve that pipe dream. That's what you don't get.

I tell you one way it doesn't happen-- keep sending money to Saudi Arabia, propping up an anti-democratic monarchy that buys off the radical elements by sharing OUR money with radical muslims that use it to set up madrassas that teach Jihad. That has been the Bush family's major contribution to the war on terrorism-- feeding the terrorists. 15 of 19 hijackers were products of this system.

You think Iraq is more stable now? You think it is easier to be a Christian in Iraq now? Have you not recoginized the utter insanity of the Bush approach yet? Guess not.

[rexbo 104]

You don't establish Democracy from the top down, especially as an occupying force.

Um, except for 2 of the strongest (and most peaceful) democracies in the world over the past 50 years, Germany and Japan...

And, TT, the question wasn't based on any false assumptions, it was based on the current, factual situation in the Middle East today. All we have heard is blame about the past from you and the Democrats for the past 5 years; fine, consider that argument over. The question remains, what is the Democrat's plan for the FUTURE? Or, if you don't know what Pelosi, Clinton or Obama are thinking, what would be your plan from today onwards? (And don't point me to some political website that talks about bringing our troops home, waving a white flag is no plan.)

[TexasTiger 12,961]

You don't establish Democracy from the top down, especially as an occupying force.

Um, except for 2 of the strongest (and most peaceful) democracies in the world over the past 50 years, Germany and Japan...

Rex, if you are comparing Iraq to Germany and Japan and expecting similar outcomes, then that explains why you may not understand how absurd the neocon theory of the mideast is. Germany was not new to democracy, and there had been a strong movement in that direction in most of Europe during the previous century. Japan had a legislature (Diet) that actually had become stronger for a period in the 20s. Japan also had a leader that was worshipped by virtually everyone, very much unlike Saddam, and Hirohito, after waging war with the US and its allies was allowed to stay on as a figurehead until his death in 1989, thus providing a sense of continuity to the Japanese. Both countries, unlike Iraq which is really a fiction of British map drawing, had a very homogenous population, especially Japan. Neither had the deep-seated sectarian hostility you see going on today.

[rexbo 104]

You don't establish Democracy from the top down, especially as an occupying force.

Um, except for 2 of the strongest (and most peaceful) democracies in the world over the past 50 years, Germany and Japan...

Rex, if you are comparing Iraq to Germany and Japan and expecting similar outcomes, then that explains why you may not understand how absurd the neocon theory of the mideast is. Germany was not new to democracy, and there had been a strong movement in that direction in most of Europe during the previous century. Japan had a legislature (Diet) that actually had become stronger for a period in the 20s. Japan also had a leader that was worshipped by virtually everyone, very much unlike Saddam, and Hirohito, after waging war with the US and its allies was allowed to stay on as a figurehead until his death in 1989, thus providing a sense of continuity to the Japanese. Both countries, unlike Iraq which is really a fiction of British map drawing, had a very homogenous population, especially Japan. Neither had the deep-seated sectarian hostility you see going on today.

Ok, again, point conceded (I can do this all day long, really, it's not that hard.); now, back to the original question, what is your plan for the FUTURE?

[TexasTiger 12,961]

You don't establish Democracy from the top down, especially as an occupying force.

Um, except for 2 of the strongest (and most peaceful) democracies in the world over the past 50 years, Germany and Japan...

Rex, if you are comparing Iraq to Germany and Japan and expecting similar outcomes, then that explains why you may not understand how absurd the neocon theory of the mideast is. Germany was not new to democracy, and there had been a strong movement in that direction in most of Europe during the previous century. Japan had a legislature (Diet) that actually had become stronger for a period in the 20s. Japan also had a leader that was worshipped by virtually everyone, very much unlike Saddam, and Hirohito, after waging war with the US and its allies was allowed to stay on as a figurehead until his death in 1989, thus providing a sense of continuity to the Japanese. Both countries, unlike Iraq which is really a fiction of British map drawing, had a very homogenous population, especially Japan. Neither had the deep-seated sectarian hostility you see going on today.

Ok, again, point conceded (I can do this all day long, really, it's not that hard.); now, back to the original question, what is your plan for the FUTURE?

Your original premise was based on the Bush Neo-con fantasy which has a simplistic appeal, but this stuff ain't simple. The Neocons confidently put forward their foolhardy plan, and others pay the price. Democracy in Iraq that spreads through the Middle East? Sounds good. Comparisons to our own revolution and Germany and Japan evoke images that aren't particularly relevant to the Middle East. The reality is I'd rather have a Western friendly leader who also treats his people well, is religously tolerant and uses whatever oil money they may have to build a sustainable economy that supports a middle class. A working democracy can flow from that foundation. A democracy that supports Iran or Syria or Hamas or Hezbollah is not a good thing, IMO.

There is an appeal to action, especially strong action that makes us believe we are at least doing "something." But the something we've done is stupid and wrong. We've strengthened Iran. We've strengthened the appeal of Jihad for a new generation. I would strengthen relationships with more Western friendly countries in the region and try to move them along. We should have had more influence on Saudi Arabia over the years--- instead, it has become a caldron for U.S. hatred even while the royal family rubs elbows with the Bushes. What I'm talking about isn't showy or dramatic and doesn't fire up a crowd. But it also helps us with our intelligence in the area. Pissing off the world doesn't help us with the collaborative efforts we need to most effectively counter anti-western islamic terrorists.

I would avoid nation building-- as promised by candidate Bush-- but would not shy away from well-supported surgical strikes on terrorists targets, wherever they might be, if we could not craft a more collaborative response. To his credit, and for those who think I hate all things Republican, GHW Bush built one of the most impressive coalitions the world has ever seen. He held it together by focusing on what everyone could agree on-- liberating Kuwait--- by which I mean, turning it back over from the invading dictator to the home grown monarchiacal dictator who was less tyrannical. The reality was, Saddam was severely weakened by that war--- it was a very successful venture that had a well-defined mission. Part of what daddy Bush did wrong was convincing Americans Saddam was the next Hitler to build public support for the war. Once you convince folks we're going after Hitler, how do you explain leaving him in power?

Ultimately, we need to lessen our dependence on ME oil. For all his other failings of leadership, the last President with any plan to do that was Jimmy Carter (I understand the likelihood of an irrational David rant about this, but it's true.) Reagan said America didn't need to conserve energy and reversed all that. No other President since has had the guts to address this in a meaningful way. There are only two reasons we really care about what happens in the ME-- we need the oil, and our relationship with Israel. Neither issue is easily resolved, but neither will be resolved without making them priorities. Neither has been a priority for Bush. They need to be for the next president...and the next...and the next, and so on. No quick, easy solutions.

[rexbo 104]

There are only two reasons we really care about what happens in the ME-- we need the oil, and our relationship with Israel.

This was true during the Carter years, definitely NOT true after 9/11. Bush made the priority the more scary and urgent problem of extreme Islamic fundamentalism, potentially armed with WMD (with the concurrence and backing of the US Congress and the American people).

This whole 'plan' sounded to me like high level goals for the ME, that really anyone would agree with. The question is; and look at it this way, you are all of a sudden sitting at the head of the table as Commander in Chief, the Cabinet is all sitting there including the Joint Chiefs, and the Democratically elected leaders of Iraq are on the conference phone; so, Mr. President, what do we do now in Iraq without jeapordizing Middle East and world security?

[TexasTiger 12,961]

There are only two reasons we really care about what happens in the ME-- we need the oil, and our relationship with Israel.

This was true during the Carter years, definitely NOT true after 9/11. Bush made the priority the more scary and urgent problem of extreme Islamic fundamentalism, potentially armed with WMD (with the concurrence and backing of the US Congress and the American people).

This whole 'plan' sounded to me like high level goals for the ME, that really anyone would agree with. The question is; and look at it this way, you are all of a sudden sitting at the head of the table as Commander in Chief, the Cabinet is all sitting there including the Joint Chiefs, and the Democratically elected leaders of Iraq are on the conference phone; so, Mr. President, what do we do now in Iraq without jeapordizing Middle East and world security?

Do you mean if I inherited the mess Bush has created?

[rexbo 104]

There are only two reasons we really care about what happens in the ME-- we need the oil, and our relationship with Israel.

This was true during the Carter years, definitely NOT true after 9/11. Bush made the priority the more scary and urgent problem of extreme Islamic fundamentalism, potentially armed with WMD (with the concurrence and backing of the US Congress and the American people).

This whole 'plan' sounded to me like high level goals for the ME, that really anyone would agree with. The question is; and look at it this way, you are all of a sudden sitting at the head of the table as Commander in Chief, the Cabinet is all sitting there including the Joint Chiefs, and the Democratically elected leaders of Iraq are on the conference phone; so, Mr. President, what do we do now in Iraq without jeapordizing Middle East and world security?

Do you mean if I inherited the mess Bush has created?

Yes. (I already said conceding was easy, so you aren't going to get out of this question that easy.) The question still stands; for you, or Obama or anyone else screaming about a mess but not saying one word about how they would take action in the best interest of the US of A if they were in the position of Commander in Chief.

[TexasTiger 12,961]

There are only two reasons we really care about what happens in the ME-- we need the oil, and our relationship with Israel.

This was true during the Carter years, definitely NOT true after 9/11. Bush made the priority the more scary and urgent problem of extreme Islamic fundamentalism, potentially armed with WMD (with the concurrence and backing of the US Congress and the American people).

This whole 'plan' sounded to me like high level goals for the ME, that really anyone would agree with. The question is; and look at it this way, you are all of a sudden sitting at the head of the table as Commander in Chief, the Cabinet is all sitting there including the Joint Chiefs, and the Democratically elected leaders of Iraq are on the conference phone; so, Mr. President, what do we do now in Iraq without jeapordizing Middle East and world security?

Do you mean if I inherited the mess Bush has created?

Yes. (I already said conceding was easy, so you aren't going to get out of this question that easy.) The question still stands; for you, or Obama or anyone else screaming about a mess but not saying one word about how they would take action in the best interest of the US of A if they were in the position of Commander in Chief.

I replied to a similar question a couple of years back, I think, maybe more recently. Circumstances have changed, but my basic answer is the same. If you look back through my posts, you will see that I haven't advocated immediate withdrawal. In fact, if you look back far enough you will see that I was saying early on that we couldn't just pull out because too much is at stake. Now, I'm less certain that our presence isn't hurting more than it is helping, but I don't have enough info/perspective to know that. You seem to be more firmly rooted in the "reality based community" than many that support Bushco blindly around here and claim that the only real problem is that the librul media ain't reporting all the good news from Iraq. My biggest critique of this administration is that they have been a combination of clueless and disengenous about the state of things there while their supporters see any questioning or scrutiny as disloyal.

There is no obvious right course of action from where I sit. This is a very complex situation. If I were President tomorrow, I'd bring the best minds together on all sides of this issue, pull them into the White House and tell them that I wanted to hear their best arguments for what we should do. When they disagreed with what another said, I wanted to hear their best argument as to why they disagreed. I would tell them going in that there would be no running to the press afterward trying to obtain some political advantage to their point of view and that if they couldn't promise that, they should leave before we get started. I would bring in folks from both sides of the aisle in a genuine spirit of bi-partisanship and try my best to get them invested in whatever we decided. Unlike Bush, I want to know the truth, even if its bad news. You can't solve any problem you haven't properly defined. Should we surge? If so, what is the likelihood of success? What numbers should we have? What type of troops? Where should they be focused? I might decide to increase troops in the short-term. Or I might not, depending on the info I got. I'd also want to talk to the key Generals and have them tell me what they really thought. For that matter, I'd also want to talk to NCOs who were in the trenches to see what their perspective was. In short, I would avail myself to as much info as I could-- which would be far more than I can now.

I would be engaging the neighboring countries in discussions-- not because I trust them like Bush trusts Putin, but because the military can't fix this by itself and the harsh reality is those surrounding countries are unavoidable players in this.

I think Bush was boneheaded to invade Iraq. (Cheney 1991 thought so, too.) We may disagree on that. I think he has managed it badly from the start. Now, I don't see many great options--- we find ourselves there because A) it was a mistake to go in the first place, it has been managed badly; or C ) both.

I think where we find ourselves was predictable. Those who predicted it were dismissed as weak and clueless before the war. A political environment in which such voices are so quickly dismissed is very unhealthy. Most of my arguments against Bushco and his blind supporters are against this backdrop.

[AFTiger 282]

I replied to a similar question a couple of years back, I think, maybe more recently. Circumstances have changed, but my basic answer is the same.

In February, I asked you five questions which your refused to answer. I ask them again.

1. Are we at war?

2. If so, who is the enemy?

3. Should we try to win the war or hope they go away?

4. If you agree that we are in a war and should win it, how would you propose winning it?

You answered yes to the first question. To the second, you agreed we had an enemy but was very vague on who it is.

You never attempted question three and four. You are stuck on the original decision to go to war and have never moved into the current situation.

It is 2007 now. We at at war. Now what?

[TexasTiger 12,961]

I replied to a similar question a couple of years back, I think, maybe more recently. Circumstances have changed, but my basic answer is the same.

In February, I asked you five questions which your refused to answer. I ask them again.

1. Are we at war?

2. If so, who is the enemy?

3. Should we try to win the war or hope they go away?

4. If you agree that we are in a war and should win it, how would you propose winning it?

You answered yes to the first question. To the second, you agreed we had an enemy but was very vague on who it is.

You never attempted question three and four. You are stuck on the original decision to go to war and have never moved into the current situation.

It is 2007 now. We at at war. Now what?

I did answer them, moron, and you failed to reply to my answer.

[AFTiger 282]

I replied to a similar question a couple of years back, I think, maybe more recently. Circumstances have changed, but my basic answer is the same.

In February, I asked you five questions which your refused to answer. I ask them again.

1. Are we at war?

2. If so, who is the enemy?

3. Should we try to win the war or hope they go away?

4. If you agree that we are in a war and should win it, how would you propose winning it?

You answered yes to the first question. To the second, you agreed we had an enemy but was very vague on who it is.

You never attempted question three and four. You are stuck on the original decision to go to war and have never moved into the current situation.

It is 2007 now. We at at war. Now what?

I did answer them, moron, and you failed to reply to my answer.

Name calling in one reply.

Refresh my memory. What were your answers?

[TexasTiger 12,961]

I replied to a similar question a couple of years back, I think, maybe more recently. Circumstances have changed, but my basic answer is the same.

In February, I asked you five questions which your refused to answer. I ask them again.

1. Are we at war?

2. If so, who is the enemy?

3. Should we try to win the war or hope they go away?

4. If you agree that we are in a war and should win it, how would you propose winning it?

You answered yes to the first question. To the second, you agreed we had an enemy but was very vague on who it is.

You never attempted question three and four. You are stuck on the original decision to go to war and have never moved into the current situation.

It is 2007 now. We at at war. Now what?

I did answer them, moron, and you failed to reply to my answer.

Name calling in one reply.

Refresh my memory. What were your answers?

They were thoughtful answers that you never responded to at the time. This is why I don't waste much time with you.

PS: I didn't number my answers, which may have confused you.

[AFTiger 282]

I replied to a similar question a couple of years back, I think, maybe more recently. Circumstances have changed, but my basic answer is the same.

In February, I asked you five questions which your refused to answer. I ask them again.

1. Are we at war?

2. If so, who is the enemy?

3. Should we try to win the war or hope they go away?

4. If you agree that we are in a war and should win it, how would you propose winning it?

You answered yes to the first question. To the second, you agreed we had an enemy but was very vague on who it is.

You never attempted question three and four. You are stuck on the original decision to go to war and have never moved into the current situation.

It is 2007 now. We at at war. Now what?

I did answer them, moron, and you failed to reply to my answer.

Name calling in one reply.

Refresh my memory. What were your answers?

They were thoughtful answers that you never responded to at the time. This is why I don't waste much time with you.

PS: I didn't number my answers, which may have confused you.

You called me the moron. Try to be more clear for me in your answers.

[TexasTiger 12,961]

I replied to a similar question a couple of years back, I think, maybe more recently. Circumstances have changed, but my basic answer is the same.

In February, I asked you five questions which your refused to answer. I ask them again.

1. Are we at war?

2. If so, who is the enemy?

3. Should we try to win the war or hope they go away?

4. If you agree that we are in a war and should win it, how would you propose winning it?

You answered yes to the first question. To the second, you agreed we had an enemy but was very vague on who it is.

You never attempted question three and four. You are stuck on the original decision to go to war and have never moved into the current situation.

It is 2007 now. We at at war. Now what?

I did answer them, moron, and you failed to reply to my answer.

Name calling in one reply.

Refresh my memory. What were your answers?

They were thoughtful answers that you never responded to at the time. This is why I don't waste much time with you.

PS: I didn't number my answers, which may have confused you.

You called me the moron. Try to be more clear for me in your answers.

I was being generous.

[AFTiger 282]

Still name calling and no answers!